Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.

Shortcuts WP:RFPP WP:RFP WP:RPP 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. Skip to table of contents requests to raise protection lower protection requested edits (purge) Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level Request protection Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Request a specific edit to a protected page Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit

this header: view • edit

Archives

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

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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.

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Multiple edits based on recent rumors on this basketball player being traded to another team such as this from ESPN. At best, even if it is true, the article says a meeting "has been scheduled for Friday to secure the necessary NBA approval to make the deal official." Until then it is not official. Protecting for 1-2 says would be prudent to avoid any further premature updates. —Bagumba (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tinton5 (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Several users are vandalising the page, adding irrelevant references to the "Game Grumps" video series of YouTube, and given its large fanbase, it's unlikely this will stop. 201.143.101.77 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Already protected. by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs). WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 02:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent target of vandalism; article has been protected for short periods numerous times; eventually, protection ends and the anons return. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short term BLP violations and vandalism today. -- Luke (Talk) 00:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, we crossed paths. I protected for 6 months, mainly because it just came off a 6-month semi today. Feel free to do whatever you think best.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Continued removal of sourced content from the lede of the article from one and the same IP and its replacement with nationalistic POV. One note and subsequent warning were neglected. Jingiby (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Constant edit-warring between an account and an IP. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: five six counts of IP vandalism in three days following het gold Olympic medal in shot put. There were no constructive IP contributions since the meday day (Aug 6). This is a BLP article and need to be kept cleanYmblanter (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism over the past few days - New users have been removing page contents by giving false edit comments, although the contrib's are well sourced with reliable neutral party ref's. Users have been toying around with the article, inspite of my requests to discuss it in the article's talk page. Please take a closer look at their reverts. Those users have been making reverts, by giving blatantly false edit comments. I suppose the same user has been using multiple accounts in order to tip off the balance in an edit war. I've reported it to sockpuppet investigations. Hari7478 (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs and certain users adding unsourced information, usually fake. Also requesting same level of protection for Miss Universe 2013. GrayFullbuster (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert and full protection: User talk:Terence7 mistakes the usage of non-free file:Tianasquare.jpg‎ conforms our copyright policy in the said article because he misinterpreted the guideline stated in Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable_use to be "exception" but in fact "prohibition". The misunderstanding has gone on for a long time under slow rollback war and a full-protection is required. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tianasquare.jpg‎ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Revert and full protection: User talk:Terence7 mistakes the usage of non-free file:Tianasquare.jpg‎ in Tiananmen Square protests of 1989‎ conforms our copyright policy because he misinterpreted the guideline stated in Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable_use to be "exception" but in fact "prohibition". The misunderstanding has gone on for a long time under slow rollback war and a full-protection is required. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on my talk page, User:Sameboat is misunderstanding the non-free content use policy. See the "Acceptable Use" section, under Images, item #8:

"Images with iconic status or historical importance: Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance."

The Tank Man image is a paradigmatic example of an image with "iconic status or historical importance" and it does "significantly aid in illustrating historical events." The other criteria (no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, contextual significance) are certainly met here.

Perhaps the page does need to be protected, but from User:Sameboat who seems irrationally determined to erase the Tank Man image from the Tiananmen protests article. Terence7 (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image usage already violated 2 unacceptable usages stated in NFC (#image #6 & #7). In any case we should remove the image first, discuss in WP:Media copyright questions before putting it back to the article, which Terence7 clearly disagrees with. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_12#File:Tianasquare.jpg the image should only be used on the Tank Man article. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 17:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the discussion, there was no consensus about that and it's not clear how that decision was reached. Terence7 (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the closure doesn't adequately reflect the consensus of the discussion, than you can ask for review at WP:DRV. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 17:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't privy to the deletion discussion. I'm just saying that there's no basis, in the policies or in the discussion, for limiting the image to the Tank Man article as asserted by the person who closed the discussion. Terence7 (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, it is pointless to have this discussion under the page protection section; it belongs under Media copyright questions. Terence7 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should, but not insist on keeping the image in 1989 article before we have a consensus. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been in the Tiananmen 1989 article for years; respect for common sense and precedent suggest leaving it there until consensus is shown to remove it. You're the only person trying to remove it. I've started a discussion at Media copyright questions so I suggest that this request for protection be closed. Terence7 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Edit war brewing. Best to force the combatants to discuss this on the article talk page. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 21:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. I will post a warning on the article Talk page. I hate to fully protect an article like this one based on "brewing" (no preemptive protection). Nonetheless, the battle is inappropriate. If the two editors refuse to heed my warning, then I - or another admin - will deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Ip has been editing the article persistently apparently since the article resembles his/her name. Could be semi-protected for few days. Alb d91 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. You might post a warning on the IP's Talk page - it would add to their collection.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protectino: For persistent vandalism. It never seems to cease. Please protect for as long as possible. For An Angel (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – He seems to have attracted some criticism from mainly IPs claiming anti New Zealand attitude. Can we semi protect it for a week to see if they go away. noq (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Continued removal of the lede and sourced content in the article from multiple IPs. - SudoGhost 18:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Constant target of IP vandalism going back to a version with nonsense/unsourced information. Many months have passed and he's still continuing to revert edits. 19:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Constant target of IP vandalism going back years.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2012 (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.

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.

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Some short-term vandalism and reverts the past week. -- Luke (Talk) 17:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Player has not joined. Hammer1980·^talk 17:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – lots of IP vandalism. AshikSaha (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 2011wp (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. (already done by Black Kite, let's see if that holds before semi-protecting a talk page) --j⚛e decker^talk 18:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) User (100.0.18.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) blocked for 31 hours by Bongwarrior (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked.. That IP seemed to be the only one causing problems, so I'm going to decline this now. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) There is only one IP (50.133.186.37 (talk)), who was blocked for 48 hours by Bongwarrior (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 06:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined as above. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – lots of IP vandalism over the last 2 days. Lone boatman (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator GiantSnowman. (1 week) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 14:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Edit-warring which includes inappropriate and highly subjective content. Some contributor(s) persist(s) in adding the confidential and private text of a termination letter that was delivered to Mr. Angerame regarding his employment at Canyon Cinema, contextualized inappropriately with highly subjective and misleading commentary. This/these contributor(s) continue to re-post this letter in the article, along with the names of the Canyon Cinema board members, despite a few attempts at both removal and a more neutral and appropriate rewriting. Please enact full protection on this article for at least one month, or more, if possible. 68.120.71.167 (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected indefinitely. There are also copyvio concerns. A full explanation is on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring because of content dispute, also use of rollback tools in edit warring. SMS ^Talk 17:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see any use of rollback since 2 August 2012 - I think you're getting confused by "TW" which refers to the Twinkle counter-vandalism tool not rollback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs) 07:29, 9 August 2012‎

User(s) blocked. It appears that the main instigator, User:Jozoisis, has been blocked for edit warring by user:Elockid. I don't really see any other parties disputing, so I think it's okay w/o protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]