Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DailyWikiHelp (talk | contribs) at 12:39, 19 March 2010. 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.

    There's severe vandalism from a few IPs and a user, !!!!!.--DailyWikiHelp (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Has been targeted repeatedly over the last few days by (apparently) the same person using a variety of different IP addresses.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Semiprotection is required for some time at least, even better: for indefenite period. See page history: falsifications/defamation by IP user (different IP numbers of one person, I believe). Vandalism often remains unchecked for a day, since very few people apart from me seem to watch that page. Please cut off this supply for IP vandalism by semiprotecting the page. . Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  10:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A few IPs vandalised it today. They caused severe damage.--DailyWikiHelp (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  10:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd appreciate it if someone would consider adding long-term semi-protection to this. There's a steady stream of IPs or new accounts vandalizing it—probably schoolkids because it's read a lot in schools (it averages 30,000 hits a month), and this September is the 50th anniversary of its English publication so it will soon get more attention than usual. I did sprotect it myself in November 2007 after a lot of vandalism, and forgot about it (this was before protection was lifted automatically), so I unprotected it in January this year when I realized the sprotection was still in place. Since then the vandalism has been steady—not horrible, but regular. I'm about to start expanding the article so I don't want to restore the protection myself. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 08:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  08:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks! SlimVirgin TALK contribs 08:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection high-visiblity template, I just moved the Reference desk talk page header here (it was built in 'wikipedia talk' namespace for some reason). page is high visibility, and there is no reason to edit it on a regular basis, so protection is probably a good idea. Ludwigs2 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected GedUK  08:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism after last protection Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  08:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, The page is being vandalized by a few IPs who insist on changing the death to today, instead of February 26. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  08:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, Re: this edit (and others) to Hugo (name) by user Coffiemug. I've reverted this change twice. I've also tried talking directly to this editor. I'm not sure whether any other editors watch this page. Jwesley78 01:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I'll watchlist the page. The way to proceed if it's one editor vandalising, which it is, it to warn, then report to WP:AIV. I've added a warning to their page. GedUK  07:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term semi-protection. Excessive vandalism, false episode summaries, and uncited material is added every time the protection expires, being a current season it needs to be semi-protected for at least four months. 117Avenue (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I can't quite go the length you requested at this stage; hopefully a month will do, otherwise it can go longer after. GedUK  07:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection or Temporary semi-protection. This article has been subjected to IP users adding un-sourced material to the article since the article was made in July, and for the past month multiple IP users keep adding controversial vandalism on a daily basis. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 05:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  07:38, 19 March 2010 (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.

    Unprotection, TTTSNB did not request protection. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 03:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It's move protected. I've left them a note asking them to contact NawlinWiki if they want that removed as well. GedUK  09:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, Reduce to semi-protection, as the main Article Wizard page is only semi-protected. -- IRP ☎ 15:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected GedUK  09:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, Protection level should be reduced to semi, as the main Article Wizard page is only semi-protected. -- IRP ☎ 15:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Already done. GedUK  09:01, 19 March 2010 (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

    semi-protection vandalism, Page being vandalized by IPs and newly registered accounts several times a day. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.—SpacemanSpiff 05:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection. Several IP's are adding unsourced controversial/incorrect material. Article previously protected. Rm994 (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection dispute, There is a dispute over the title. If I'm in the wrong, correct me. I forgot to check "small=yes" before I submitted it. Koolabsol (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected indefinitely. An edit war is brewing and 3RR has come close. Talk page discussion should allow a lifting soon. JodyB talk 23:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, A major controversial article that sees vandalism more than anything else. Vandalism picks up right when protection ends every single time. . –Turian (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 21:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, One editor on this page keeps removing sections of the infobox and not stating their reason why. The editor is an anonymous IP, I've started a discussion about the edits at Talk: Oliver Barnes, I've invited the IP to join in the discussion there numerous times but they have refused to do so. I really think that some 'cooling down' time is needed and locking the page would certainly help with that. 5 albert square (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined If it's one IP editing against consensus, warn then block the IP. GedUK  21:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Long protection history; vandalism has never subsided since the last protection expired at the end of January. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 20:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite semi-protection, Continuous, periodic vandalism, mainly by IP editors. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  19:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. A couple of IP's keep blanking entire sections under the banner of "political attack". Nothing in the text attacks anybody, so it's not quite clear where this is coming from. The IP's refuse to go to the talk page. The Hills of Cerritos (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Since protection came off on the 24th, there's only been 3 IP edits, that's not enough for protection at this stage. GedUK  19:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    One month semi-protection, Please see the discussion that took place here. This page has been reverted to the last pure NPOV view, and numerous requests for semi-protection were brought forth during the discussion to prevent anon POV pushers. DustiSPEAK!! 16:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined At this stage, there's no need for the protection. Let's see how it lasts; there's only been 2 IP edits in 2010. GedUK  19:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Denimadept (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  18:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, ip's changing things, inflations, incorrect additions etc. Mister sparky (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Single user, not enough to justify protection. Low volume long-term vandalism. Consider relisting if multiple users vandalise the article in the short term, otherwise engage/warn single user as neccessary. --Taelus (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, frequent reverts of IP vandalism required. Notable living person. Lexein (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Striking my decline "D'ye fancy Billie Piper, sir?" SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Feb 15 (a month ago), of 31 edits, 7 were reverted vandalism from IP users, or 22%. Per WP:ROUGH, this is 4 times the acceptable level (5%) of vandalism for generic articles. It is suggested there that the threshold should be lower for living persons. Lexein (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I was asked my opinion on this case. With respect to SoV's decision, I'd personally (as simply an outside opinion) lean toward protecting the article especially since it's a BLP. Just a second opinion, take it or leave it as you wish. Best, JamieS93❤ 15:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just struck my decline above. It looked like a manageable level to me, but as you say, BLP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I see that my use of "frequent" was overstatement, and that the numbers are better rationale. --Lexein (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and protected it for a week. At this point, I'm fine if another admin wants to reverse it. Cheers, JamieS93❤ 16:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Protected by User:JamieS93 - Tagged to allow the bot to archive this (if/when it wakes back up) Taelus (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Unprotection, indefinite semi-protection seems excessive, there are a lot of good IP edits to this article. Discussions with the protecting admin haven't gone anywhere. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Some time has gone by now, and its the first protection. Looking at the page history, I think this is worth a try, as there are helpful IP edits in recent times too. I'll watchlist the page and keep an eye on it, if more vandalism kicks off feel free to reprotect. Hope this helps, if I have missed something feel free to redo the indef. Taelus (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, recent IP vandalism. Stillwaterising (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection vandalism vandalism from unidentified IPs who seem to think that most of the club owners come from Malaysia. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Single user, single "batch" of edits, not enough to justify protection. Low volume long-term vandalism. Consider relisting if multiple users vandalise the article in the short term, otherwise engage/warn single user as neccessary. Taelus (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, consider applying for rollback, you would be able to revert "batch" edits like that in the click of 1 button rather than having to use the undo tool 5+ times. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=350778677"