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]
semi-protection, High vandalism and addition of WP:SPECULATION and WP:UNSOURCED statements by IPs..Truco 02:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
semi-protect The vandalism and BLP problems have increased far beyond normal this month. --Ronz (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month. After 1 month the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 02:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
full-protect for one week only. Edit wars betweena Serb nationalist whose account namedForsena with other editors.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Continuous vandalism by IPs and new users.DiverseMentality 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for one week. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
semi-protect for 2 weeks. High level of IP vandalism. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for one week. After one week, the page will unprotect automatically. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
semi-protection: high level of IP and un-autoconfirmed vandalism. Page has been protected numerous times before, but vandalism always begins again soon after it ends. Andrea (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month. After 1 month the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Consistent vandalism by several different IPs .TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 days. After 2 days the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Semi-protect, recurring IP vandalism. Elbutler (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
semi-protection vandalism.-- IRP ☎ 23:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, The article was semi protected yesterday but has just somehow been vandlized again by an IP. Is something not working with the protection?.Mfield (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- The protection expired. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary full protection user talk of blocked user, The user is using his talkpage for disruptive unblock requests, and personal attacks against me.Arbiteroftruth 20:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Declined Final warning given about their behaviour, request declined. See where it goes from here. GbT/c 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected Well, that was predictable. Semi protected for the duration of block. GbT/c 20:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary full protection dispute, high level of edit warring..neon white talk 19:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fully protected for a period of 3 days. After 3 days the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Semi-protect - since all the way back to 2006, several IPs have been persistently re-posting someone's personal review and opinion of the game on the discussion page, ignoring several reminders that Wikipedia is not a place for such things. It's gotten much worse in recent weeks; this person is clearly not getting the message. - Nate D. (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. There would be too much collateral damage to justify a rangeblock for a vandal with such a limited scope. Hopefully two weeks will be enough to show this person that their actions are counterproductive. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 20:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, The past two weeks there have been numerous edits by unregistered users none of them constructive, and twice I've had to restore the entire article. It's like a fan fight as to what they want to be said. None of the edits have been backed up by sources nor has an effort to include sources have been done. Please get temporary semi-protection on it?. ThanksMcelite (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 months. After 3 months the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, An IP user appearing under many IPs in the 168.169.*.* range has spent the last four and a half hours abusing this page. Can we get temporary semi-protection on it?.—Largo Plazo (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined the page hasn't been vandalized in about three hours. For now, wait and see what happens. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
User(s) blocked I blocked the 168.169.*.* range [1]. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary full-protection - Edit wars and 3RR. One editor admits it is the only page he is here to edit and enforce his point of view by twisting wikipedia policy/rules ignoring new source. Spshu (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined – Consider dispute resolution. Also, consider that you yourself broke WP:3RR and you should step back from it. Take edit-warring of single users to WP:ANEW please. Regards SoWhy 22:14, 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, Forgot to have this unprotected after last years wikibreak!.John Sloan (view / chat) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Unprotected. Well, I put it back to semi, since that's what is was before. If you want it completely unprotected, feel free to holler at me :-) J.delanoygabsadds 00:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)d
[edit]
Protected long enough. Wanted to spilt off the talk from it to the other archive. Also all those Disney articles should be unprotected eventually. 74.249.96.167 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Forgot: the article User:Eagerleast/Charlotte's Web 2: Wilbur's Great Adventure should die. It's useless and made by the ever-deaded Disney Vandal. I've saved it to a notepad on my computer, and can pul it up if neccery. The other one he made was deleted allready anyway. Also the page for Charlotte's Web the book and the one for the page of Charlotte's Web 2 should be unprotected. I was gonna add the characters to the book and upgrade the Charlotte's Web 2 talk. 74.249.96.167 (talk) 01:40, 9 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)
- I believe the discussion was about deleting a duplicate page, not a redirect. Having a redirect to the Wikipedia namespace is not the same thing as having project information inside the main article space. But, if that's the decision, then how would we go about fixing all the links in various templates that point to [[Wikipedia:Template messages]] with [[w:Wikipedia:Template messages]] instead? It does present a few other problem, because then it's an interwiki link (light blue) and there is no checking to see if the link actually exists... But it's still better than having people from off-site end up on a broken link with no redirect to end up where they need to be. Thanks! --Willscrlt (Talk) 23:20, 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]
Temporary full protection dispute, Request protection to allow time to resolve edit-war over reliability of sources.RolandR (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Any protection there appears to be some sock or meatpuppetry going on here between User:JerryMathews and suspicious anons. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:22, 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 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
Temporary full-protection persistent ongoing vandalism from anons and registered users which are involved in several edit warring at the section of the Argentine ethnicity. --Fercho85 (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[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)
- Declined. Not quite yet. Bring back here if it persists another day or so. Tan | 39 17:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[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]
Temporary semi-protection vandalism 205.222.248.208 (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined - You are the only one who has edited the page in a year and a half. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The other people on this IP vandalised it. I didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.222.248.208 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry - I wasn't saying that you vandalized it. Just that nobody except you has even edited the page since July of 2007. See the page h