Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
- WP:RFP redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permission.
This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be fully protected, semi-protected, move-protected or unprotected. Please read up on the protection policy. Full protection is to stop edit warring between multiple users or severe vandalism; semi-protection is usually only for vandalism. Full protection is also used on templates that are frequently used and not in need of frequent edits (this includes most editorial templates; see Wikipedia:High-risk templates).
After a page has been protected, the protection is listed in the page history with a short description indicating why it was protected, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. Admins do not revert back to previous versions of a page fully protected due to edit warring, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.
Instructions
If you would like to request a page to be protected or unprotected, please follow the following steps:
- Add a level 4 header at the TOP of either the protection list or the unprotection list (whichever is appropriate) and place one of the templates from the table below within the header
(for example, for an article use: ===={{la|ARTICLE}}====) - If you are requesting protection, place the type of request (semi-protection, full protection, or move protection) and a brief reason for your request below your header. If you are requesting unprotection, this distinction is not needed.
- Sign your request with four tildes ~~~~ and save
- Administrators: Please mark reviewed requests with one of the page protection template messages, so that a bot may recognize and move down those entries.
Namespace | To request page protection | To request talk page protection |
---|---|---|
Generic | {{ln|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} | {{lnt|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} |
Article | {{la|ARTICLE}} | {{lat|ARTICLE}} |
Template | {{lt|TEMPLATE}} | {{ltt|TEMPLATE}} |
Wikipedia | {{lw|PAGE}} | {{lwt|PAGE}} |
User | {{lu|PAGE}} | {{lut|PAGE}} |
Category | {{lc|PAGE}} | {{lct|PAGE}} |
Image | {{li|IMAGE}} | {{lit|IMAGE}} |
Portal | {{lp|PORTAL}} | {{lpt|PORTAL}} |
MediaWiki | cannot be unprotected | {{lmt|MESSAGE}} |
Example
===={{la|The weather in London}}====
'''semi-protect'''. High level of IP vandalism. ~~~~
Please place new requests at the top of each section.
This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users or policies. If the entry is being used for edit-warring or content disputes, or contains personal attacks or uncivil comments, or any other unrelated discussion, it will be removed from this page immediately. |
Current requests for protection
Request either semi-protection, full protection, or move protection in this section. Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Full-protection – Registered users are constantly reverting the template to the copyrighted wheelchair symbol, which is not allowed to be used in the template due to Wikimedia guidelines. Users do not understand that the wheelchair symbol (Image:Handicap reverse.svg) is NOT in public domain, and a free alternative (Image:Wheelchair.svg) must be used in the template instead. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protect. Has been requested before, continue to have high level of IP vandalism which must constantly be reverted. 18:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Full-protection. High level of edit warring between multiple users, throwaway accounts are being used to bypass the 3RR. VartanM 18:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
TalkTalk
Semi-Protection - please could you semi protect this article, to prevent users who have had problems with their phone/adsl from vandalising the article with hateful rants. Most recently, user 193.113.48.9 has been guilty of this. Many thanks, Paulfp 18:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Full protection - Banned user continues to request that admins make some edits for him/her. Readded the protected edit request category even after the talk page was protected. The original warning made by User:CBM can be found here. Pants(T) 17:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Semi-Protection-- I am requesting this article be semi-protected permanently, until the banned User:Tajik/User:German-Orientalist and IP anon socks thereof, based on 3 filed checkuser cases Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tajik stop reverting the article. The temporary measure did not seem to be very helpful in this matter, as socks of User:Tajik continue editing the article without any restriction. In fact, I am not sure if even ArbCom ban enforcement is quite working out in regards to this user. Thanks. Atabek 17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Atabek is known for his disruptive attitude, and he is currently involved in an ArbCom which may get him banned. A few month ago, he "survived" an ArbCom, and admins had just mercy with him. Right now, he is on a revert paroll. Although he claims to have good faith, he has not shown any good faith. He also claims that moving a word from the first to the second sentence is "vandalism". He does not react to discussions, and he is known for notorious witch-hunting. He accuses almost every opponent of being a sock-puppet, and he was proven wrong many times. Recently, he started other edit-wars in Anti-Turkish (where he was pushing for uncourced POV) and in Church of Kish (where he is pushing for the same anti-Armenian POV he is notorious for) - keeping in mind that he is on a revert paroll, this shows that he is a disruptive user. I am not sure if the ArbCom decision to just put him on a revert paroll was enough. This time, the community should think about banning him permanently. Here is the link to the newist ArbCom: [1]. Please read the comments of un-involved users who confirm that Atabek is a disruptive user whose edits are motivated by ethnic hatred and nationalism. 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The page should be fully protected. And an independent admin should examine Atabek's insulting comments. He has once again insulted me by saying that "I am a racist/nationalist" only because I have moved a word from the first to the second sentence [6]. I need an admin to show me that moving a word from the 1st to the 2nd sentence is racist! If not, than he owes me an appology, and he has to admit that his edit are disruptive and insulting!
-
-
- Sockpuppetry is obvious [7], [8] just 5-6 month gap. No two users from the same IP range, from the same region in Germany, and with the same POV would revert war on the same article inserting the same arguments. And insulting me with words like "minority complexes" [9], while being a sock of banned user, not quite legitimate. Please, semi-protect the article. No need for full protection as the previous successful consensus showed. Thanks. Atabek 17:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The page should be fully protected, especially against Atabek who is notorious for insults etc. Just read the comments in the ArbCom, and his insulting comment that I am "nationalistically motivated" because I moved a word from the 1st to the 2nd sentence. His disruptive and illogical comments against another user were already commented by an un-involved Wikipedian: [10] Now, he again claims that moving words is racist and nationalistic, and I want an admin to show me the Wikipedia rules that classify these kinds of edits as "nationalistically motivated". If that's not true, than Atabek has to appologize and he has to admit that his comments were insulting and disruptive. 18:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Semi-Protection-- I am requesting this article be semi-protected for a period of a few days due to the significant amount of persistent vandalism in the past several days.Wikidudeman (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
full protection +expiry 6 hours, Full protection: Vandalism, Persistant vandal Angielaj 14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected by Moreschi (talk · contribs). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Semi - ongoing link spamming and page vandalism by German anonymous editor using a variety of IPs. Will add a variety of commercial websites (selling products or offering services) to the external links, and will proceed to randomly delete other chunks of the entry in reprisal with no explanation if the spam links are removed. 14:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Semi - nonstop spam linking for months of a non-English, ad-driven Portuguese site, spammer continues to use a variety of IPs to evade being blocked. Originally shadowbot was catching identical spamming of the same site to a number of other entries, but he's managed to circumvent it somehow on this entry. Semi-protection until their site can be added to wikia's blacklist. 14:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Full - user keeps inserting image that fails WP:NFCC. Will (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, if it's a single user, warn user and then report, no need to protect the page. -N 14:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protect (7 days). This is already the third time I'm asking for protection of this article. The first time, three weeks ago, Splash advided me to use the discussions first before protecting the article. I did that. Still IPs and user kept on vandalizing (they keep violating these rules). After that, I asked yet again for protection and some other guy said there was no recent activities. Well again I've reverted many of the IPs vandalizing edits. They are not only limited to that article, they do the same on every album (it's a discography page, the albums are written there if you need proof). Someone PLEASE protect these pages, I'm really getting tired of reverting all the time. That or block . He is messing up track listings all the time (proof 1 proof 2 proof 3). And yes, he has been warned before and still he vandalizes! Luigi-ish 14:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Full. User:Bakasuprman and User:Dangerous-Boy are revert warring with a bot. [11] Anwar 14:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just delete it, the 7 days have elapsed and no fair use rationale has been provided. -N 14:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Semi, a thread on the inclusion of a link to a gay.com is turning into IPs attacking homosexuality. Will (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Full or just get rid of the problematic editor(s). Protection expired, reverting began. PouponOnToast 13:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection for an extended period of time. Relentless petty IP vandalism whenever this is unprotected. Chris Cunningham 12:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protection - continually being vandalized by IP addresses. -AMK152(Talk • Contributions • ) 12:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 15 days. After 15 days the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protection +expiry 6 hours, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Vandalism from several different IP addresses, reverted twice now and warned. Kai talk 11:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protection persistant vandalism - repeated unjustified tagging by nonregistered user JLMadrigal 11:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Declined Please engage the anon on their Talk page and warn if necessary. Article may warrant protection at a later time if patently incorrect information continues to be added. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection. Vandalism and WP:NOT violations over the past few days. Anthony Rupert 09:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. I'm sorry, but a couple of IP vandals a day can probably be handled by those watching the article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
full protection User:Kuban kazak is at it again, I reported to WP:ANI. Either a block or full protection for a week, either one will be good. (Except protecting the article might stall its expansion, since only one user is starting the edit war... But that's over at WP:ANI#User:Kuban kazak's behavior.) — Alex(U|C|E) 08:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protection Edit war by new User:Zenanarh. It's a suspected sockpuppet of user:Afrika_paprika (same style, same ideas, same expressions, same edit wars).--Giovanni Giove 07:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protection Edit war by new User:Zenanarh. It's a suspected sockpuppet of user:Afrika_paprika (same style, same ideas, same expressions, same edit wars).--Giovanni Giove 07:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Full-Protect user:Hetoum I once agained started edit warring on page Church of Kish as soon as it was unprotected. Just after previous protection he made this insulting comments on talkpage [12] and without any apology began again inserting non-neutral sources in the article.--Dacy69 03:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Semi-Protection Please view the history of It (1990 film) and see the constant IP edits where they constantly ask questions in the mainspace and they have to be reverted constantly. I keep putting warnings in their talk pages, but I don't even think they see them. I am at my wits end. I literlly cannot take it anymore. Please please please semi-protect this page so it will not be constantly babysat. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 03:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protection Vandalism by IP addresses and some registered members, they do not even read the talk page and they add fair-use images in the page, they also add fake numbers and sources. Kraft. 03:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protect lots of vandalism from various IP addresses. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protect. Page previously protected until consensus reached on edits, consensus reached, article unprotected. Anon user has now shown up, claimed the consensus is vandalism, and anon/new users are vandalizing the page. Please semi-protect for about a week so we can get things back in order. Tuckdogg 00:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Correction, it's the SAME anon user from before. Tuckdogg 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Full-protect, preferably for a long time - Since the past few months, this article has been the target of extremely heavy edit warring between two parties. The article was subjected to two spells of full-protection, one for one month and another for two weeks, but as soon as the protection was lifted, the users involved started to abuse the undo button. Of particular annoyance are the users who seem to be employees/students of the said institute who do not discuss their unilateral reverts and keep blanking validly cited information which is unfavourable to their institute. Request full-protection until disputes can be resolved (hopefully) via an acceptable third-party mediation. Thank you, Max - You were saying? 10:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fully protected This page is now indefinately protected from editing until the edit war dies down, to unprotect, please request unprotection here. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 05:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection - Anon user kept changing the money board. The current money board is the one used by the show, but anon kept changing it despite the hidden warning, obviously not watching the show. This is the nth time he did this and the nth time I reverted it. Please respond ASAP and don't decline this; this is serious. - 上村七美 | talk 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month. After 1 month the page will be automatically unprotected. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protection +cascade, Semi-protection, main userpage text, user requesting protection --trey 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected did not Cascade because the option is not avalible to semi-protection due to technical limitations. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection I don't know why the user hasn't requested this, but there has been a wack-load of vandalism by multiple IP's lately. Maybe a 1-2 day protection may help--JForget 00:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected already protected when this request was reviewed. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Salt recreated copyvio page, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Man, Moment, Machine Rackabello 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- An admin has stated that new version has fewer copyright issues, and is being discussed in a second AFD, let be for the time being. Rackabello 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Current requests for unprotection
If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, consider simply adding {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page.
If you do want a page unprotected, please try and ask the protecting admin first before making a request here. This is also not the place to dispute a protection.
Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
This article was protected due to an edit war, and a few counts of vandalism from varying IPs. The edit war has now been resolved; and the misinformed have been informed. One of the users was blocked for a short while, and now everything seems to be okay. The rest of the vandalism should be able to be looked after by daily patrols on my behalf, as well as a handful of other users who patrol that specific page. I feel the article should have a premature unprotection. Unconscious 19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Current requests for significant edits to a protected page
- When making requests here, either:
- Provide a good reason for a substantial edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. Please link to the talk page where consensus was reached.
- Demonstrate that there is a clear dispute over a protected page, and that a specific dispute tag would be appropriate to add. Please link to the talk page where the dispute exists.
Note: Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change rather than requesting it here, though most of these should simply wait for unprotection. See also: Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests
ZScout370 has deleted a substantial article redirected anyone from this page to four times since 13 June an. Tizio has protected the page. These actions have eliminated a substantial article. The last edit by 146.115.58.152 should be restored and protected against ZScout370's vandalism.
- Declined - talk to the protecting administrators who seem to have good reasons. Accusing them of vandalism is a bad idea. Kusma (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Zscout370 provided no information in the "Mark Hearn" page discussion as to why he had taken action. This by itself violates the spirit of the Wikipedia which asks that major changes be commented on and justified in the discussion. After I inquired ZScout370 wrote that someone (no identification) sent an email asking that the article be removed and ZScout370 redirected it. ZScout370 provided no further information. This has no explicative power whatsoever. I have put a series of questions about this action on ZScout370's talk page. To justify ZScout370 action, to show that it was not vandalism, ZScout370 should provide satisfactory answers, such as, in what way was the article unfair or incorrect. Please note that in asking this I am not claiming that the article was fair or correct, but a short search shows that it was pretty accurate, with much of the information coming from Hearne's own bio at his law firm.
- Removal and protection was based on an OTRS action, which I left in the edit summary. That is all I can say, due to the private nature of OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Double- Declined. Daniel 05:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Removal and protection was based on an OTRS action, which I left in the edit summary. That is all I can say, due to the private nature of OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Zscout370 provided no information in the "Mark Hearn" page discussion as to why he had taken action. This by itself violates the spirit of the Wikipedia which asks that major changes be commented on and justified in the discussion. After I inquired ZScout370 wrote that someone (no identification) sent an email asking that the article be removed and ZScout370 redirected it. ZScout370 provided no further information. This has no explicative power whatsoever. I have put a series of questions about this action on ZScout370's talk page. To justify ZScout370 action, to show that it was not vandalism, ZScout370 should provide satisfactory answers, such as, in what way was the article unfair or incorrect. Please note that in asking this I am not claiming that the article was fair or correct, but a short search shows that it was pretty accurate, with much of the information coming from Hearne's own bio at his law firm.
Someone needs to change this redirect. The movie has its own article now, and will most likely stay that way. Oh and the article to the movie is Saw IV. TheBlazikenMaster 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Declined - or, more precisely, I have deleted the redirect as unnecessary. You may create it again if you need it. Kusma (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Fulfilled/denied requests
semi-protection +expiry 1 month, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Persistent vandalism by ip addresses Dark Falls talk 08:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month. After 1 month the page will be automatically unprotected. Sr13 08:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Full-protection - Edit war about whether the USSR was part of the axis or not. The Evil Spartan 17:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fully protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. Sr13 08:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protection +expiry 6 hours, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Repeated vandalism from several IP users. User:Kai 06:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection. 11 vandal edits by anons in the past 45 min. Short-term protection requested. Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours. After 24 hours the page will be automatically unprotected. by admin Chaser. Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Simi-protection High level IP vandalism--SefringleTalk 05:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Peacent 06:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protection +cascade, +expiry 1 day, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Featured article of the day, has been under heavy vandalism GrooveDog 02:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
full-protect. Page was unprotected about 6 hours ago. Two new SPA accounts are edit warring. Please protect and revert to last version by Migospia. (spa accounts probably need dealt with too) protection may only be temporarily needed, but its needed for now until the accounts can be dealt with. thanks. Article has been partially re-protected again, but edit bickering seems to be continuing with established accounts. Lsi john 01:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fully protected.Tangotango(Changed protection level for "Evangeline Williamson": Edit war is getting bad. Please discuss any changes on the talk page, and find sources! (expires 15:26, 3 July 2007)
Semi-Protection Nearly 150 edits in three days, nearly all from newly registered users, their socks, or today (mainly) anon IP accounts. I think a 48 hour protect may discourage them, if not then a longer block my be needed. Darrenhusted 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected with an expiry of 1 week. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protection. One or more anons are repeatedly vandalizing this page. Approx 1-2 times a day for the last week. They are deleting sourced reference to the fact that the ballplayer is Jewish. Despite several RVs, by me and other non-anons, and discussion of the issue with others on the talk page. They are also typically inserting all-cap drivel in lieu of the deleted language. --Epeefleche 22:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Declined - there is not enough activity to warrent protection, if they vandalize, warn and then report them, although, at present blocks seem punitive. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Articles about Edward Gibbon
Semiprotection requested for the following articles about Edward Gibbon; Stevewk (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is continuing his slow-motion revert war on these articles as an anon, most recently as ( · contribs); he appears to have a shifting IP, so blocking the IP would be less useful. Semiprotection would force him to edit from his account, which has already been blocked twice.
On Edward Gibbon itself, Stevewk's edits have actually been productive; and in any case, there are probably more eyes watching it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please consider this one. The disgruntled anon has taken to vandalizing user pages; consider (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), now blocked, and (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), still blocked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Semi-protected for 4 weeks on the first three articles; another admin has already fully protected The Work of J.G.A. Pocock. MastCell Talk 22:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Full protection Edit warring Alex mond 01:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Declined - seems to be two involved editors rather than a full-scale edit war warranting protection. Work it out on the talk page and mind WP:3RR. MastCell Talk 22:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protection: An anonymous editor (who has been blocked under his/her previous two IPs for removal of content from the above article) has returned for a third time. - Dudesleeper · Talk 21:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days. After 3 days the page will be automatically unprotected. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protection +expiry 1 week, Semi-protection: User talk of banned user, This is getting ridiculous... RandomHumanoid(⇒) 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours. After 24 hours the page will be automatically unprotected. He's not banned, just blocked for a day. His account is already 2 days old, semi protection would only be effective for ~48 hours anyway. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
semi-protection' : There is an Edit war going between two IP addresses. Well-sourced information is being removed by one of the IP addresses. Ariana 21:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
full protection +expiry 1 week, Full protection: Dispute, Edit warring over intro to article (no 3RR violations, but repetitive reverts up to thrice per day over a period of several days) Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 20:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)