Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Singlemaltscotch (talk | contribs) at 00:49, 2 August 2012 (→‎{{la|Teach Away}}: cmt). 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.

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism by IPs after previous semi-protection attempts failed. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unsourced transfer speculation. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Extensive IP vandalism. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Athlete is currently in the Olympics. Some short-term IP vandalism and BLP concerns. -- Luke (Talk) 22:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism since previous protection ended on July 29th. -- Luke (Talk) 22:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There has been a lot of content removal from the IP 96.49.99.49. A week Semi protection should discourage and stop vandalism temporarily while the IP is dealt with. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: An anonymous user editing from numerous IP accounts keeps modifying fleet figures. Their edits are not in agreement with the references provided. Jetstreamer Talk 20:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Lady Lotus (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Érico Wouters msg 22:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection: The FIFA 13 video game article has been vandalized multiple times for the past week or so, consistently introducing unsourced material to the reader and causing widespread confusion among the public -- a public which happens to use Wikipedia as its source of knowledge. Several people, including myself, have tried to revert the articles, clean them up and limit ourselves in only mentioning aspects that are already confirmed by the developers or by well-known sources. Unfortunately, however, it seems that several people, from multiple IP sources, are continuously vandalizing the page, despite our efforts made to ask them not to mention unsourced information in the article. It would be very nice if we can have a temporary suspension of editing in the article, until the time comes when more official information is revealed about the video game, which probably isn't going to happen until some time in mid August, as it normally does each year. In the meantime, I think it's best to have the FIFA 13 article locked to the version that I made, since it doesn't include the unsourced material that attempts to present itself as factual. Thank you and kind regards. --Nadia (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Why have none of the IPs been warned, etc? I only see redlinks for their talks. Isn't that the first step? Theopolisme TALK 14:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit war between IPs and editors. Excessive reverts. Noom talk stalk 17:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for 1 week. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Some edit warring between anons and registered editors the past few days. -- Luke (Talk) 01:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I can't really see enough of a content dispute to justify protection. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent Semi-protection: I'd like to request permanent because there's a high level of IP vandalism all centered around the word "Basque". The description of Elcano as Basque is refd by the Encyclopedia Britannica. IP vandalism is persistent (see this e.g. from March 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Sebasti%C3%A1n_Elcano&diff=12116610&oldid=11646656] and it's getting really tiring chasing after these IP deleters; 24 hrs/week/month won't do much good in the long run. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined This is a content dispute involved autoconfirmed users as well as IPs. Semi-protection would be inappropriate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to suggest a viable alternative? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of non-notable personalities insufficiently sourced, and original research, by numerous accounts in the last week. User(s) with a local interest. Requesting clean up of latest addition, which I've left in order to avoid edit warring. 99.137.209.191 (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 24 hours. I wanted to avoid protection, but it is getting disruptive. The editor seems to be acting in good faith, so I'd encourage more communication with them. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection: Pending Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Eternalism_.28philosophy_of_time.29.2C_Talk:Four-dimensionalism_discussion dispute resolution which is currently on hold.—Machine Elf 1735 23:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment)Note that Machine Elf is asking for protection to prevent me from making edits to sections that have nothing to do with the dispute under discussion (the section that's the subject of the dispute has already been reverted to a version prior to when the dispute began). Machine Elf has not presented any specific objections to my edits to unrelated sections in terms of content (either in edit notes or on the talk page), and Machine Elf also made his/her own significant edit to an unrelated section on 27 July (after the dispute resolution had begun) which I had no objection to (and when Machine Elf recently reverted my edits to unrelated sections, the reversion was to a version that preserved the 27 July edit). If there is a rule saying that people involved in a dispute resolution are forbidden from all further edits to the page, even if they have nothing to do with the specific issue that's the subject of the dispute, please point it out. Hypnosifl (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I merely presume they're unrelated but it's not clear that they are, in fact. The direct quote I previously added was directly related, and would seem to support your POV, btw... At any rate, a flurry of changes is only going to confuse the Dispute Resolution volunteer's who are trying to understand the dispute. Why can't you hold off until the current dispute is settled?—Machine Elf 1735 00:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring with misleading edit summaries.—Machine Elf 1735 00:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment)As I just commented on the talk page, I don't see how that edit was edit warring, or how it contained a misleading summary. As to the problem of confusing dispute resolution volunteers, I imagine they mostly just look at the discussion on the dispute page and don't spend much time following the detailed edit history, but if you're concerned about that it would be easy enough to specify on the dispute page that the dispute concerns the lede, so they shouldn't pay attention to edits in other sections of the article unless we specifically bring them up on the dispute page. In any case, I might have responded differently (and still might) if you had politely requested that we both hold off on any edits to the article (and been willing to revert your own edits outside the lede as a show of good faith), but of course I'm not going to react the same way when you just revert my seemingly uncontroversial changes to other sections, say in your edit notes that there should be no further changes to the page without giving a rationale for this (like the one about it possibly leading to confusion above), and then immediately go to the authorities to stop me from making any edits whatsoever to the page. Hypnosifl (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't see how 3 reverts in less than 6 hours based solely on your unilateral "temporary solution" could be construed as edit warring?[1][2][3] You don't see how your edit summary is misleading? I provided justification 1) in both of my edit summaries,[4][5] 2) on the article talk page,[6] 3) on the dispute resolution page,[7] and 4) on this page.[8] You may not think it's sufficient justification, but it's misleading to revert a third time claiming "no justification" as if I haven't said a word. Very simply, I asked you not to "make changes while the dispute resolution has been put on hold", and you've repeatedly refused to comply.—Machine Elf 1735 11:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please help, despite my objections the user insists on erasing, rather than striking out, their RfC.[9][10][11]—Machine Elf 1735 16:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this complaint is about something on the talk page, not the main page, so it seems off-topic here. I have responded to this complaint, giving my reasons for thinking it's OK to delete my own summary paragraph before anyone had responded to it, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Hypnosifl_reported_by_User:Machine_Elf_1735_.28Result:_.29. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected for 4 days. I have protected the current version, without preference to any one editor's position. If a resulution is reached before then, let me know and I'll unprotect; let's see if we can see this dispute through to a conclusion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ItsZippy, do you recognize that Machine Elf was objecting to my edits simply because they were made by me, and not because he/she could point to anything specifically objectionable about them, or any way in which they were related to the issues in the lede paragraph which were the subject of our dispute? (my edits were not to the lede, but just three short factual paragraphs to other sections) I would think that in order for an editor to demand page protection in response to some edits, they should be at least be willing to point to something specifically wrong with the edits, whether in their edit notes or on the talk page. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2012 (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 Would like original farewell message left on there, and not an accusation. Mcfly85 (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Please contact User:Bibliomaniac15 directly. Deryck C. 10:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done that, however, that user has not made an edit in over a month. Mcfly85 (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll wait another week or two. Deryck C. 17:14, 30 July 2012 (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: Persistent vandalism – Ip was blocked a week ago for making "vandalisms" changes to the page. Ip has come back after block and continues to vandalize the page with incorrect information. Changing the teams and ballparks. JOJ Hutton 16:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. for one week. Page has not been protected, please report again if it become necessary. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Consistent disruptive editing by, what I think is, an IP hopping user. Won't participate in discussion, just removes the same content. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 16:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Article is subject of a geographical/political dispute; a couple of IP addresses (probably the same editor) have been trying to clean out one half of the story so it only shows the other half... considering the likelihood of IP-hopping (and, AGF, the editors might be more productive on other articles) I think a few days of semiprotection would be more appropriate than blocking. bobrayner (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I'd like to see oyu try to discuss this with the IP editors on the talk page before I protect. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Repeated BLP violations by IPs and SPA accounts. Nymf hideliho! 12:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 4 days. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Repeated BLP violations by IPs and SPA accounts. Nymf hideliho! 12:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 4 days. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Content dispute/edit warring – IPs repeatedly inserting controversial POV without discussing with editors or consensus at the talk page. . DBigXray 10:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined This is a content dispute and, without heavy vandalism or BLP violations from IP users, semi-protection would be inappropriate. If I were to protect, it would be full protection; the conflict has not reached a stage where that would be useful. If the conflict continues, full protection might be necessary, and if the IP editors continue without discussion, then semi-protection or blocks may be appropriate. At the moment, I'd encourage those involved to try to contact the editors, and perhaps seek dispute resolution. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Unneeded edits -- especially the "Reception" section: additions such as YouTube celebrities, YouTube references, etc. and generic unencyclopedic edits plus some amounts of vandalism. This video game is increasing in popularity, so it's guaranteed that this page will be edited by many unregistered IP accounts. . Endxi|talk|contributions 05:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 2 days. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism/unsourced edits. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I can't see evidence that IP edits are doing more harm than good on the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Yerevanci (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't you see the unexplained reverts by IPs? --Yerevanci (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked., that's all three involved in the edit war. I'll continue to monitor the page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Two new users and supporters of the "Universal Life Church World Headquarters" continue to edit this article without consensus, making drastic changes to support a non-notable church. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for 24 hours. Try to communicate with the editors involved during that period. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Many IPs have added material (much of it vandalism) about a YouTube performer who is not the subject of this article. This results in much confusion. David1217 What I've done 01:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Slon02 (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: A clear effort by an IP to add POV to the article. Constent efforts to reword the whole of the background section and other section in an dispute over providing context to Issa's hearings. Casprings (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected – Two weeks. This can be lifted if consensus is reached on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism by multiple new users. Blethering Scot 11:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 24hrs, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=505350894"