Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
From Free net encyclopedia
Current requests for protection
Request either semi-protection, full protection, or move protection by placing it in bold text (add ''' before and after a word to make it bold) at the beginning of your statement.
Template:La
Full Protection, there is currently an edit war between me and an IP user. The protection should last until the issue is resolved. - Unchained 24:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
'Full Protection, there's currently an edit war between two users over some content. The protection should only last until it's been resolved over the talk page. - Zero1328 23:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
Protection to encourage discussion rather than repeated removal of information a Wuornos supporter doesn't like. - Nunh-huh 23:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Right, as opposed to a user who has said that Aileen was "obnoxious" and "crazy as a fruit bat" (among other things), but is trying to make it appear that she wasn't mentally ill in the article to justify her execution. --DrBat 00:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
Semi-Protection to prevent anon and new users from posting the Sexual Assault victim's name. This has been a problem, today. Abe Froman 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
Semi-Protection due to birthday. -- tasc talkdeeds 14:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
Semi-Protection due to frequent (see the history), repetitive vandalism by IP editors. I'm not sure about how long this protection should last, but this article definitely needs it. Thanks, Nihiltres 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
Semi-Protection due to periodic and regular vandalism every two or three days or so for the last several months. This vandalism has been consistently by unregistered or new users to both the main article and to its talk page. Request Semi-protection for the next 30 days to both the main article and to its talk page. Established editors have discussed this proposed Semi-protection on the article's talk page and have agreed that this would save us much headache with this article. Apparently some rather juvenile users have found some rather odd or morbid fascination with this particular article. Thanks. -Scott P. 01:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- As one of the editors of the article in question I second the request. China Crisis 09:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Semi-protected the article, but not the talk page. If vandalism of the talk page escalates, please place a new request. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 10:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
Semi-Protection due to vandalism and many reverts over the past 12 hours. Request semiprotection at least until "4-20" is over. (I have added {{sprotect}} unofficially to the above page, temporarily to deter vandals. I apologize if this is is an inconvenience and/or something I should not have done. Please let me know if it is for future reference.) PH, Kyoukan, UASCTalk
- No, it's fine. This was getting hit quite a bit. I've semiprotected. I'm not sure who added the sprotected tag, but that's a no-no -- it takes a special administrator button to actually perform a protection. The tag's just a maintenance item letting editors know that it's in fact been protected. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would Like to request editing this page before today, April 20th is over. I am at the scene of farrand field at CU and would like to add details of the event whilst they are still fressh in mind. - The Conductor
- Sorry, no. And, I doubt these scenes would be particularly relevant to an article about the phenomena overall. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 23:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would Like to request editing this page before today, April 20th is over. I am at the scene of farrand field at CU and would like to add details of the event whilst they are still fressh in mind. - The Conductor
Template:La
Semi-protection due to vandalism. AucamanTalk 19:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- It actually hasn't been that bad today. Report again if it gets worse. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
Referring from a MedCab case. Constant vandalism Will (E@) T 19:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The original Medcab case is here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-20 Heckmondwike Grammar School Cowman109Talk 19:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you need here. There was one edit a day ago; does this really need protecting? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- While I wasn't directly involved in this, through some lookup of the edit history, it seems the majority of the vandalism is coming from 195.172.220.162. It seems like this would be a better candidate for Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. However, an IP trace shows this IP is actually the IP of the Grammar School, meaning it is simply an issue of its own students vandalizing from school computers. Cowman109Talk 20:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Does seem that way -- but unless there's active vandalizing going on, we can't semiprotect. Can't really block someone, either -- and one edit a day ago just isn't enough. If they become active again, then list it on AIV. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for referring the page here, the reason for lack of vandalism most recently is most likely as schools in the area are on Easter break, and students return on Monday. However the senior management discussed this with me today and asked me to investigate possible courses of action. The school is aware of most of the vandalism in question is coming from within, unfortunately I believe the web filtering software in use only allows blocking of whole domains. Blocking anything is probably a last resort. I will list on AIV and update this request if vandalism becomes active again. Thank you for your help and advice so far. SuperCoolAl 21:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Does seem that way -- but unless there's active vandalizing going on, we can't semiprotect. Can't really block someone, either -- and one edit a day ago just isn't enough. If they become active again, then list it on AIV. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- While I wasn't directly involved in this, through some lookup of the edit history, it seems the majority of the vandalism is coming from 195.172.220.162. It seems like this would be a better candidate for Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. However, an IP trace shows this IP is actually the IP of the Grammar School, meaning it is simply an issue of its own students vandalizing from school computers. Cowman109Talk 20:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
Recent barrage of constant vandalism. - CobaltBlueTony 17:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Normally I would say no -- this hasn't been vandalized all that much -- I'd prefer to just block the offending IP, since it's all from one IP. Unfortunately it's an AOL IP, so I've semiprotected it. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
The problem is that fans (who are usually to young ot be editing in an encyclopedia) find the page on a search engine and then proceed to add things that really shouldn't be there. I'm willing to give up my editing rights in it if you block anon IP's. It's fancruft, and we worked very hard to fix it. It's no wonder it was terrible. I can tell you from experiance (countless years of Sonic games) that what is being added is completely non-credible, and sometimes not even related to the subject. We could really use some help. Thanks;--69.145.122.209 03:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- The IPs have been blocked, tell be if more come.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 04:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
This page is continually being redirected by an several anonymous users who are claiming that this area is part of Kissimmee Florida which it is not, Also when page is reverted by registered users and administrators the anonymous users then get violent and start to use foul language and typing in capitals. I would like to request full-protection for a period not to exceed 72 hours to prevent any further vandalism. Misterrick 01:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
A single anonymous user has been continually reverted links in the link section, causing an edit war of sorts. I am requesting semi-protection to prevent this anonymous user from continually vandalizing this page. Wizardry Dragon 00:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
Request full page protection for Joseph Sobran due to recent reignition of edit war. St. Jimmy 23:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Fully protected due to revert warring. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:31, 20 April 2006 (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.
Template:La
Sprotected after disruption by User:Rose-mary, editing as an anon. IP blocked, after personal threats. Sprotection is, with luck, therefore no longer needed. Septentrionalis 19:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
It's been locked for over a week. This page shouldn't be owned by any particular person. No other pages require locking for over a week to come to consensus. --Tbeatty 03:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- The people who caused the trouble (or some of them) are still posting to the talk page. It's a policy page and it has to be stable, so it'd be good if it could stay protected for a bit longer. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- The page actually isn't owned by any particular person, and in fact, there is a very strong consensus on the page (16 experienced and longstanding editors) for the current content. A small number of mostly inexperienced editors are objecting to current policy; for example, one has edited 3 articles but still insists he needs to re-write the NOR policy page. A second does little but attempt to modify existing content policies, having almost no experience editing the encyclopedia itself, yet posting endlessly to the Talk: pages; most experienced editors have adopted a policy of completely ignoring his comments, in the hopes that he will eventually desist, but the risk still remains of further attempts to significantly modify policies. A third has made under a dozen edits in total, and spends most of his time posting personal attacks in Talk:. Policy pages should remain stable, particularly fundamental content policy pages like this; given the intransigence of these inexperienced editors, there's no reason to unprotect yet. Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Policy pages aren't like encyclopedia articles; there should be a vastly smaller need for editors to "dabble" in editing policy pages. My personal view would be that it's premature to unprotect it now, but I speak as someone who has been involved in the dispute. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- If the consensus is that it should stay the way it is, why does it need to be locked? Every other article sustains itself by allowing consensus to edit the page. Are we really going to wait until no one wants it to change? Is the new Wikipedia standard that editing will be thwarted until they give up and leave? There is no experience requirements for editing plicy pages just as there is no Policy Page Cabal. Policy pages do not have to be more stable than any other pages. Policy pages should reach the same consensus as any other page. Please show me where it has been decided that policy pages get treated differently, from an editing standpoint, than any other page. The community, including new editors, decides policy. Not cabals. --Tbeatty 07:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- You're right of course -- the community decides policy. But there is a vastly larger bar to pass with policy pages. It's not enough to survey a handful of people that might be following a certain policy's talk page -- to make real changes to policies, the broader community must be surveyed. It is not a small undertaking. Unfortunately there are editors participating on these policy pages at present who seem to either not understand or not care about this very important distinction. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Really? What larger bar? Please tell me how Wikipeida Policy is somehow more important than articles about current political figures like the current and former presidents? It's silly on it's face. Please unlock the policy so that the community can decide. These are wikipedia rules, not religious doctrine. No one will be hurt if consensus is reached through edits and re-edits. If you really agree with me, unlock the page and end the cabal. And by the way, I believe the currently locked version is the most recent edition of policy, not the Consensus of the Community. --Tbeatty 23:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- You're right of course -- the community decides policy. But there is a vastly larger bar to pass with policy pages. It's not enough to survey a handful of people that might be following a certain policy's talk page -- to make real changes to policies, the broader community must be surveyed. It is not a small undertaking. Unfortunately there are editors participating on these policy pages at present who seem to either not understand or not care about this very important distinction. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- If the consensus is that it should stay the way it is, why does it need to be locked? Every other article sustains itself by allowing consensus to edit the page. Are we really going to wait until no one wants it to change? Is the new Wikipedia standard that editing will be thwarted until they give up and leave? There is no experience requirements for editing plicy pages just as there is no Policy Page Cabal. Policy pages do not have to be more stable than any other pages. Policy pages should reach the same consensus as any other page. Please show me where it has been decided that policy pages get treated differently, from an editing standpoint, than any other page. The community, including new editors, decides policy. Not cabals. --Tbeatty 07:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Policy pages aren't like encyclopedia articles; there should be a vastly smaller need for editors to "dabble" in editing policy pages. My personal view would be that it's premature to unprotect it now, but I speak as someone who has been involved in the dispute. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This talkpage was sprotected hours ago for unknown reasons without an Template:Tl tag. Vandals often go there to play, but many clueless newcomers go there to ask for help. Please either unprotect it or tag it properly so that visitors know what is going on. Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 22:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I added a tag to it, but it probably shouldn't remain sprotected for too long anyway. –Tifego(t) 23:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tifego, for adding the Template:Tl tag. -- 199.71.174.100 03:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
It appears that the majority of the troublemakers on this page have been blocked from editing. Protection is no longer necessary. St. Jimmy 21:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the troublemakers plural were actually the result of one troublemaker singular who was blocked for meatpuppetry, just to get a better idea. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Approved removing protection. Syrthiss 16:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
I'd like to request unprotection of Animal rights. I requested protection after {{{2|Mccready}}} (talk • contribs) rewrote the intro and added some questionable material, then reverted to retain it. I've since asked him several times to list his remaining objections, but I'm making no progress. My guess is that he'll start reverting again when it's unlocked, but as it can't stay protected forever, it would be appreciated if the admin who unlocks it also keeps an eye on it. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Two weeks has to be long enough, even though I'm not 100% happy with the discussion on the Talk page. Unprotected and watchlisted. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, ESkog. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:La
This page was unfairly deleted and 'protected'. First of all the original page contained info about the mod. It was deleted, so it was replaced with a much larger page with everything about the mod, more info, screens and everything, to match the pages of other mods, like Desert_Combat, that doesn't get deleted by the way. The first deletion was commented with lines as 'Death to Sweden'. That isn't appropiate for a site like this!
Now the page got deleted again, even though it should really bu up to standard since other editors have looked at it and seemed happy. But user Chairboy has decided to delete and protect this page now - why? Zarkow 13:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Zarkow
- If you would like to have this page undeleted, take it to Deletion review. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Current requests for significant edits to a protected page
Please demonstrate a good reason for an 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.
You may also add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change of some kind made, but note that most of these should simply wait for unprotection.