Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Woohookitty (talk | contribs) at 21:07, 23 January 2006 (→{{article|Channel 4}}). 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
Purge server cache
Shortcut

This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be full protected, semi-protected or unprotected, including page-move protection.

If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and sign the request) at the TOP of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Also, make sure you specify whether you want the page to be full protected or semi protected. Before you do so, however, consult Wikipedia:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection. Wikipedia:Semi-protection is the policy that covers semi-protection of heavily vandalised pages.

Only consider protection as an option when it is necessary in order to resolve your problem, and when the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection.

Generally, full page protection is to stop edit warring or severe vandalism. Semi protection is 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, it is listed on Wikipedia:Protected page with a short description indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. Admins do not revert back to previous versions of the page, except to get rid of vandalism.

{{Editprotected}} can be used to request edits to protected pages as an alternative to requests for page unprotection.

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.

Here is the log page if users want to look up whether or not pages have been protected.

Administrators: When you have fullfilled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and, optionally, remove the request, leaving a note on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user(s) requesting protection might be good, as well.


Current requests for protection

Please place new requests at the top. and use {{article|ARTICLE NAME}} when listing a page here, where ARTICLE NAME is the article or page you wish to be protected. If the page is not in main namespace, that use {{ln|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} instead.

This article has been through AfD twice. Most recent result was a closure non consensus-keep (which was the previous as well). There is now a discussion ongoing in deletion review regarding this article and the closure (it was admittedly a questionable close, but one which has to be respected until the process plays out). However, a number of those who are pushing deletion keep blanking and redirecting the article, even though they have been asked repeatedly by others, including admins, to please let the process play out. Can someone please protect this article temporarily, preferably using the last version I edited on 19:56, 23 January 2006? Thank you. Phantasmo 20:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vote was 46 to 20 to remove the article -- redirect is clearly needed. Complaining about the redirect is simply trying to wikilawyer your way into forcing the minority keep view that doesn't have consensus.The page doesn;t need to be protected, Phantasmo and the couple of people trying to force their will upon the article when they lost need to stop. DreamGuy 20:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. I am merely trying to assure that the process as it is meant to be followed is adhered to. There is not a cause for redirect at this time. There is no mandate. The closure of the Afd was non con/keep. period. If that is not the way you feel it should be there are channels that you can go through, not merely redirect. Phantasmo 20:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong. You are not following process, you are trying to wikilawyer the minority vote and force it upon the article. The result of the AFD was 46 people wanted the article gone, only 20 wanted it kept, that's consensus. You don;t need to hold an AfD in order to redirect, but when the AfD clearly shows redirect as the overwhelming desired outcome after a vote, of course we follow it. Stop pretending that process means we keep articles as is when less than a 1/3 of the people voting wanted it that way. Redirects can and do happen without holding a vote, so that's what we did. Deal. DreamGuy 20:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, who protected the redirect version? The article in its complete form was non con/kept on AfD! Whether or not that was the correct call was made is up for discussion on the deletion review page. The request for protection was on the complete article, not the blaked redirect that was done out of process. Phantasmo 20:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was protected by User:R. fiend who had earlier reverted to the redirect, although his was not the most recent such revert. However when you ask fro protection, there is always the risk that an article will be protected in m:The wrong version. DES (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, another abuse of the process. I clearly spelled out the version I wanted protected. And now an admin with a clear interest in the situation is using my request to protect his version? This is just unfair. Phantasmo 20:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't done out of process, the consensus was clearly there. Redirects can happen without having to delete the article. All the people who voted delete clearly now want to redirect, which has overwhelming support. The redirect version is the consensus version. You do not understand process, you are just trying to force your vote on the article as if it were a full keep vote. DreamGuy 20:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enough, please. This page is only for requesting a page be protected or unprotected. The page has been protected. Please don't use this space to debate content. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This form of attack is normal concerning this indian nation, the US government and their police forces base the attacks off of an ADL report and it is unrelenting. A request for log in to enforce the use of the discussion page is requested; and we will see if that solves the issue. Thanks (if this request format is incorrect please let me know) Charon9 15:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC) See talk page of that article for more info Talk:Little_shell_band_of chippewa (moved by User:Syrthiss to correct section)[reply]

This radio 1 DJ is more boderline; there have only been two incidents today but this continues on from a steady stream from the last few days; plus it tends to get vandalised in the afternoon/evening more anyway. Robdurbar 14:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline is a good reason not to protect. This and the article below are getting a few hits per day. I don't see that as a problem, really, this is a Wiki, after all. -Splashtalk 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again the radio 1 related vandalism. About 5 seperate vandles today, still going strong Robdurbar 14:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this needing semi at the moment, per my comment on the immediately above article. -Splashtalk 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think this may still reuqire sprotection for a bit; there have been at least 6 or 7 sepereate users vandalsising this page since the protection was removed this morning. Robdurbar 14:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one is getting hit a bit harder, but by what appears to be only 1 or 2 users who are not earning themselves blocks. Ask admins to block first, and protect second; there's no reason to restrict all anons and all new editors for the misbehaviour of a few. -Splashtalk 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Article has been hit with quite a bit of vandalism over the past few hours from mostly anon IPs. Only a day or two at most should be enough, as Sunday evening Bryant had one of the best statistical games in NBA history, so the article is being viewed (and vandalized) more than normal. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin 2. Restored the next day and should proably be protected in {{deletedpage}} state. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect, seems alot of anon users are using the page as a battle ground for both sides of the Israel-Palestine, Abramoff, and anti-semite arguments. Zzz345zzz

Prefer not to protect 'high-profile' pages just because they are such. For a 'current event' page, the edit-rate is quite low, and, at present, within the bounds of what can be handled very easily with standard reverts. Also consider adding the page to the #wikipedia-en-vandalism watchlist. -Splashtalk 03:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection because this article gets vandellized by anon users almost hourly during the day. --waffle iron 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr j galt (talk · contribs) is engaged in an edit war with Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs). There is a CfD in process as well. Full protection needed to cool people down. --waffle iron 18:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All 3 are now protected. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly, without warning, ever changing IPs are editing this page.

Quote: "a story told by the poor beggar Kimson the Jocksniffer" -- Ec5618 13:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, they seem to have moved on. Thanks for replying though. -- Ec5618 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The page has been heavily vandalized for the past hour; its not posted on our Main Page or any high traffic sites that I can find, so I'm not sure what the attraction is. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably doesn't need a protection since its not an edit dispute or an edit war, just petty vandalism. The IP addresses can be reported and blocked. -Husnock 01:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting nailed. I semi protected it. It's some dispute about NeoPets or something. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Page has been vandalized dozens of times over the past few days by random IPs or new users. Page should probably be semi-protected until the feud between eBaum's world and various other groups is over.[reply]

I should note that I had attempted to semi-protect the page myself, assuming that adding the semi-protected tag was enoguh. Apparently that was only the tag to display the template. My bad. So I'm making this request here.

I don't think a full protect is needed (only semi-protect), since the problem is with one-time vandals, not really existing Wikipedians. Guspaz 21:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAsn't seen any vandalism for hours now, and the vandal is blocked. Let's wait and see. Dmcdevit·t 22:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might SP it in a little bit. It's getting continually nailed by vandals. I really think it needs SP and then a major cleanup effort. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is still getting vandalism. Most recent vandalism occured about one after Dmcdevit's post (I believe it was changing various links to goatse). This is an ongoing feud between the various groups involved, and a few hours without vandalism doesn't mean anything. This thing will go on for months, as the ongoing vandalism has already been a problem for months already. A brief view of the previous 500 edits shows anon-IP vandals all throughout. Guspaz 19:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am only talking about the Philadelphia County category, not the single county article.

Wikipedia lists Philadelphia as a consolidated city-county,

It seems to me that Wikipedia’s standard practice to have only a single category for conterminous zones.

I am not saying that the articles need to be merged. The Philadelphia County article should remain separate as there was a separate history until 1854. In this case, I think the articles are different than San Francisco County, California which redirects to San Francisco, California; Nantucket County, Massachusetts which redirects to Nantucket, Massachusetts; Kings County, New York which redirects to Brooklyn. evrik 16:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 01:55, 15 January 2006 HappyCamper unprotected Category:Municipalities in Philadelphia County prior to the Act of Consolidation, 1854 (repeated reversion participants all blocked; not necessary to protect page)
  • 01:55, 15 January 2006 HappyCamper unprotected Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (repeated reversion participants all blocked; not necessary to protect page)
  • 01:55, 15 January 2006 HappyCamper unprotected Category:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (repeated reversion participants all blocked; not necessary to protect page)
  • 01:30, 15 January 2006 HappyCamper protected Category:Municipalities in Philadelphia County prior to the Act of Consolidation, 1854 (long term multiple reversions [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • 01:29, 15 January 2006 HappyCamper protected Category:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (long term multiple reversions [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • 01:08, 15 January 2006 HappyCamper protected Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (long term reversions on page - please see talk [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

Comments

This issue has been discussed extensively, at here, [Talk:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania here], here, and threw the useres own failed and illadvised cfd here, all of which you have chosen and continue to ingnore, over the objections of other editors. The useres intentions, and his dsituptiveness, can be seen at the discussions and threw the edit histories of the above pages, the usere states that he is just trying to build a consensus, yest choses to ingnore the consensus that has been formed, which goes aginst is idea. This distruptive usere has been attempting this for several months now, and to allow this is only to condone disruptive usere activity over real discusiion by intrested parties, ie editors on the subject. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There is this one persistent anon user who removes COA of Abkhasia and South Ossetia. S/he left me a message on my talk page here. His/her IP is always changing, so I suggest semiprotection till that person understands that all complaints about the list should go to the talk page of List of sovereign states. Renata 07:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection applied. howcheng {chat} 07:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please protect it again? And leave it there for like a week? That user is tireless and very persistent. I used me 2 reverts today already. Renata 15:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reprotect. Can't guarantee a week though, partially because if we give a time limit, vandals will often seize on that and just wait until the time limit has passed and then hit again. So we'll just say...a modest length of time. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

06 (UTC)

This article has suffred a lot of recent vandalism; go back in the history and the last 15 edits or so are just vandalism and reverts. Remember that this is a prominent page and a favorite of vandals. I am requesting that it be semi-protected so these anons can't mess it up while not hindering any revisions made by well-meaning users.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. SP. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for unprotection

Please place new requests at the TOP and use {{article|ARTICLE NAME}} when listing a page here, where ARTICLE NAME is the article or page you wish to be unprotected. {{Editprotected}} can be used to request edits to protected pages as an alternative to requests for page unprotection. If the page is not in main namespace, that use {{ln|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} instead.

Both parties have now resolved the problems which resulted in the edit war, and given I've not had any feedback about how it's the wrong logo, I don't think it will start again. -- 9cds(talk) 20:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see literally 0 discussion since protection unless I am missing something. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WE are all tired of this. ArbCom refuse to rule on it. By allowing anon editor to abuse his admin powers you are playing against everything Wikipedia is about. You want the edit war to continue or to stop ? Freezing it the way one side (who abused powers) is your way of saying "I am Neutral " ?

Find a way to freeze this article to a NPOV vesrion. instead of just deleting the request for unprotection.

There was discussion going on PRIOR to the page being protected. Since it was protected the discussion has stopped. Zeq 20:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having another admin take a look. Just wanted to say that there has been a ton of discussion since the page was protected. Lots and lots. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Current version lacks any support on the talk page. The user who created this version was reverted by several other users, and is currently blocked for WP:3RR violation on that page. On WP:PP, the justification given for protection was: "Gmaxwell -vs- others. Very unbecoming". Why, then, was the edit warrior's version the one that was protected, rather than the consensus version? I see no reason to keep protection on now that the primary edit warrior has been blocked for 3RR. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the history and talk page. One user was reverting against several others, and it's been protected at his version. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it would be better to leave it protected for the time being, but roll the contents back to 2006-01-03 05:52:01. —Andux 06:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • said user has been blocked for his reverting skills. There will be no more edit war as long as this user is blocked. If he comes back to vandalise the userbox again he will face longer blocks but the userbox itself does not need protection.--God of War 06:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • block user has earned himself a week long block now - this page is in no danger any time soon.--God of War 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be protected but nothing comes up in the protection log?! pfctdayelise 03:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC it was protected before the protection log came into being...or something like that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any admin paying attention to the Talk page, just as a matter of curiosity? pfctdayelise 00:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Protection was due to revert war: conversion it into a redirect. Since the article is now under voting for deletion, turning into redirect would be a serious violation (removal of AFD noitice), hence improbable IMO. Therefore I (and I think user:Englishrose and user:Elonka will join this) request the unprotection, so that the article may be updated in response to criticism. Keeping it protected skews the voting unfavourably to the article. Thank you. Mukadderat 02:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to see the article unprotected, because it does not reflect the current consensus of sources, and this adds to confusion at its AfD discussion. A more updated version of references is available here, which we would like to incorporate into the "Aladin (magician)" article. The individual primarily responsible for the revert war has since been blocked (User_talk:DreamGuy#Blocked), so unprotecting the article should be safe. Thanks. Elonka 03:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DreamGuy was unblocked because the block violated policy. Furthermore, the "new consensus of sources" appears to be the same editor who put in hoaxed info about supposed notability in the first AfD, thus distorting the votes, and now putting in even more. This page should stay locked until it is deleted. DreamGuy 03:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been continuing my research, and have been seeking out other sources for the information in the article[1]. I would like to add this information to the page, especially since it is currently being discussed for deletion. Since the page is protected though, I cannot add the information, which means that the AfD is continuing with old data. Does anyone have suggestions on the best way to handle this? Should I perhaps make a subpage like Aladin (magician)/Proposed new page or User:Elonka/New Aladin (magician) page? It seems wrong that the AfD is proceeding without the participants having access to the most current information about the subject. Elonka 01:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for protected edits

See Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=36405405"