Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bender235 (talk | contribs) at 22:18, 19 May 2008 (→‎{{la|2008 NBA Draft}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
"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.

    semi-protect. Already high level of IP vandalism, and it is likely to increase as the NBA Lottery approaches. Please semi-protect for at least 3 days. Bender235 (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I really would not call those edits vandalism, but more of a content dispute. Tiptoety talk 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Content dispute"? There have been a half dozen IPs adding themselves (or some totally fabricated players) to the early entry list. You call that "content dispute"? Can't be serious. Try to find those players (Cyrus Saadati, Alexander Zakaria, Gregorus Eversmeyeriskov) somewhere. —Bender235 (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent IP vandalism the last few days.Aparhizi (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Highshines (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    indefinite semi-protection , continued abuse by long-blocked user; no reason for any IP to contact him..The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, Not enough activity. If the user wishes to have his page protected he can list it him/herself. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, scratch that, it's a sockpuppet. Generally protection is only enforced when the user talk page is subjected to vandalism from the sockpuppeteer. In other cases it would be because it receives high levels of vandalism. However, neither have occurred yet so protection would be pre-emptive. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection due to sustained vandalism for days from multiple sources. VanTucky Vote in my weird poll! 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of five days. Tiptoety talk 19:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Persistent IP vandalism the last few days (~5/day), since the page was unprotected. ASHill (talk | contribs) 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of four months. Next one is going to be indef... Tiptoety talk 19:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-protection. I know not to ask for preemptive protection, but there has been a continuous problem with users removing good-faith tags from articles Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) has tagged, and at present, of the three users who have reinstated the tags due to the issues present in the articles, two are under a mediation-requested injunction and the third is blocked pending an ArbCom resolution in re his unblocking. As for duration, I would like it to last only until the mediation (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender) ends. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Done until 19 June. Unprotect/list here when the arbcase is over. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Been monitoring the recent changes page all afternoon and I've noticed this page has been getting hit pretty bad.——Ryan | t • c 18:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tiptoety talk 18:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reference Desk Templates

    A returning vandal enjoys corrupting the templates used on the Reference Desk in order to show giant images of Avril Lavigne. I'd like to see permanent semi-protection on the following, all of which are current unprotected. Dragons flight (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur, I should add that given the complicated and inter linking design of these templates, most of them probably can't be improved by an inexperieced editor especially without discussion and actually finding vandalism could be difficult Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Vandalized or spammed 10 times in past two weeks.Colorknit (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. An average of one spam a day is hardly enough to warrant protection. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Continued vandalism. JSpung (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PhilKnight (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Continued vandalism JSpung (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PhilKnight (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection , Consistent addition of unacceptable material by IPs - likely to continue until Friday next week (30th May), the day after the official synopsis is released.—TreasuryTag—t—c 17:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 11 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PhilKnight (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like you tagged it but forgot to actually protect - could someone, please? Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Taken care of :). Seraphim♥Whipp 18:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary cascading semi-protection Vandalism, Repeated page blanking, vandalism and link farming.El Mariachi (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Tiptoety talk 18:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect, heavy levels of potentially libelous / highly POV edits from IP addresses, due to external controversy surrounding the group. probably just one editor but he's used widely separated IPs <eleland/talkedits> 11:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection, page continuously vandalised with libelous posts to staff, as per 13/14 March 124.180.127.192 (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only one case of inappropriate editing since the last protection expired in April. For the time being, simply revert edits and warn users appropriately. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection , IPs keep entering in unsourced speculation. It was bad enough before Cuddy fed the audience expository rumours....Sceptre (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2008 (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.

    No need for protection. Protection was improperly requested for the improper purpose of blocking one IP user and only one IP user from editing the article in a constructive manner. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected Please discuss this with the protecting admin first and see what he has to say. In this case that is Jmlk17 (talk · contribs). Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did. Received no response in over a week. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, yes I now see your attempts at contacting the admin, I missed them first time round for some reason. OK, given the lack of response and past suggestions to those querying his actions on page protection I am going to assume he is open to an independent admin review. I have checked the history and I can see there was some vandalism going on before hand, which could justify short term protection. However, the vandalism was not mega and some IPs were making constructive contributions, which has to be taken into account. I am going to compromise and reduce the time the page is protected for from 3 months to 2 weeks, which means the protection will expire very shortly. I will let Jmlk17 know about this. The page can be re-created if vandalism resurfaces significantly after expiry. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. There is always a small level of vandalism to the page, but not enough to warrant long term protection. 199.125.109.80 (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Things are gradually moving forward and I would like to try unprotection at this time. Things have cooled off and I want to expand the article. There are a lot of sections that need to be updated. For example, the lead should reflect the body of the article. QuackGuru 22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for significant 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 vandalism..Sdrtirs (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protect - To many vandals hitting the page almost daily and changing pictures. Please protect for couple weeks. Buddha24 (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of four months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Given that vandalism started up immediately after the previous semiprotection expired, I think it might be a good idea to go a little longer than a couple of weeks. Incidentally, the page remains fully protected against moves. --jonny-mt 13:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Talk:LOL, IT ONLY KILLED A BUNCH OF CHINKS. THERE’S TOO MANY OF THEM, ANYWAY, DUE TO OVERPOPULATION, SO THE EARTHQUAKE DID CHINA A SERVICE. (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    SALT, page-move vandalism, article page has already been salted. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 06:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected. "Eeugh" basically sums up this one. --jonny-mt 08:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SALT, re-created nonsense, page-move vandalism. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 06:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection due to recent spikes in vandalism dealing with a high-profile topic. Happyme22 (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Looking back through the logs, it seems that the recent "spike" in IP vandalism is simply due to the expiration of a three-month semi-protect. Given the number of previous protection attempts and the prominent position of the article both as a source for readers and as a target for vandals, I think this article is a prime candidate for indefinite semi-protection. Feel free to reevaluate my call either below or in the future. --jonny-mt 06:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: This is a second request; this article has been vandalised by IP user 24.7.63.115 four times in the last 48 hours, and several unregistered IPs have also vandalised this article in a similar manner, with non-NPOV and slander against the subject. Rollosmokes (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. I see edits from only two IP addresses (24.7.63.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 208.7.178.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) this month. In cases like this, blocks are preferred over page protection. Although the recently added content does violate WP:BLP, it is not egregious enough to warrant an immediate block--instead, I've left a BLP warning for the most recent IP user on the assumption that they are not aware of the policy. Feel free to up the warning level fairly rapidly and report them to WP:AIV if they continue. --jonny-mt 06:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, excessive vandalism by 205.56.145.36.Smarkflea (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, excessive van. by 205.56.145.36.Smarkflea (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    long-term semi-protection IP Vandalism The subject is an alleged shortstop for the Red Sox and every time he blows another game, a dozen frustrated IP users who think they're clever make edits such as 

    Throws: Right Badly

    This page should be semi-protected until either the team comes to their senses and makes Jed Lowrie the regular shortstop, or a miracle happens and Lugo plays like someone who deserves his $9 million salary. Matchups 03:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Not much vandalism... Only one or two bad edits a day. We can keep up with that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, There has been very consistent IP vandalism, most likely to be students from the school.STYROFOAM1994annoyCriticize! 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined 4-5 IP vandalisms in the past month is hardly "consistent". This one goes weeks without any vandalism. Hardly worth any protection. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, There has been consistent vandalism from new users and IP addresses recently.STYROFOAM1994annoyCriticize! 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined there's just not enough vandalism to justify protection at this time. 1-2 vandalisms per day (and that's the most) is hardly a lot. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, The Red Wings are in the later stages of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, and as such are attracting IP vandalism. In addition, there are a few IPs engaged in an edit war over terminology despite a contrary consensus achieved in the Talk page. I recommend three weeks of semi-protection to cover the whole of the playoffs.TheMile (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Prot for about a month. IPs are adding their favorite bands/songs unverified to the article, as well as we have a case where a true news item (about Ted Nugent) doesn't (as yet) apply to this specific game, the only source doesn't name this game specifically. Keep prot on for a month to hopefully cool down those types of edits. (Would do myself but I'm an involved admin, so cannot). --MASEM 23:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--JForget 00:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Frequent vandalism from anonymous editors.Aparhizi (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined There is only about an average of 1 vandalism edit over the past 3 days. There not sufficient activity for the moment to semi-protect the page for now.--JForget 00:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Dispute, Edit warring over whether or not to redirect the page to Jack the Ripper. Requesting page be protected to encourage full-scale discussion on the talk page..clpo13(talk) 22:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected 24 hours Fully protected by User:Kbthompson--JForget 00:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=213569377"