Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Killiondude (talk | contribs) at 00:48, 3 September 2009 (→‎{{la|Ernest Hemingway}}: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, or Wikipedia:Random page patrol.
    Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.
    Shortcuts

    Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection)

    After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
    Request a specific edit to a protected page
    Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
    this header: view • edit


    Current requests for protection

    Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, For some reason a bunch of IPs have been drawn to this page like moths to flames, none of them are making constructive edits, a few days rest would be nice. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Seems school has started and "tree" is easy to spell, so seems to be receiving a lot of attention from kids who want to play. . Hardyplants (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Excessive IP vandalism. Modernist (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 1 week. Killiondude (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection. The indefinite semi-protection was removed when the full-protection was applied due to the heavy dispute. It was stated by an admin in this edit that semi would be applied after the full-protection expired. I'm not sure if he meant that it was supposed to be applied automatically or manually. But the page is not protected at the moment. --Harout72 (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, I request temporary semi-protection at the least. I cannot rightly figure out how many users are messing up the article--some edits are concerned with introducing commercial info, others attempt to subvert the very language used (condemning the term "palm oil" as jargon), and other edits deny a cholesterol controversy. They may all be the same, they may not--perhaps someone cleverer than me can look into the IPs and their range. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, repeated recent vandalism from multiple IPs. Pontificalibus (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection: vandalism, Repeated addition of programs that were on Nickelodeon a long time ago. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Repeated addition of potential BLP rumor about him dating Miley Cyrus. Falcon8765 (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    'Temporary Semi-Protection: Several disrtuptive edits and a controversial page move. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 19:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    as you know, it is Already protected. until tomorrow. re submit iff problems recur after protection expires Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. The following articles daily have series moved from one page to another by unregistered users who do not give explanations as to why they are moving them, and no mention on relevant discussion pages. Would suggest to semi-protect in order for these users to either register, or make comments on discussion pages so that consensus can be reached. A lot of the movement is generated by users adding possible future films to existing lists.

    Affected pages:

    Robsinden (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    further to the above, User:86.178.84.114 is continually adding speculation to these pages - I don't want to revert again for fear of an edit war. Robsinden (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. There's an unverified blog report out there that two new cast members have been hired. It's getting a little bit of play as "reported that" on various pop culture sites, but no reliable confirmation. Anons and editors without edit histories are regularly added details to the article claiming the hirings are "confirmed"; the latest one was sourced to a sixteen-year-old kid's blog (!). There are both general RS issues involved and clear BLP problems; even more, SNL has a track record of not setting its castlist in stone right up to the last minute. A 48-72 hiatus, until thinks shake out, would be helpful. (while I'm here, I need to ask: given the potential for serious embarrassment to the individuals named by the blog, and the evident sourcing problems, I look at this as falling within the BLP exception to 3RR. If there's a serious argument against it, I'll stop.) Never mind, TV Guide now says it has independent confirmation of the report. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Repeated vandalism by block-evading user who keeps creating new accounts. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection????? vandalism, IP 24.199.12.62 been adding vandalism repeatedly throughout the day. User has a long history of excessive vandalism and warnings from bots. Cmiych (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note- I know this probably isn't the best place for this, but I forget where to report a user. If someone wouldn't mind helping direct me to that page, I would appreciate it. Cmiych (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, constant addition of unconfirmed and unreleased material, and removal of reputable sources and replaced by blogs by ip's dispite hidden warnings in the article and warnings on talk pages which get blanked. Mister sparky (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, IP's vandalizing by putting in unsourced speculation (who they think will win the 2010 Royal Rumble, which is 4 1/2 months away). TJ Spyke 17:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, maybe a month or two again?. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism - major upsurge in disruptive IP edits including vandalism due to fabricated media rumour (which has been discounted by reliable sources) Sssoul (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism. This is an article about a professional football (soccer) player in the UK. He seems to have changed clubs today and his article has been subject to repeated vandalism from multiple IP addresses. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 20:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days. After 3 days the page will be automatically unprotected.Cenarium (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

    • To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
    • Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
    • Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
    • If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.

    Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    These pages have been protected as "high risk templates", even though they are not: They are used in a handful articles at most (and quite often they're orphans), nor are they used in highly visible articles (just look at the articles that currently use these templates). In addition, these templates never have been vandalized in the first place. I've discussed this with the protecting admin, and he said that I should bring it up here for further review. --Conti|✉ 09:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is highly likely these templates will often be used for short periods of time in highly visible articles - quite possibly WP:BLPs. If the templates were to be vandalized during this time, then the highly visible WP:BLP articles could be vulnerable as well. Unless there is a serious need for high levels of active editing to these templates, there does not seem to be much need to unprotect them - however, I'll defer to review of another administrator here. If they wish to keep the protection, fine, or if they wish to change it, I won't object. Cirt (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not, believe me. I've maintained these templates for a while now, and they are not used on highly visible articles most of the time. And if they are, they are used on one highly visible article at a time, at most, and if a vandal would want to vandalize that article.. he could. By editing the unprotected article. --Conti|✉ 09:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the templates need updating/work? Tan | 39 12:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it matter? Usually they don't. And if they stay protected, they won't get any updates even if they need them. Again, these are in no way high risk templates. --Conti|✉ 14:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Each template currently has less than four transclusions each, around one of which might be medium profile for a time. Semi-protection would be reasonable for this risk. Autoconfirmed template vandals will choose to vandalise something far more high profile with their final edits. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protection would be quite fine by me. --Conti|✉ 15:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

    Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

    • Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
    • Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
    • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
    • If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
    • This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Constant addition of unsourced info my multiple IP's. TJ Spyke 15:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection Continious vandalism from anon IP's. Replacing text with same insults. Day after day.. MertyWiki (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Skier Dude (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. —SpaceFlight89 14:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by Zzuuzz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. Continual vandalism by a non-registered user with a dynamic IP address. Edits are unsourced. Even when asked, user remains negligent. See article history. User has returned making the same edit after a one year hiatus. Requested semi-protection duration for at least one month, if not longer. Lhw1 (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 90 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Skier Dude (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Vandalism. Permanent replacement of real photo of Nek to photos of other people. James Michael 1 (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, many anonymous IPs making edits to the statistics and adding incorrect information to the biography. Spiderone 08:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Glenn Beck (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protection, undefined time. Both the article and talk are being pounded with this internet meme about glenn beck committing multiple serious violent felonies. It's whack-a-mole on both article and talk page now. ThuranX (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The protection policy does not allow both article and talk page to be protected. The disruptive edits seem to have stopped now. However, I will mention this at the discussion on WP:ANI. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Temporary semi-protection would be a good idea. Lots of IPs (and a few registered users) are doing their best to remove what they call 'inappropriate content'--they may not like it, but it is referenced. Check the history and you'll see plenty of it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, I can't quite see calling this vandalism, mainly because I don't see a talk page consensus for the presence of the edits. At this point, it's just a lot of BRD that's light on the "D". Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection - vandalism; The page has been absolutely bombarded by anon editors ever since the couple announced their 19th child. --132 03:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection vandalism, consistent IP vandalism, constant account creation fraud for vandalism of this article, vandalism proof in history; page has been edited to revert back to original content, suspected vandal username that can be found in article's history, include: "Storm Rider", "Waynekar", "Binladin69", and "Samstonewanka."

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nja247 07:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Long-time, consistent IP vandalism including WP:BLP violations. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of six weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Multiple IP's adding unsourced info to the article. TJ Spyke 03:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Glenn Beck (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Multiple IP editors adding crap to talk page due to Reddit article, and random IP vandalism. I ask for protection until this blows over. Soxwon (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, Not seeing an excessive amount of vandalism. Given that is a talk page protection should be a very last resort. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the reason I brought it here is that the story was only posted today and fear it is only going to get worse. Soxwon (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it gets worse feel free to re-request the protection. But realize that we do not protect talk pages unless absolutely necessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd encourage taking it to ANI with a link to Reddit. Send me the link- I could see the rationale in semi-protecting it for 24 hours. tedder (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the page for protection requests and ANI isn't. By all means, feel free to protect it. Things seem to have increased quite a bit since I originally declined the request a short time ago. Regardless, I'm just a regular admin - my opinion is only worth as much as yours. :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I came to post the same thing and see that it's already here. BLP libel vandalism I'm not sure that I've ever seen a talk page semi-protected, but since the article itself is semi-protected, new IP's and accounts have resorted to repeatedly adding blatant libel to the talk page. Editors are reverting it, but I thought I would suggest a temp semi-protect. Please see the some of the talk entries for today.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Morphh (talk) 3:47, 02 September 2009 (UTC)
    I added this as a dupe above - can't believe it's been sitting this long, but see recently [7], [8], [9], and no doubt others if it stays open to editing. Please just protect this already. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection, vandalism/unsourced edits. Some anon. IP accounts keep on adding section about "Cueshe fans" that are unsourced and verging on original research. Thanks. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Nja247 07:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection dispute, ip (presumed sock) reverts despite article being under rfc. emerson7 23:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done 3 weeks Rjd0060 (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=311573244"