Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| General help | General issues • Site directory • Media copyright • Image copyright • Userpage • New users • Community assistance • Deletion guide |
|---|---|
| Editing abuse | Report vandalism • 3RR • Biographies • Usernames • Page protection • Open proxies • ISP reporting • Sock puppets • Checkuser • Long term |
| Noticeboards | Administrators' • Incidents • ArbCom enforcement • Conflict of interest • Fringe theories • Reliable sources • Fiction • Original research • Bots |
 |
Skip to table of contents • requests for protection • unprotection • edits |
- WP:RFP redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permission.
This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be fully protected, semi-protected, move-protected or unprotected. Please read up on the protection policy. Full protection is to stop edit warring between multiple users or severe vandalism; semi-protection is usually only for vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection). Full protection is also used on templates that are frequently used and not in need of frequent edits (this includes most editorial templates; see Wikipedia:High-risk templates).
After a page has been protected, the protection is listed in the page history with a short description indicating why it was protected, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. Admins do not revert back to previous versions of a page fully protected due to edit warring, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.
[edit] Instructions
If you would like to request a page to be protected or unprotected, please follow the following steps:
- Add a level 4 header at the TOP of either the protection list or the unprotection list (whichever is appropriate, not the article) and place one of the templates from the table below within the header
(for example, for an article use: ===={{la|ARTICLE}}====) - If you are requesting protection, place the type of request (semi-protection, full protection, or move protection) and a brief reason for your request below your header. If you are requesting unprotection, this distinction is not needed.
- Please do not add arbitrary requests for a protection expiry time to your request. If there is a specific reason that a page should be protected for a certain amount of time, such as protecting a usertalk page until the user is unblocked, please make this clear.
- Sign your request with four tildes ~~~~ and save
- Administrators: Please mark reviewed requests using {{RFPP}}, so that a bot may recognize and move down those entries.
| Namespace | To request page protection / unprotection | To request talk page protection / unprotection |
|---|---|---|
| Generic | {{ln|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} | {{lnt|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} |
| Article | {{la|ARTICLE}} | {{lat|ARTICLE}} |
| Template | {{lt|TEMPLATE}} | {{ltt|TEMPLATE}} |
| Wikipedia | {{lw|PAGE}} | {{lwt|PAGE}} |
| User | {{lu|PAGE}} | {{lut|PAGE}} |
| Category | {{lc|CATEGORY}} | {{lct|CATEGORY}} |
| Image | {{li|IMAGE}} | {{lit|IMAGE}} |
| Portal | {{lp|PORTAL}} | {{lpt|PORTAL}} |
| MediaWiki | cannot be unprotected | {{lmt|MESSAGE}} |
Example
===={{la|The weather in London}}====
'''semi-protect'''. High level of IP vandalism. ~~~~
| Please place new requests at the top of each section.
This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users or policies. If the entry is being used for edit-warring or content disputes, or contains personal attacks or uncivil comments, or any other unrelated discussion, it will be removed from this page immediately. |
[edit] Current requests for protection
Request either semi-protection, full protection, or move protection in this section. Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
[edit]
Semi-protection - High level of vandalism from IP addresses including blanking, nonsense text, and insertion of vulgar language forcing quite a lot of manual and bot intervention over the past week. - Dravecky (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of one week. After one week the page will be automatically unprotected. TalkIslander 23:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
Semi-protection. High level of vandalism by several IP addresses, at least 20 reverts necessary in last 7 days, previous featured article candidate. GM matthew (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for one week. Malinaccier (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
Semi protect Persistent vandalism from rotating anon IP. --Veritas (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. Alexf42 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
temporary semi-protection , Flagship article, vandalism target.Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp and assistance
22:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
Semi-protect. After full-protection was lifted, anonymous editors resumed adding unsourced / biased / original research content, engaging in personal attacks in edit summaries, and providing no rational arguments on the talk page for their edits (other than to attack other editors). Semi-protection would encourage these editors to "come to the table" and engage in meaningful discussion on the talk page to improve the article, or at least provide meaningful rebuttals to the reasons already given on the talk page for removing the offending text. -Amatulić (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
temporary full protection Dispute, Vandalism.Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp and assistance 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Declined, not enough here to justify protection at this time. I see few edits in the past month, and certainly not enough to stop all editing for any length of time. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. I clicked full protection when I meant semi-protection. All the vandalism's been done by new users so that should stop it. Sorry! Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp and assistance 22:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Lot's of vandalism going on, would help if we didn't have to revert silly edits by various IPs all the time (be going on back and forth for the last few minutes).Poeloq (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for 2 weeks. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
indefinite full protection Vandalism, High amounts of IP Vandalism..Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
semi-protection: permanent vandalising by IPs. Tirkfl (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
full protection - Same as Muffin top, below. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
full protection - Article is identical to text in Central obesity, redirects have been overridden twice without explanation. Request full protection for a week to prevent any further replication of material. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
temporary semi-protection , There is continuous reversion edits from Anonymous editors. Reversion can be checked by looking at the diffs. .SMS Talk 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary full protection, WP:BLP, I suggest we full-protect this until we get the consensus on the AFD and see if we can fix up this page. It was blanked by a user, but I am restoring it per WP:BLANK and I am also requesting protection. ViperSnake151 18:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Already protected, was fully protected yesterday. If problems continue, renominate for protection when this one expired.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
temporary semi-protection Vandalism, regular vandalism, clearly from the same person, using a number of college computers and shifting IP's to avoid blocks--Jac16888 (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Persistent targetting from User:Max Blaze using various IP accounts..Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a week. Acalamari 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
Semi protect ip vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. jj137 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Anonymous IPs keep deleting content and adding references that do not state the info provided. .Pinkadelica (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for 24 hours to resolve vandalism and clearing of page content. — E talk 00:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Current requests for unprotection
If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, consider simply adding {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. See the list of current {{Editprotected}} requests.
If you do want a page unprotected, please try and ask the protecting admin first before making a request here. This is also not the place to dispute a protection.
Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
[edit]
unprotection. Have stated my objections to an anonymous contributor's WP:POV, and will now allow others to edit the rest of the article. HLGallon (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
unprotection. It's been four days since it was protected - I suggest it be semi-protected, or even full unprotection could be tried. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 04:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Have the issues that were being edit warred over been discussed? Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 07:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I believe so... Talk:Natalie Gauci#Fake? WZF Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- From the look of it, it doesn't look like the issue has resolved. I am inclined to leave the protection until all involved parties have agreed on the proposed changes, OR until an WP:RFC has been started and neutral, uninvolved editors have endorsed one version or the other. Since neither of these two things seems to have happened, I don't see where removing the protection would be wise, since it is likely the edit war would just start again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Current requests for significant edits to a protected page
- When making requests here, either:
- Provide a good reason for a substantial edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. Please link to the talk page where consensus was reached.
- Demonstrate that there is a clear dispute over a protected page, and that a specific dispute tag would be appropriate to add. Please link to the talk page where the dispute exists.
Note: Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change rather than requesting it here, though most of these should simply wait for unprotection. See also: Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests
[edit]
Would like to request uncontroversial edit to fully protected template to implement diff already specified on the talk page, in order to finish setting up a new task force for New Zealand. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fulfilled/denied requests
[edit]
Semi-Protect. A popular target, getting ridiculous lately. RedSpruce (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
Semi-Protect. Daily editing with nonsense from anonymous users, most recently by User:209.247.21.109.--Kevin586 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
temporary semi-protection Trolling and harrassing. (Sorry for my english this not my mother's tongue):
The Ip 142.162.183.196 (and other IP of the same range) keeps on harassing me from time to time on my talk page (as well as occasionaly vandalizing my user's page). This IP has been identified as one of the countless sockpuppets of permanently banned user:Mark753, see results of checkuser this range of IP). He recently did it again with a message related to some implicit blackmail he worded in the Classic metal talk page. In other word he wants me to add some bands in the article otherwise he will vandalize and troll the article again. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Declined - one IP edit in the past two weeks - semi-protection not needed. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
Indefinite semi-protection of both user page and talk page. User is a proven sock puppeteer, hoax perpetrator, and community-banned (refer to this list for evidence on all cases). Recently it has become clear that his motivation is a case of seeking recognition; see [1] and [2] for evidence that he is even reporting himself. Blanking the "trophy" list of past socks might help in the spirit of WP:DENY – in fact, he has already questioned the blanking and reverted it. In other circumstances, I would have listed the talk page for deletion, but the evidence has proven crucial many times in getting new socks blocked without requiring much investigation. The important thing is that the blanking (or otherwise) of the page is handled by established users seeking to minimise the troll's disruptiveness, and not by the troll himself, thus the request of indefinite semi-protection. CounterFX (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- That was not the point. Did you read my request? Did you look at this user's history of persistent disruptiveness? It is obvious that not protecting the page will inevitably result in another reversion war. I respectfully request this report to be reconsidered by another admin. CounterFX (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
Semi-protection Repeated vandalism from anonymous IPs in Austria (probably all the same person). See the Talk Page.Voceditenore (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Reconsider please I had not save the new report on the talk page yet. Please see it now Talk:Plácido Domingo. The article has been vanadlized on:
- 10:11, 15 February 2008
- 07:05, 15 February 2008
- 11:36, 14 February 2008
- 16:20, 13 February 2008
- 15:59, 7 February 2008
Voceditenore (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Fireproeng (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. Alexf42 14:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
unprotection , My own page.OsamaK 14:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
semi-protect After many attempts to get this non-user to discuss a change in the talk page, he just keeps reverting the changes without talking about it to anyone. He has no account, so there's no way to talk to him privately and he thinks change comments are a method of discussion. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month. After 1 month the page will be automatically unprotected. Rudget. 14:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
semi-protection Vandalism.The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected Semiprotected for 1 week. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 13:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
Semi-protection Repeated IP vandalism Brittany Ka (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. Rudget. 12:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
Full Protection Edit War between groups of editors.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
semi-protection Vandalism.The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
semi-protection -Overwhelming International IP Edits, possible vandalism- It is current event. Other wikipedian also support the measure, see under Talk Page. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
semi-protect Persistent multiple-IP vandalism. VT hawkeyetalk to me 04:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Declined - the article hasn't been edited since yesterday and random IPs show up in small spurts, so semi-protection won't help here. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
unprotection , I cannot find any reason why this page is protected, there is nothing in the log, and it is a large company, one of the largest painting companies in the United States. There is a bunch of information about this company, they are a couple million dollar company. Why is it protected? Brett (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question: It was SALTed as a NN company or an advert. What has changed within the last 10 months to make the company notable? Jmlk17 01:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- So there is no discussion on the actual page about why it was deleted, I am pretty sure that was deleted too? So I pretty much have no idea why it was determined to be non-notable, but it certainly passes the litmus test for acceptable article topics. There are 93 articles on google news written about college works painting (it is a student internship program). Also, according to Lexis, they do 14.9 million in sales annually. (I am unsure of how to cite this, since I can't link you directly to the information). Furthermore, google "college works painting," there are over 4800 results. I realize, again, that google is not a great litmus test, but without a reason to respond to as to why it was deleted, I am not sure what other evidence is needed?
Brett (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- This was never decided, just deleted? Is there a decision? Brett (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The nukelog for this article is, in order from earliest to latest, G12 (copyvio), A7 (insignificance), G11 (advertisement), another A7, and what appears to me to be an A3 (no content). It was protected due to several acts of article necromancy; for your sake I would heavily suggest you come up with reliable sources documenting its notability, etc. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 09:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not unprotected - please use WP:DRV to appeal the deletion. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
