|
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
|
| General help |
|
|
| Report abuse |
|
|
| Request assistance |
|
|
| Noticeboards |
|
|
- Example
===={{la|Intentionally permanent red link}}====
'''semi-protect'''. High level of IP vandalism. ~~~~
Administrator instructions
Current requests for protection
Place requests for either semi-protection, full protection, move protection, or create protection at the TOP of this section. Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, I'd really appreciate it if my user page was semi-protected. Because of my counter vandalism work, once in a while a user will dispute my action and vandalize my user page. This is nothing important, but a semi-protect would be appreciated. Thanks..tj9991 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
temporary full protection Dispute, low-grade edit warring.emerson7 16:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. Rudget (logs) 17:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
full protection High-visible template, 830 pages. BTW, I'm done now... J.delanoygabsadds 15:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 Fully protected indefinitely. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
full protection High-visible template, 2800+ pages. (!) Unprotected.J.delanoygabsadds 15:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
temporary semi-protection Vandalism, http://herald-zeitung.com/story.lasso?ewcd=c3706c60d72e1832&-session=HeraldZeitung:40DA3C4E118801C236xktSA5E74C
I presume it is to do with the above link.Гedʃtǁcɭ 15:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
full protection High-visible template, 1175+ pages, unprotected.J.delanoygabsadds 15:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
full protection High-visible template, 755 pages, unprotected..J.delanoygabsadds 15:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected indefinitely. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
full protection High-visible template, 2291 pages, unprotected..J.delanoygabsadds 15:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected indefinitely. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
full protection High-visible template, >1350 pages, unprotected..J.delanoygabsadds 15:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected indefinitely. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
full protection High-visible template, 2000 pages, completely unprotected. You may want to look at the Special:PrefixIndix of Template:Val J.delanoygabsadds 14:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected indefinitely. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
full protection High-visible template, Used on more than 2000 pages. I am not 100% positive if this should be full-protected, but it should definitely be at least semi-protected.J.delanoygabsadds 14:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected indefinitely. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
full protection High-visible template, Unprotected template transcluded on more than 1000 pages.J.delanoygabsadds 14:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected indefinitely. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
full protection High-visible template, Completely unprotected template used on more than 900 pages.J.delanoygabsadds 14:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected indefinitely. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Full protection. Edit warring, POV pushing. A number of editors at this page have been going back and forth about POV edits. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected Let me know when the dispute is resolved, or list below for unprotection. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protect subject from vandalism/edit warring from IPs and newly created accounts. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Full Protection edit warring, POV problems, general fighting, ect The experiment to see if this article could last seems to have failed and a full protect should fix it, the talk page is a war, theres alot of fighting between almost every user and tocino, the article would benefit from a full protect, --Jakezing (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - there is a an agreement to take all the issues that are problematic to the talk page first. It was also agreed by admins to severely punish those who get involved in edit wars on this article. But it takes admin action to block the user or warn which is not happening so far. A few users have reopened the Pandora's box by reverting back and forth based on "consensus" they have created with a few other users sharing their POV. The problem emerged when a few users with the same pov decided to cut a few pieces of article by saying "consensus, consensus" but I don't think consensus means much if it was made in order to destroy the article. So instead of locking up the article for a few months like the last time consider dropping by from time to time as it is not any article but a highly controversial that can get out of hands. I am doing my best to create the discussion on problematic issues but sometimes it's hard with people who have ill intentions so they spam, slander and so on but we are still managing to get out of these troubles.--Avala (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Avala, you know what thios goes down to, its not just that edit war, tocino keeps brining up alot of BS, you know that, and tha admins WILL NOT do anything because they like him, This article wont benefit fro madmin watching, and we have a majority vote of 9 to 1, 9 to remove, 1 to keep em, and ussualy, the 9 wins.--Jakezing (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is the main problem, when you call other editor's contributions "BS" you can't expect anything nice in return. How about trying to discuss the matter with him for a change rather than attacking. Also saying how admins prefer some users over others is not helpful either because it's simply not true (though admins could show preference to a user over an IP user who joined Wikipedia just to enter the fight). I didn't participate in that vote but I still don't understand the point in creating a consensus to delete a few things of the list without any strong scheme of what should be deleted. But it's not the subject for this place.--Avala (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- We tried. We've triedalot. I even suggested he take a break from wikipedia or atleast the articles in realtion to why we all don't like him. he said he had to be there to make sure "us seperatist supporters" don't take over the article. --Jakezing (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- The relevant changes were done by consensus and above all with due deliberation (consensus does not mean that one single editor wields a veto power). So I don't see a problem here. If the edit warring starts again, the question of a page protection should be discussed again. --DaQuirin (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- It Will, we all know it will just because, either we remove tocino or we get a protection, no middle ground.--Jakezing (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2008 (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. See the list of current {{Editprotected}} requests.
If you do want a page that exists 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.
unprotection Why protected? Why still? Failure to implement constructive suggestions put on the article's talk page has clearly been a consequence - one appropriate to put an end to by changing back to the default (ie. unprotected) level.McCainCraig08 (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect the above request was filled by a sock puppet of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). User was just blocked for disruptive editing. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Declined POV request by editor now blocked for trolling and disruption. Rudget (logs) 10:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
unprotection - Trying to go through our WikiProject Anime and Manga list articles and bring them all in line with the correct naming convention per our manual of style. There is currently an article called List of characters in Glass Mask but the correct page has been protected so I am unable to move the article. It looks as though there were some edit-wars a while back and as a result this page was locked. I would like permission to move this the list to this page. --Kraftlos (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Unprotected You should be able to move it to there now. Rudget (logs) 13:29, 19 July 2008 (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
Please see http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de3_1216399524 . In this video Barack Obama believes a "Bomb fell on Pearl Harbor." !!! Quote : "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world." End of Quote. Fascinating !!. 79.210.67.39 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Moved from the bottom of the page. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 19:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Declined Many bombs fell on Pearl Harbor, on 7 December 1941 (see Attack on Pearl Harbor), and there is nothing notable about Obama's use of metaphor. No need to add this. Horologium (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Fulfilled/denied requests
There has been a recent rash of IP edit warring on this page. One IP vandal was blocked for 1 day, but the other has not. Can we get a week or so of protection.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days. After 3 days the page will be automatically unprotected. Rudget (logs) 10:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protect for 1 week. Libelous claims and vandalism made by various IPs. miranda 03:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days. After 3 days the page will be automatically unprotected. Horologium (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
unprotection , User:FCYTravis semi-protected this article indefinitely, apparently on his preferred version. The dispute seems to be over listing of the article subject's occupation in the infobox. I understand his concerns, but the problem can be handled via consensus (there are several registered users watching this article). I don't want to lock out constructive edits by anon editors on this article - such editors have contributed well there in the past..Kelly hi! 00:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Declined - in the context of BLP concerns, I think semi-protection is appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Indefinite semi-protection? Kelly hi! 00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Indefinite semi-protection ≠ infinite semi-protection. Eventually, she will settle into her role as a footnote, and the semi-protection can be lifted. Until then, semi-protection keeps the article from becoming a magnet for vandals. There are plenty of articles which are indefinitely semi-protected, usually after BLP violations or after multiple rounds of semi-protection. I have two articles on my watchlist which are indefinitely semi-protected, and I don't foresee either of them losing their protection any time soon. (One was semi-protected 10 times in 11 months, and the other was the flashpoint of an arbitration case and some rather extreme BLP violations.) Horologium (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I understand where you are coming from, but, as I said, we've had good, constructive IP editors on this article in the past. Vandalism has been low-volume except for a one-day spurt that has happened over the past 24 hours. I don't mind a short-duration protection to deter the recent vandal(s), but a look at the article history will show that indefinite protection is over the top. I watch this article, as does User:HiDrNick and others - we'll keep any future anon vandals under control. Kelly hi! 00:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yesterday, that article was hit by five separate IP addresses, from a wide assortment of locations (it appears that two of them may be related, as one was from Vanderbilt University and another was a Comcast IP in Tennessee, but the other two were from New York and Milwaukee). Again, leaving the expiry open-ended does not mean that the article will always be protected, but it does mean that there is no clear date when the BLP brigade will be able to run amok on that article. I seriously doubt that FCYTravis plans to leave it semi-protected permanently. Horologium (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- "My preferred version?" You're acting like this is some content dispute. It is nothing of the sort. It is BLP vandalism, plain and simple. The article subject's occupation is not what has been repeatedly inserted. There is no "dispute" - it's patent libel. I don't plan to leave the article semiprotected for the next decade, but a week or two won't hurt. FCYTravis (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 Note: I have set an expiration on the protection at 1 August. FCYTravis (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, thanks. Kelly hi! 14:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection. This is hardly the first time this article has been here, and after the (third) semi-protection was removed, it went right back to having a high level of IP vandalism. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of two months. Tiptoety talk 04:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. RainbowOfLight Talk 01:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 User(s) blocked Happyme22 (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection Heavy IP vandalism, request to AIV page thus far unanswered. 99.11.4.201 (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- User(s) blocked by admin Tanthalas39. Húsönd 01:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
temporary full protection Dispute, Edit war emerging. .NuclearWarfare (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected Ask me to unprotect, or request below, when the dispute is concluded. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Indefinite Full-Protection - High risk template. --75.47.149.223 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Declined (Note, it is already semi-protected). Not too much of a danger, and it's not too heavily transcluded to warrant full-protection at this time. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection due to recently high levels of IP editing that have either removed controversial sections or reverted other users' edits without any justification. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
|
