Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Archives

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

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.

full protection - a large-scale edit war involving multiple establish users has been going on since yesterday. See the history. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - for the bot. Tiptoety ^talk 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection as per {{Infobox Korean name}}. PC78 (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tan | 39 19:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protection , Approximately 3 times per day, on any day that school is in session, the Leif Ericson page is edited by multiple IP editors nearly all of whom end up being reverted as vandals. The pattern is very clear: IP users (from a wide variet of IPs) vandalizing, named users reverting..KevinCuddeback (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed my own request to semi-protection. I can't find a temporary protection in the most recent 1000 edits, but the pattern of most daily edits being IP vandalism and named-user reversion was all there KevinCuddeback (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two months. Tan | 39 19:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection of this article due to IP vandalism. [1] [2] [3] JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by Animum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). SoWhy 20:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, This article is a daily target of vandalism by IPs. The only actually content changes in the last two weeks that have occurred have been minimal wikilinking and one removal of a questionable statement, done by registered editors. The timing appears to indicate that the majority of vandalism occurs during US school hours (library vandals?). This is a continuing issue that takes time for editors have to deal with that could better be focused elsewhere. .Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Has not been tried before this year, so I doubt there is ground for indef semi just yet. SoWhy 18:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection of this article. The article has been edited several times with incorrect copyrighted information and providing links to confidential and outdated sources, as well as invalid links.seaerocat Seaerocat (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 18:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection of both these articles until the polls close in view of problematic recent edits. PatGallacher (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, while I appreciate and understand the thought, there have not been problematic edits to these articles like on Barrack Obama itself. We cannot go around preemptively shutting down every single article that might be vandalized due to this election.

Also, even if protected, semi-protection would suffice. Re-request it if and when there is real vandalism to deal with. Regards SoWhy 17:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there have been registered users adding controversial unsourced or poorly sourced material to these articles. However, I realise this may not have been heavy enough to warrant protection, I will keep my eye on these articles and raise this again if it gets significantly worse. PatGallacher (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first article is stable but there have been more problematic edits to McKinney's. PatGallacher (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

temporary semi protection Vandalism, IP vandalism: Only one of the last fifty edits was a contribution, the others were vandalism and reversion.Old Moonraker (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 17:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

temporary full protection. Correctly sourced information continues to be removed by Wiki users. Please fully protect this page so that pertinent biographical (sourced) information does not continue to be removed, thank you. User:Jennamaroney (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Already declined today for the other party in this conflict. You are hereby warned to stop reverting and start discussing the edits. SoWhy 17:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protection. Could some of these physics related pages please be indefinitely semi-protected? DVdm (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 18:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

semiprotection String of various IP edits - 216.194.62.34 (talk · contribs), 72.11.218.237 (talk · contribs), 216.194.61.93 (talk · contribs), 24.168.39.49 (talk · contribs) - repeatedly removing reliably-sourced statement about a cause of death with unsourced assertions that it's false. WP:V and WP:NOR have been explained to the anons, but it still goes on. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 18:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protection. One of the many constantly vandalised physics pages. DVdm (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 18:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

permanent semi-protection. Biography of controversial journalist. High level of anon IP editing-warring POV-pushing to make the article a coatrack with no discussion on talk page since February. Today yet another anon IP came in, made some positive changes and good points (and actually posted in talk--the first anon IP to do so in 9 months), but those changes have already been undone by another anon IP. PētersV (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 18:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

temporary semi-protection. IP user is messing with the page table layout and repeatedly ignoring requests to look at the talk page and discuss the changes to the existent layout before enacting wide-ranging changes. The IP user is not really to blame, as it was User:Onlyonetime who originally "destroyed" the layout, removing not only the pictures but also a recently added timeline. However, the IP user edited that version of the page, and when I tried to undo the changes to the layout by reverting to before Onlyonetime's edits, the IP user just re-reverted and went on his way. I asked him to look at the talk page, but he reverted once more; and I don't want to break the 3RR. Habbit (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, single IPs or newbies engaged in such behavior should be warned and/or reported to WP:AIV. SoWhy 08:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reconsideration. Well, first of all, the IP user in question is not a newbie in any sense of the word, since he seems to know how to do a "clean" reversion (i.e. going to the history page, not re-adding the changes), but seems not to have even looked at the talk page even though two of my edit summaries specifically requested him to do so. Second, he has been repeatedly warned about the consequences of the wide-ranging changes he enacts without discussion - nearly always related to political offices or lists of their holders - and the last warning was "his last one" according to ClueBot. Third, there seems to be another IP user, Special:Contributions/92.11.220.227 joining the fun, which seems to be some kind of sockpuppet since he's new, just perfomed a reversion and has since disappeared. Fourth and last, two registered users seem to join in too - one reverted me saying that "my edit summary was outrageous" or SLT and another one undid him (head starts spinning). Thus, I think that the page warrants at least a close scrutiny and, in my opinion, also temporary semiprotection. I don't know if this thread should be moved back to the requests section, so there it goes. Habbit (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one week. I understand why SoWhy declined, but it appears that there are other IPs (and one registered user?) making the same edits. This has been going back a few days. If you vehemently disagree, SoWhy, let me know - but I have a feeling you were probably on the fence about this one anyway. Tan | 39 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No, I am fine with it. It was a 50/50 decision and I did not think the amount enough for protection with only one IP really active today. But I am fine with protection, considering those reasons mentioned above (also, the latest IP edits were done after me declining the request). Regards SoWhy 18:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection, a user has noted vandalism and asked that this page be "lock[ed] ... for now". See the bottom of the talk page. Dragon 280 (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 18:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

full protection Dispute, Edit warring. This is a group of wrestlers that has just been formed on television but have not reached enough notability to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. I have redirected the article 3 times now, and has another user, even though I placed a hidden warning explaining why not to recreated the article. Needs protection for about a month..S_RX 14:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also The Main Event Mafia. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extend semi-protection. Currently semi-protected until 00:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC). This is several hours before last polls close. Suggest extending to at least 06:00 UTC. — Alan^✉ 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected by User:Raul654 until around 7:00pm EST. Someone will probably either lower the protection to semi or extend the full-protection at that time. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should wait until the last poll closes in either Alaska or Hawaii. PatGallacher (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

temporary semi-protection , Either part of a class project or a bizarre, organized vandalism campaign. Repeated insertion of Susan Sontag quotes and WP:OR essays by similarly named users. See history. .Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 14:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, multiple times in the past two days. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please unprotect this page so that vandalism [4] can be undone. Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, article is target of too much vandalism to be unprotected on the US election day. I suggest using {{editprotected}} or simply voicing concerns on Talk-page; there are enough admins who watch it. SoWhy 18:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

indefinite semi-protection , This page seems to get messed up quite a bit, sometimes deliberately and sometimes by new users who think it is a sandbox or are simply uncertain what they are doing. Being a help page, it is important that it is available in an uncorrupted state at all times, besides I doubt that many anonymous or newly registered users will ever want to edit a help page. Lets put permanent semi-protection on it..DanielRigal (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - There has only been 1 IP edit made to this page since September 16th. MatthewYeager 13:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 14:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

temporary full protection , See this AN thread. We can have exactly none of stuff like this, even if it lasts only a couple of seconds until it's reverted -- with these viewing numbers, it's too much. Disclaimer: I will hold any admin personally responsible if they deny full protection for this very extraordinary case. Also consider that as of right now, John McCain is in fact fully protected..Everyme 11:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support full-protection in this case. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I agree but with the article being featured and the vandalism already small due to semi-protection, I think this needs more admin input. Also, Raul654 (talk · contribs) did full-protect and then changed it back to semi-protection, so I think his input as to why he chose to do so should be sought. Regards SoWhy 12:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Never mind. Discussion is held at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Need admin action ASAP and consensus seems against full protection. SoWhy 13:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully-protect to stop any well-meaning editors from updating early. Philip Stevens (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. I'm sympathetic to your concerns, but we have a policy covering this. If a problem develops with such activity, by all means resubmit, but we can't protect without activity justifying it. Horologium (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This justifies temporary full protection on each and any election-related articles. If you decline, you are 'personally responsible for letting the inevitable happen. Everyme 11:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough activity to protect under policy. Also, please don't threaten your fellow editors. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: previous long semi-protection was removed on 16 August, and it's been pretty much a disaster area since then. --Pak21 (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for another 3 months. CIreland (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Temporary protection and reversion due to persistent addition of unsourced material, probably by the schoolchildren served by the subject of the article, probably as a part of a project.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I'm not seeing anything disruptive here, can you provide diffs of disruption? Additions do not have to be sourced, we just prefer that they are; the additions in question are about the history of the buildings and so on and seem in good faith. CIreland (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page has been protected for well over 10 days now and I believe the IPs causing issues have ceases. This has also stopped IPs with legit questions from asking them on my talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your time, MatthewYeager 11:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done CIreland (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a problem about the additional tasks recently. Some users add the information about the additional tasks in the race which some users disagree that the information they added isn't a task, cause some of the edits regarding the additional tasks has been reversed and there have been some controversial between the users who thinks that additional tasks is a task "That Member should do before receiving the next clue" and the users who thinks the task "Which is not the Detour, Roadblock, Fast Forward, etc..." shouldn't be entered into the additional tasks list. (See the talk page for more details) The result are now in the talk page. Some users (Including me) now would like this page to be unprotected, in order to fix the task summary and definition of some tasks. Also, it will effect the updating of the page if the page still lock until Thursday (TARA 3 aired on Thursday) and the information will be one week old, which I and some users doesn't want it to be. Please make this page unprotected. Thank you. --Harley Hartwell (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already unprotected. The protection expired a few hours ago. CIreland (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism today. --GPPande talk! 09:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, 3 edits is not a high level. And it's only one IP, warn it and/or report it to WP:AIV. SoWhy 10:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

temporary semi-protection Vandalism.- Unpopular Opinion (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. User can end semi-protection themselves. SoWhy 09:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Has a long history of IP vandalism..Themfromspace (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 08:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Random IPs constantly adding the same incorrect singles and tracks..Nabudis Shadow (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 08:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

temporary full protection A brand new wiki user has been removing sourced items from the Larry Joe Doherty page and giving no reason for doing so. These items are sourced, but yet this person has removed them at least three times in the last 24 hours. Its seems likely they are a political worker for his campaign. Request the page be locked and no new edits allowed until after the election is over on Wednesday. Thank you. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, give him a final vandalism warning and/or WP:3RR warning, then report to WP:AIV or WP:AN3 if they continue. SoWhy 08:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People are edit warring over this guideline. A short freeze should help to resume the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by Seicer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). SoWhy 08:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

temporary full protection Dispute, BLP continually reverted back to version with incorrect sourcing. VRTS ticket # 2008102710000693. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-03t16:57z 16:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC) See editors talk page: User talk:Jennamaroney. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-03t16:58z[reply]

Declined, I have no OTRS access but if it's only one editor, the editor should be warned and/or banned for the behavior instead. SoWhy 08:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request extension of semi-protection through 0400, 5 November 2008 (UTC) - Contentious ballot issue, article plagued by edit-warring by IP editors over content of first two paragraphs before protection and one attempt to bypass protection by forking off a copy in place of a redirect since protection (see notes in earlier request for extension [5]). This specific time/date is poll closing time in California. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Protection extended by another day, should be enough. SoWhy 07:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]