Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Simply south (talk | contribs) at 03:41, 21 January 2008 (→‎{{la|Balham station}}: here). 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.

    List of Super Bowl champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protect until mid February Under heavy IP vandalism at the moment, and it will continue until after the next Super Bowl is played, so it should be protected for about 3 weeks. -- Scorpion0422 03:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New England Patriots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism.Werdan7T @ 03:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.   jj137 ♠ 03:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Super Bowl XLII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protect until mid February Under heavy IP vandalism at the moment, and it will continue until after the game is played, so it should be protected for about 3 weeks. -- Scorpion0422 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 4 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The Placebo Effect (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    University of South Carolina steroid scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    full protection Edit warring and IP vandalism by User:ViperNerd and associated sockpuppets.--Thör hammer 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CN Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, More IP vandalism within the past week.Johnny Au (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Balham station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I would not normally request something for this but a user, admiittedly new to Wikipedia, has done a merge of Balham station from Balham railway station and Balham tube station and this has been reverted. This merge was not discussed first of all and then was only discussed over a short amount of time before consensus was given. Now there is a constant edit war between users (including myself once) over whether to merge, not following procedures and one person not accepting that there is opposition to this. I just request temporary full protection on this for about 3 days until this merger can be discussed and sorted. May i also request a lock on the other two articles? Simply south (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Phil Hall (US writer) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Request for Lock on Talk: Phil Hall (US writer) due to repeated vandalism by Wikipedia user DoubleCross, who is using the page to deploy infantile personal attacks designed to demean and insult Mr. Hall. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Islam in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Request for Lock on Islam in India article due to High Vandalism. I already reported to Cluebot. Current revision by HinduMuslim is accurate. Article was vandalised Brutally so i just reverted to First Article Ever Made on Islam in India, which happend to be by user:Ganesha1 and that revision is not there no more because of too many edits. Request to Lock because of High IP edits and user:HinduMuslim is from India occupied Kashmir and has more accurate information on Article. --HinduMuslim (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: May well be a content dispute. Needs a look at from an unbiased source who isn't from Kashmir at all, ideally. Being from Indian Kashmir or Pakistani Kashmir, or indeed Chinese Kashmir, is not a valid argument to claim 'more knowledge' - only reliable sources are. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Regine Velasquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protect. High level of anonymous user vandalism from multiple IP addresses over the past few months. I grew tired of referting the article and I've already reported the vandalism but it keeps going on. I hope that you could keep the article in semi-protect for a very long time. Thanks! Maoster (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thuja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary full protection Dispute, To avoid the impitus for anyone to edit war, I ask that a rogue administrator proactively protect this article on the wrong version. Before declining please review related homeopathic edit wars - and think about ways to prevent edit warring from being a method to "win" content disputes. I do not mind if the article is protected on the pro-homeopath version, as long as the homeopathic editor continues to discuss their changes. .PouponOnToast (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Keep discussing, and hopefully page locking won't be needed at all! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the only reason protection won't be needed is due to my unwillingness to edit war. The insertion of pesudoscientific content into our otherwise good articles by single purpose accounts is a substantial problem that needs aggressive administrative action to counter. I suggest that the "decliner" maintain a constant and obvious presence on the article itself to discourage edit warring via fair but substantial use of blocks and bans. While 3rr is a limit, it is not an entitlement. PouponOnToast (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators have strict rules to follow; we can't lock a page because of what amounts to (sadly) content dispute. I see no evidence of any edit-warring, and although I'll happily hand out block if it occurs, at the end of the day it's a fight between pro-scientific and pro-homoeopathy sides, which administrators (even rouge ones) can't get involved in. I'll keep an eye on it, but it's up to you to organise and delete any content. I'll support your side if you keep it sourced, scientific and clean, though Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rules are made to be broken. It takes two to edit war, so it will not happen. PouponOnToast (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Paul Barresi (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Paul Barresi|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protection probable ban evasion IP addresses by a disruptive editor. DurovaCharge! 23:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Farouk of Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Full-protection Frenetic edit warring going on for weeks. 208.77.91.17 (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected indefinitely. —Kurykh 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Carl Karcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protect. IP vandalism. Request 7 days of semi-protect.Msw1002 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined. It is just one IP which is responsible for the vandalism. It just got hit with a final warning. If it strikes again, please report it at WP:AIV. Jesse Viviano (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protection Vandalism, There seems to be an elevated amount of IP vandalism in the past few days on this article..Dadude3320 21:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SkierRMH (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gregor Mendel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protection for two months is requested. No idea why this article is such a popular vandal target. Check of the history shows 12 reverts of IP vandalism in last 4 days. Last protection was on 19 October for two months. This may be necessary a couple of times each year, depending on the observed rate of vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Seems to come in spurts, related to school projects? SkierRMH (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arctic Monkeys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protection, but full protection is better Lots of vandalism. --Solumeiras (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Full protection from vandalism is very rarely used, and wouldn't be appropriate to use in this case. Spebi 20:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please can you change it so it expires in 2 weeks, thanks?? --Solumeiras (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reduced it to 1 month, 2 weeks doesn't seem like the right length. This page constantly receives vandalism due to its popular subject and I doubt this will change much at all, so 1 month is a satisfactory semi-protection length. Spebi 22:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protection for at least 1 week IPs constantly adding borderline libel and nonsense, needs protecting for a week or so until the kids get bored. --Solumeiras (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.   jj137 ♠ 20:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dancing on Ice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protection Revert-warring by IPs, and ROHA is also editing the page as well. --Solumeiras (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - Philippe | Talk 20:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pizza Hut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protection Target of ROHA vandal, who also attacked the page mentioned below. --Solumeiras (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - only two edits in two days. - Philippe | Talk 20:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is stupid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    permanent full protection from creation This page will never have any good material. It will primarily be used to attack Wikipedia. I already marked it for deletion twice. The most current being today. Georgette2 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. —Kurykh 22:28, 20 January 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.

    Template:U.S. presidential primaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Unprotection - This template was preemptively protected. Full protection makes updates very difficult and tedious to make.  ~ PaulC/T+ 23:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Meta Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Unprotection - There has been no real way to obtain a consensus either way, so I'm going to try placing it for deletion to get something going. TTN (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disscussion is continueing on the talk page no need to unprotect at this time.Geni 21:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:09, 20 January 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.

    Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    A rather unorthodox request. An arbitrator has protected this page, but left a conditional in her edit summary. For details, see here. The current "pp-dispute" tag at the top of the talk page tells people to come here to request unprotection. What I would like is for an uninvolved administrator to change that link (you may need to substitute the template) to point to User talk:FloNight#Agreement regarding Wikipedia talk:Requests for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision instead. This will allow any uninvolved editors passing by, and unaware of the situation, to go to the right place to ask for page unprotection. Carcharoth (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done ~ Riana ⁂ 08:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Medicine Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Not sure if this is the right place for this request, but nowhere else seems as appropriate. I'd like to request that Medicine Show be (re?)created as a redirect to Medicine show, but not (necessarily) unprotected. Note also the existence of Medicine Show (album). I found the SALT tag when looking for the Big Audio Dynamite single, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Mr.Z-man 08:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Full protection +expiry 2 weeks Too much reversion, not enough discussion... better to fully protect this until it's resolved - that's the best way to solve this. --Solumeiras (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - I think WP:DR may include some other ideas. I'm hesitant to protect a high profile article like this one for reasons less than vandalism. This is a slow revert war, yes, but not incredibly disruptive yet. What about Mediation? - Philippe | Talk 19:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indestructible (Disturbed album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection , The constant inclusion and removal of a list of possible songs for this future album needs to be discussed, I've brought that fact up on the discussion page, but temp page protection will help divert traffic in that direction..~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 19:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't vandalism though, there's nothing to revert. I just want to encourage discussion about the list. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 19:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could someone reply please... ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 19:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protection is for constant vandalism and IP edit-warring, not for this. —Kurykh 19:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    McCoy (pottery) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Permanent semi-protection ongoing difficulties with SPA-anons and suspected sockpuppets of a banned user going against consensus and removing external links from the article. This has been the subject of an RFC, which the user did not participate in. The user reverts with summary pls read the talk page although has not themself read it. When this user gets called-out as a sock, he just changes accounts. The old account does not even reply to the suspsock, just stops editing. The new account starts right in on this article again, usually with a bunch of anons saying "I agree guys". This has gone on now for 4+ months, so permananet semi-protection will probably solve the problem, as this user does not have a history of staying with the same account for more than a few weeks. JERRY talk contribs 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - changes are fairly rare (only a few in the last month) - this is a slow motion revert war. I really hesitate to protect for something like this. - Philippe | Talk 19:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Polar bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, over the last few days .Marlith T/C 17:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by Philippe   jj137 ♠ 19:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Mentifisto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    indefinite full protection , My transcluded userpage. No need to edit it.-- Mentifisto 16:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected indefinitely. Be advised that you won't be able to edit it yourself. Snowolf How can I help? 16:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I won't need to. Thanks. -- Mentifisto 16:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Looking at the edit history, there is almost only vandalism and reversions..Goochelaar (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely.. Snowolf How can I help? 16:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Eastern Promises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    unprotection , No discussion has taken place for some time; the other editors appear to have taken this elsewhere..Steve T • C 15:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected – Steel 16:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Carey Baptist Grammar School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Frequent anon vandalism..Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined for the moment, if things pick up again, we'll look at semi protecting the article. Nick (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:79.75.99.199 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary semi-protection User talk of banned user, User keeps replacing w/obscenities. .Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 11:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by Daniel (talk · contribs) Nick (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Spyware Doctor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, A user using multiple IP's is vandalising this page repeatly, see SSP Case..Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 11:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by Delldot (talk · contribs). Nick (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Primarily Primates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Indefinite semi-protection is needed on the Primarily Primates article. Over the last few months, users have vandalized the article with biased, incendiary, and unsupported claims. The user contributing from IP address 67.142.130.19 reinstated his/her edits even after the Bots removed them for having been "dubious information." This repeated vandalism has undermined the diligent efforts of myself and user LiPollis to clean up this article in alignment with NPOV policy, cite sources, and add accurate references which represent both sides of a dispute. This page should be protected for a substantial length of time. Thank you.nycdi (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Nick (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Grass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Frequent anon vandalism..Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Lois Nettleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary full protection Dispute, Some editors are adding that she died without citing any sources. A death message board actually started the rumor. [1] Until this can be verified the page should be protected to prevent libelous information from being added. .Jeanenawhitney (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected BLP's - no messing about. If the death is confirmed, please contact an administrator to have the page unprotected, or ask again here. Nick (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't showing up in the log. It's showing that you've unprotected it. D.M.N. (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, should be fully protected now. Nick (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, now fully protected. Even if her death does become confirmed, it should remain FP'd so that vandals won't be able to "attack" the article. D.M.N. (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Alexan1 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    full protection User talk of banned user, Abuse of the unblock template..—αἰτίας •discussion• 11:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Hut 8.5 12:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=185783551"