Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

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

Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create 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: Persistent vandalism. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring: IP address keeps adding unsourced and nonsensical material to article. cyclopia^speak! 16:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit hesitant to protect my own talk page, and let another admin decide.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous disrupting edits by IPs....temp should be fine. ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 15:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protection: High level of new account vandalism. Surprisingly little IP vandalism. Not sure about level or length of protection, whatever seems appropriate. Appreciation for y'alls attention.  :) ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 15:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection: Same WP:Disruptive editing by IP hopper/WP:Sockpuppet Sahyadrisingh that got the article semi-protected before. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent sockpuppetry, and copyvios by unregistered IP accounts. Psychonaut (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism due to subject's recent hiring. LaSeandre (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protection: Third request in two weeks (previous was here). Obviously the anonymous editor making the disruptive edits is not going away, and comes from a different IP each time so the previous two individual blocks have proven ineffective. Semi-protection as suggested by the previous admin would be too high, as it would prevent other IP users from making constructive edits. Diego (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection was recently made for this page, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protection: Previously I asked for semi-protection of above mentioned article. After a discussion with user:Ymblanter I wonder if the protection could be changed to pending changes indefinitely as the disruptive editing is mostly of the same kind and persistent. Qualified edits are always welcomed and as I and some other editors have the article on their watchlist this might be the best tool.--Catflap08 (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, The article is already semiprotected, if you have an issue with the couple of registered editors editing there, you are best to discuss it with them directly, preferably on their talk page. kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. 81.109.144.47 (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, due to irony. Actually not enough recent disruption. kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection: The article was re-renamed by the recent WP:MRV consensus. George Ho (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – 30 day page protection just ended yesterday, I believe, and a recurring, IP hopping vandal based in Mexico has resumed the usual nonsense. There's not much to it, they keep editing the article to say this: [1] It's being considered vandalism because they continue to remove a perfectly legitimate template parameter, "format=dmy" without any explanation, they cannot be warned or reasoned with, they do not participated in discussion, they keep hopping IPs, and they've been at it since about December 2013. I could paste specific diffs, but I've done that numerous times. Please look at the article's edit history and you'll see the 189.159.* and 189.243* IPs all over this article. This isn't the only article either, they also keep messing with United Plankton Pictures where they keep changing section headers and adding blank sub-sections. Requesting long-term protection from IPs, say for 3 months? In the interim, I'll run this past ANI again for rangeblock consideration, but I'm sure I've done this before. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only one edit to the page.kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Abuse of pending changes by anon IP editors. STATic message me! 01:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 168 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: Page has not been protected.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because I used the wrong template again. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: an IP editor keeps removing columns from the calendar table without reason or explanation. Semi-protection has deterred him in the past. Requesting semi-protection for one month. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: - IP vandalism.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Not all IP edits are vandalism, lots of editors keeping an eye on it. Including me. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term or indefinite Semi-protection: Persistent seven year long efforts from sockpuppet accounts to add gibberish accusations of fraud against the company. Was protected for 1 week in March, 2014 following sockpuppet investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcoa1000/Archive). Article has been vandalized six times since then.[2][3][4][5][6] If these socks are all coming from the same IP could we get a range-block too? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Wikidemon have you considered extending the SPI? It seems as though there are at least three accounts present that could be included. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. IP users are removing well-referenced texts without bothering to read what we discussed on the talk page. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 20:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. At least not by IPs, consider warning and the AIV, seems to be some autoconfirmed content dispute too.kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, One revert makes not an edit war. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - Sock of indefinitely blocked User:Hiyob346 disrupting page. Also edit-warring on my userpage despite WP:HUSH ([7]). Middayexpress (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined User is autoconfirmed, Middayexpress have you considered expanding the SPI? kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection due to IP vandalism (see [8]). Quis separabit? 16:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Rms125a@hotmail.com I think you need to relook at your reverting, you are reverting back to part of the article that says it is scheduled to be released in February of this year, when it is already June. So not all of the edit is disruptive, and I wouldn't call their edits vandalism per se. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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.

A rolling archive of the last seven days of protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive.