Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

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.

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Heavy vandalism from IPs, request at least 1 week (as vandalism for PPV articles tends to die down after the event). TJ Spyke 20:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect. High level of IP and new user vandalism. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection, Persistent silly vandalism edits by fairly obvious socks using mobile phone IP addresses carrying on an edit war. nableezy - 19:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC) 19:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection vandalism. The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Ideological IP vandalism - someone keeps deleting all the sections that contain scientific data or criticism of Reiki - Legalskeptic (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection IP vandalism and edit-warring, article is well known as "high-risk" due to the fact that it deals with a notably controversial subject. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection vandalism, Persistent dynamic IP vandalism Christian1985 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. Taelus (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protection vandalism, resumed right after protection expired on Sunday. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  18:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protection vandalism, ongoing issue with IPs removing references, adding POV and original research, and messing up this article in general. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  18:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Just came off protection, ip vandals are back. Terrillja _talk 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create-protection, repeatedly re-created page on non-notable person, with speedy templates removed by creator each time. MuffledThud (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected GedUK  18:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protection, Sock disruption. Same as the Dominican Republic article with the same request. For list of socks, please Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AFROdr. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  18:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, This article was protected for one day. As soon as protection was removed, the vandals returned. Semi-protection would be useful. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  18:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection for more than two weeks. This page has been continually vandalized throughout it's history. In the past two weeks alone, the page has received no less than over 25 vandalist edits.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Sorry, but there isn't the protection history to jump straight to 2 weeks. GedUK  14:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, much appreciated though, Thanks!--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

longterm semi protection. This article is permanently plagued by IPs entering false or questionable information - in particular a date of birth vandalism, where various IPs keep editing random dates in the 80s that contradict the quoted source (IMDB). There is also tendencies of adding questionable personal information regarding his actors or his movies (lately unsourced POV hit/flop comments in the Notes column and describing him as Danush as playback singer). This is not a temporary peak in recent vandalism, but a persistent vandalism over a longer time frame. The birthday issue for instance is going on for over a year. The other problems vary but are somewhat regular as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i got interrupted when posting my request, the article actually would need a longterm protection against IPs, since this not a current peak in vandalism but unfortunately a longterm problem of IPs adding questionable stuff on a regular basis.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page hadn't been protected since 2007. It would be highly unusual to start with a long protection period, it usually ramps up steadily. GedUK  14:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I requested a semi protection already a long time ago, at that time it was declined due to other additonal "good" editing by other IPs and since the problem was new at that time. However now it is a year later and we still have the same issue. The problem here is imho that this is relatively low profile article, where not many people keep a close watch and notice the constant and targeted vandalism over time. I'm just aware of it because I have it on my watch list. And the nature of this vandalism is of a form that short term protection won't fix anything at all. If you have IPs coming back for over a year to change the date of birth of introduce other questionablestuff, they certainly won't be discouraged by 3 day protection. This is not the kind of vandalism, where a new IP is messing up an article and is likely to move on when getting blocked for a while. This is going on for over a year, i.e. these IPs are obviously not discouraged by temporary blocks or reverts.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection due to vandalism - User:Avraham keeps blanking the page. (he's been around too long for semi-protection to work) Newman Luke (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Since I did not see where either of you have actually tried talking to each other, I would suggest that you start there. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection - as above, User:Avraham has started blanking this one as well now. There is a process if he wants to propose deleting a page. Blanking it is just vandalism. Newman Luke (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Since I did not see where either of you have actually tried talking to each other, I would suggest that you start there. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection - as above, User:Avraham has also started blanking this one as well now. There is a process if he wants to propose deleting a page. Blanking it is just vandalism. Please note spelling of page (there is a similarly named page on a related but distinct topic) Newman Luke (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Since I did not see where either of you have actually tried talking to each other, I would suggest that you start there. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2010 (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.

I would like to unprotect the page to create it as a redirect to List of ethnic slurs#Q.

Please unprotect the page. I have correct information. ~~HolaaGurlz

Declined; article was salted due to multiple resurrection speedies in a short period of time. Create a draft in your userspace first, and make sure to source everything as you go. And please change your signature so that it links to your talk page. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 19:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotected the page enabling to add citations from reliable sources and newspapers to make some sections more clear having necessary information. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BewareOFkazaab (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Please ask the protecting admin, CIreland (talk · contribs) first, or note on my talk page what the sources you are proposing to use are first; the level of vandalism on this article really was quite high. GedUK  08:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unprotection. Remove edit protect so that the page can be converted into a disambiguation page. At present four articles are likely candidates for the term Brandon Hall (Washington, Mississippi), Brandon Hall (McMaster University), Brandon Hall (MBTA station) and Brandon Hall School.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Please monitor the dab page for possible vandalism/hijacking, request reprotection here if the tomfoolery resurfaces. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the page to my watchlist. Will keep an eye on it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection - this has been indef semi'd for quite some time, from disruption of only 1 or 2 IPs, is indefinite really necessary? Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect, create redirect, and salt. The 404 is a popular colloquial reference to Highway 404 in Southern Ontario / Toronto. It's also the name of a popular podcast that doesn't meet the notability guidelines on WikiPedia (hence the page currently being salted). I was wondering if it could be made into a redirect to Highway 404 (Ontario), but kept locked to prevent it from being changed back into an article about the podcast. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sounds like a good idea to me. I've fully protected the redirect. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2010 (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.

According to the talk page discussion there is consensus to restore the predecessor and successor fields of this template. It could be done by restoring this version of this template. The protecting admin was requested by this note, but he has a wikibreak. Most likely, there will be also other changes in the future but they still need a further discussion. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ruslik_Zero 10:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Vandalism, there s no need for any ip to be able to edit my user page. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected GedUK  13:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect. Constant insertion of wrong interpreted or totally unsourced data. R.Schuster (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection, regular IP vandalism by sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked user. Todor→Bozhinov 11:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for a period of 1 month. High level of cross-wiki IP vandalism by a user indefinitely blocked on Turkish Wikipedia. Can be confirmed by contacting an active admin on that project. Pinar (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I've protected for a week, hopefully that'll give them enough time to get bored and go away. Bring it back here if necessary. GedUK  12:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. High level of IP vandalism. Syed Ahmad Al-Joofri (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  12:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create-protection, Repeatedly re-created hoax article by sockpuppeteer: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bawa pran. MuffledThud (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected deleted, salted. I won't block the user, even though the quacking is quite loud, as they've been listed at an SPI. Let me know if they continue disruptive editing, or take it to AIV. GedUK  09:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, On going vandalism by IP's. Bidgee (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi protection: high level of vandalism from IPs. -Reconsider! 09:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, I don't know why this article is a vandal magnet, but it's on-going for years. Can we semi-protect the page from ip edits? The history speaks for itself. I don't want to discourage editors from the working on this excellent page, but I equally think there needs to be something done to stop the continued abuse. . Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. Sorry, we can't lock down articles. If it gets hit more, then come back. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(relisting) - Wikidemon (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the solid rules, but I seem to see that vandalisim is what you get when you get a TFA I'd love to protecti it, but I'm not a sysop. Good Luck! (i'm going to bed) Buggie111 (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the vandalism has been really heavy the last 10 minutes or so; if another admin wants to protect for a short period go ahead, but for now I'm declining this. AlexiusHoratius 03:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect ASAP! Racist vandalism on a featured article is very hurtful. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Per WP:NOPRO; the earlier problems seem to be resolved after a short semi, and the current level of vandalism isn't severe enough to justify protection of a main page featured article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Continous ongoing vandalism ever since it lost its protection about two weeks ago. GunMetal Angel 05:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  08:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]