Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
| Requests for page protection | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection is usually used only to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. After a page has been protected, the protection is listed in the page history and logs 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. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins do not revert back to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.
If you would like to request a page to be protected or unprotected, please follow the following steps:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Example
===={{la|Intentionally permanent red link}}====
'''semi-protect'''. High level of IP vandalism. ~~~~
[edit] 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.
[edit]
Temporary semi-protection Prevent IP's abusing this page, previously requested a few days yet IP attacks continue.--CorrectlyContentious 07:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Indefinite semi-protection ongoing vandalism from anons, nothing good coming from them. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, persistent vandalism by IP address.CardinalDan (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Done « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 06:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Indefinite create-protection, Article and talk page repeatedly re-created, being used only for trolling.Beeblebrox (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done Both the article and talk page. If the user makes another disruptive edit, please contact me or WP:AIV so we can block him/her. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 06:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Semi-protection: The article has been vandalized a lot recently. -- Luke4545 (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Indefinite full protection vandalism, page for high school; constantly vandalized by IP users (a number trace back to local ISP companies); very few IP based contributions; also no registered accounts as vandals..Mjquin_id (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- First, why would it need full protection for IP vandalism? Second, the level of vandalism isn't exceptionally high. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Julian,
Declined on the full protection and semi. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Julian,
[edit]
Full protection Far too many reverts by far too many editors who know better. Plenty of discussion on the talkpage, but maybe taking away the article will spur it in a more useful direction. A day or three might be enough, or maybe through the weekend to be sure. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, From the article's talk page: Since October 13, there have been about 140 edits to this page; about 6 of those have been good faith edits concerning the Narwhal in pop culture (which are always reverted). The rest are vandalisms or reverts of vandalisms. I have no idea why this page is such an inviting target, but for whatever reason, it seems like a lock is appropriate. Aepryus (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC).Ships at a Distance (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined The comment from the talk page was in reference to the 140 edits between Oct. 13 to Nov. 30. Protection may have been warranted back then, but lately there has not been enough recent activity to justify protection. I know slow-moving vandalism is sometimes frustrating, but the point of protection is to only use it sparingly when the vandalism is excessive in a small amount of time. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
semi-protect, due to problems with translation of character names. IPs keep insisting on using Fan Translations, even when the official manga itself says "Hiro Mashima has Granciously agreed to provide official Ehglish spellingss for just about all characters of Fairy Tsil. Becuase this version of Fairy Tail is the first publication of most these spellings, there will be inevitably be differences between these spellings and some of the fan interpetations that may be spread throughout the web or in other fan circles. Rest assured that the spellings that Mashima-sensei wanted for Fairy Tail." GENERALZERO (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2009 (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. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
semi-protection, After the semi-protection expired, IPs and New Users took advantage of that, and are now adding more speculation and unsourced statements..Truco 01:44, 8 January 2009 (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. Tan | 39 03:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary full protection dispute, Content dispute - back and forth reverts during discussion..-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined. Not yet. Bring back if it persists another day or so. Tan | 39 03:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary semi-protection vandalism.shirulashem (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 months. After 3 months the page will be automatically unprotected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
semi-protect. High level of vandalism based on irrelevant/frequent changes which are defamatory TheModernHulk (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (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. Tiptoety talk 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, repeat IP vandalism in a short time..Gimme danger (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2009 (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. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, sustained IP attack.DuncanHill (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined – Featured articles on the Main Page are not protected except in response to extreme vandalism. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary full protection dispute, Semi would probably be enough, but there are registered accounts involved also. Maybe forcing a bit more talk page discussion will help....Onorem♠Dil 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note that there is an
discussionargument ongoing at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Stuart Campbell (journalist) - should be an easy one to clear up, but that doesn't appear likely to help stop the edit war. --Onorem♠Dil 19:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)- Fully protected for three days. Tan | 39 02:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] 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 to ask the protecting admin first before making a request here.
Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
[edit]
Unprotection, There is no real reason for this page to be semied..Jonathan321 (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unprotected « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Various Disney/Disney-related articles
Most of these are not vandalized daily, and have been reverted anyway. I'll give you the Teletubbies, Bambi, and The Lion King but that's about it. And just because a user is anonomus and bears resembalence to Bambifan101 does NOT mean they want to harm. The edits to SpikeJones's talk page should be restored, I mean, why make Archive instead or Archive 1, and have Archive 3, but not Archive 2? That doesn't make sence! Plus the comment about Bolt, vandal or not, is still not needed. And the archive 1 is too long and should be spilt. I think this so-called "vandal" may actually want to help and just may be too stuborn to learn different if he still does the same things. And not ALL of this user's edits are vandalism. The only reason I think Teletubbies along with The Lion King and Bambi should remain protected is because they were protected before. And only the Teletubbies are being vandalizied enough to justify indefentie semi-protection. The Lion King and Bambi were going to have experation dates to their protections anyway. 68.220.190.192 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined Tan | 39 21:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please explain why. Do you think this might be that same user making a request? If so, ok. But if you're just biased to keep these protected without giving a reason I think that's unfair. Like I said, you can keep the Teletubbies protected and just reset the protection level to Bambi and The Lion King to what it was before. You could also reset that level to the 2006 Charlotte's Web and Charlotte's Web 2. Oh and the fake redirects that he added: you can keep them too. 68.220.190.192 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Current requests for 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}}, {{Editsemiprotected}} or {{Request edit}} 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:
[edit]
I know this page has been deleted on multiple occasions. There's obviously a reason for that. Here is why I hope it can be recreated as a redirect to Wikipedia:Template messages. When using Special:Export for common templates and then importing the pages into a different wiki, the links end up coming through as Wikipedia:Template messages instead of w:Wikipedia:Template messages. When people on the other wiki click the link, they end up at Template messages (a deleted page) that is completely useless to them. While Wikipedia itself should be the primary driver of what content ends up in which namespace, it's also helpful to remember that a lot of outside sources link to it, and when dealing with the Wikipedia namespace, things can get a little confusing. A simple redirect will help out a lot, and is not confusing in this case. Otherwise, all templates that link to that page should be updated to use the "w:" prefix (a lot more work but probably a better choice ultimately -- work for a bot?). Thanks. --Willscrlt (Talk) 01:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 22#Template messages → Wikipedia:Template messages. Sorry but the consensus was to delete, and the discussion occurred only a few months ago. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Request to temporary edit this page in order to add Suspected Sockpuppet to this page. This user was found to be a likely sockpuppet and should be labeled as such. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson. Only his withdrawal to evade a block prevented his identification. At the time, he was attempting to get User:Frater Xyzzy, a sockpuppet in the category Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati unblocked. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined. The cases are over, the user is inactive, there's no real reason for the label. Tan | 39 03:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Fulfilled/denied requests
[edit]
Semi-protection: The page is being repeatedly vandalized again. A semi-protection icon is shown on the top of the page, but there isn't any current protection. -- Luke4545 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected The icon was there from the previous protection. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Semi-protection Attracts heavy IP vandalism and unsourced edits, like all articles related to the Guitar Hero and Rock Band series of video games.TheMolecularMan (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
semi-protection, Some gaming forum has apparently selected this person as their mascot - ever since, dynamic IPs have been adding this "fact" to the BLP..Kelly hi! 22:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Page being vandalised by someone who apparently has the ability to change IP.roleplayer 22:48, 7 January 2009 (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. — Aitias // discussion 23:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary semi-protection user talk of blocked user, As requested on the talk page by an uninvolved user. This anonymous user keeps adding junk to their talk page, despite being blocked now for six months. A month should be enough - perhaps for them to consider their block and actually act on it if/when they return..~~ [ジャム][t - c] 21:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Already protected Semi-protected for six months by Rodhullandemu. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 21:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary semi-protection There’s an ongoing disagreement regarding the inclusion of a genetics study in the demographics section of the article. Several IP’s have interfered deleting information without discussing.
Likeminas (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Protected since August due to "heavy IP vandalism". I think five months is plenty of time for the perpetrators to have lost interest. --78.146.26.87 (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not unprotected The last time I unprotected this page, it was barraged with IP vandalism and had to be re-protected within 3 days. I think it's fine leaving the article semi-protected indefinitely, unless anybody can convince me otherwise. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 02:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Semi-Protection-Everyday, it seems there is some vandalisim by IP users. It is becoming frustrating to go back and undo.-Kieran4 (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 16:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)