Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trebor (talk | contribs) at 19:36, 10 March 2007 (→{{la|Essay controversy}}: protected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search


"WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, or Wikipedia:Random page patrol.
    Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.
    Shortcuts

    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.

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
    Request a specific edit to a protected page
    Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
    this header: view • edit


    Current requests for protection

    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.

    Edit warring had began again over inclusion of screenshots. -- Kendrick7talk 19:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Discuss, don't revert. Trebor 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Protect - The image has been changed due to user disputes and needs to have a time where no uploading would be allowed. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 17:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.. It appeared to be Jigs41793 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vs. everyone else. – Steel 17:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - Still a target for heavy vandalism.--JForget 17:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – Steel 17:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect due to recent high levels of IP vandalism. --Kurt Shaped Box 14:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 1 week, due to vandalism. Trebor 14:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Several different IPs, almost certainly the same person with some connection to the company has being continuously adding a completely unverified and almost defiantly untrue and potentially libelous section against the company since 2006. IvanKnight69 12:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. (not enough activity - no edits since Feb 27) -- Nick t 14:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect due to constant and daily vandalism. The changes they make are sometimes hard to spot (eg changes to numbers) and it is such a hastle having to constantly revert. Astrotrain 12:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.-- Nick t 14:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ~~

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    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.

    After spending some time arguing with an anonymous editor who seems to neither understand or care about just about any Wikipedia policy (Attribution, NPOV, Civility, Good Faith, Credible Sources, Talk Page etiquette, proper linking, spelling, grammar, syntax, etc.), who wishes to insert his own non-NPOV flourishes into the Corey Clark article in order to advocate Clark's allegation of an affair with Paula Abdul, and who is now attacking me with childish insults and disputing my explanations of the words "fact" and "alleged" to him, Administrator Geniac (who is not the admin who originally protected the page) told me that he read the points I outlined to him on his Talk Page, and requested that I request semi-protection for the article here. Nightscream 05:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

    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.

    Request to be moved to "Reality 2.0 (Sam & Max)", then unprotected. If the vandalism does not stop, then protection can be re-evaluated. There's going to be a deluge of new information on the topic soon, and it'd be good for it to be unprotected by then. Maratanos 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to request edits to Template:Coor, Template:Coor d, Template:Coor dm, Template:Coor dms, Template:Coor at d, Template:Coor at dm, and Template:Coor at dms. I would like span titles added to help point out the usefulness of the links. There is a detailed explanation with the code for exactly what I would like edited at Template talk:Coor URL#Span title. As I have provided the code and directions, experience with templates isn't required, but it would help understand exactly what I am proposing.Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 09:34Z

    On the talk page someone requested that the interwiki yi:װיקיפּעדיע:מערקווערדיג (Yiddish) be added. I can't confirm this is correct but it does look like a policy page. —dgiestc 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done -- tariqabjotu 05:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am proposing the protected template be edited to include MGS4 as per discussion and concensus on the talk page. Suggesting a revert to version number 112130831. I beleive that majority should decide the content for now until a resolution is reached on the talk page. --Cmsjustin 17:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Do all parties agree to this change? – Steel 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus for the template is being held back by a single user who appears to be avoiding the dispute and discussion has slowed to a crawl. The parties that agreed to the change believe that having the protected template changed to the more popular suggestion (again, all but one user) will encourage more discussion. In short, we believe that the user might be deliberately not engaging in discussion since the template is locked in their favor. -th1rt3en 20:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this could be brought up on WT:CVG. Failing that, there are various channels for dispute resolution. – Steel 20:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is the second time that the template was locked due to edit warring, and both times it's been locked in AMiB's favor. Now we've been trying to discuss the change, but AMiB has seemingly disengaged from the discussion. If the template were unlocked, the edit war would most likely resume, so we're suggesting that the template be changed to encourage discussion, not to simply change it for what the majority wants it to be. That said, if the page is changed and the majority slows discussion the same way, it could easily be changed back. The dispute is over AMiB's constant enforcement of a disputed guideline, which itself is not in consensus. -th1rt3en 20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WT:CVG, WP:DR. – Steel 20:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What, did you want me to time it so that AMIB would be at work or something when I filed the request? I filed both requests when the warring was full-fledged, whenever; I didn't particularly bias it towards AMIB. Hbdragon88 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Steel 20:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    User talk:JuJube (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    My page was protected by Arjun01 (talk · contribs) some time back when anonymous jackasses were spamming it. But this leaves new accounts and other anonymous goodies unable to leave me messages, so please unprotect. :) JuJube 11:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Trebor 11:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection there has been a fair amount of vandalism. I go to this school and there has been a vandalism war between Walnut and Diamond Bar High School students. Thegreyanomaly 06:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Trebor 11:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Recent heavy IP Vandalism A Raider Like Indiana 05:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for one week due to heavy vandalism. Trebor 11:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute resolved. View the talk page. Requesting unprotection. Drumpler 09:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected This will be reprotected if edit warring continues. Trebor 11:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect due to heavy vandalism. RJASE1 Talk 03:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Article has been protected for weeks with no banner or explanation given. 24.183.229.73 03:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like it belongs under the long-term semi-protection category. It's been protected against vandalism. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 04:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Protection to prevent recreation problem with recreation. BlackBear 02:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not only after one creation. SALTing is for multiple creations only. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 04:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect Repetitive vandalism and blanking --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 02:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 04:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect To prevent repeated creation Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 02:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm...you have to full protect an article in order to salt it. bibliomaniac15 03:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done SALTed. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 04:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Article protected by an admin approximately a week ago, because of a disagreement between "originally known as House MD" and "also known as House MD" in the article's introduction. The minor and irrelevant issue does not justify protecting this article, as alot of information needs to be updated since a week ago. The debate should be resolved without the need of such protection. Can the article be reverted back to its non-protected state as soon as possible? Thanks. Stickeylabel 03:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 04:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive edits and vandalism was over 3 weeks ago, when wikipedia was mentioned on PTI. Page has been relatively inactive since then. MDfoo 01:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 04:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page does not appear to qualify under any rationale for indefinite protection, and is not listed at Wikipedia:List of indefinitely protected pages. As a user talk warning, this template should be substed when used anyway (contrary to what its documentation currently says). Random832 17:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like it's a warning template, and I believe they're all protected against vandalism. One edit could impact it a bit (I'm not really sure how much this one is used exactly, but warning templates are usually protected just by convention). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 04:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect Been getting severly vandalized by IP's since it was unblocked. TJ Spyke 01:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected –Llama mantalkcontribs 01:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protect How many times does the page have to be vandalised before an admin will protect it??? Jscarle 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    More. It really isn't being vandalized that much. alphachimp 00:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism.--Brian Wiseman 00:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Llama mantalkcontribs 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=114119356"