Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aaron Schulz (talk | contribs) at 18:19, 3 March 2006 (→{{la|Terry Bogard}}: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be fully 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.

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests lists current protection edit requests.

How to list page

Note: Always use === headings. Do not use ; or : or ==.

Namespace Link to page Link to talk page
Generic {{ln|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} {{lnt|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}}
Article {{la|ARTICLE}} {{lat|ARTICLE}}
Template {{lt|TEMPLATE}} {{ltt|TEMPLATE}}
Wikipedia {{lw|PAGE}} {{lwt|PAGE}}
User {{lu|PAGE}} {{lut|PAGE}}
Category {{lc|PAGE}} {{lct|PAGE}}
Image {{li|IMAGE}} {{lit|IMAGE}}

Current requests for protection

Despite unanimous discusson on the talkpage, the anonymous editor has resumed the insertion of biased and misled information. This is his first violation today. If he persists I shall return with an update. Basically we have a lot of work to complete around here and we don't need any nonsense. I'll stand by and await furthur developments. I am quite disappointed at this editors persistant behavior.-ZeroTalk 10:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the editor for 2 days.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 18:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war, continual insertion of POV and obscenity. I don't want to violate 3RR. - Jaysus Chris 10:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is protected, can the admin make sure the POV tag has not been deleted again? Thanks. - Jaysus Chris 10:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring, vandalism, reverts that keep inserting 10 000 decimal digits despite consensus that 50 digits is enough (I'd recommend 100 digits personally). Papeschr 07:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected dut to heavy IP vandals.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 07:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you, that was fast! {{template::-)}} ~ ~ Papeschr 07:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page was protected before, but Phroziac unprotected it. Since then, the page has been vandalized a couple of times, and Larry has requested protection again. It's in Larry's user space, and since he's no longer active enough to keep an eye on it himself, I think protection is probably a good alternative. No one else has any business editing it. --TantalumTelluride 05:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough vandalism. I don't see much of a reason to lock for now.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 07:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring involving removal of an infobox. This is against consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected due to edit war.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 07:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move, keeps being moved. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 07:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi: On The Colbert Report, guest Arianna Huffington said that according to Wikipedia Truthiness was popularized but not invented by Steven Colbert. Colbert responded with the bleeped response "fuck Wikipedia." After that it started getting hit a lot of anons. --waffle iron 03:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 07:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several anonymous IPs are making repeated vandalism on the IGN article. Since its coming from so many users I'm guessing that its being done by board members on IGN. I am requesting semi-protection on the article. Jedi6 01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Splashtalk 01:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get this full protected. The vandals are now making Usernames and vandalizing. Jedi6 02:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was a technical glitch, which I think I already fixed. -Splashtalk 03:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I requested semi protection for this article earlier this week and was denied. What gives? NEMT 04:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous IP (70.181.139.64) repeatedly changes 1988 as the recording and release date for the Bad Religion album Suffer. The IP appears to be misunderstanding that their official website says it came out in 1987 and thinks that the website may be inaccurate and have the wrong information, then continues to reverting both of the dates as well. If any one of you adminstrators wish or could protect this article, please do so! Thanks. Alex 101 01:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full protected. This is (unusually) a dispute over the facts of the matter. Please take the protection time-out to establish one way or the other — an assumption of good-faith on the basis of the anon's edit summaries suggests there is easily grounds for confusion here. -Splashtalk 01:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of non-member users have been involved in an edit war during which they constantly revert the article to include POV opinions. Thus was happening as recently as this morning, though I do not know if any changes have been made since my last revert. I slapped a "Protected" tag on the article, though I wasn't fully aware of the procedures until a kindly admin pointed it out to me.

I would strongly suggest that the article is monitored and, if necessary, semi-protected until the problem can be resolved. (reading further I notice the phrase "watchlisted" - perhaps that would be appropriate in this case). Thanks. --Mal 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would have justified semi-protection at the time. Right at the moment, it's been quiet for nearly 24 hours. So let's hold off and see if they've gotten bored. -Splashtalk 01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a town in Co. Wicklow, Ireland.

Background: Currently, a major development is being planned in the town which many feel is too big etc. Groups have been formed against the development.

Problem: Almost daily, seriously POV edits are being made which often are accompanied by vandalism, bad jokes, etc, etc. Generally the edits are small and obviously biased, but take away from what is a generally OK article.

Action: I would recommend semi-protection because nearly all vandalism and biased edits come from anonymous editors. I realise that the amount of vandalism (1 a day or so) is less than usually needed for semi-protection but this could continue for the next year or so as the development is still being discussed.

Thanks a lot in advance (first time doing this) --Stepheno 23:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've simply watchlisted for now.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 23:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this page was created, it has been targeted by vandals who make prejudiced remarks, use the page to leave messages for each other, and often write inane jibberish. Acts of vandalism and reverts outnumber constructive edits almost 25 to 1. It seems likely that the vandals are students of the school themselves. This page needs to be protected immediately. Jagvar 21:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 21:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.158.81.251 and User:64.88.21.21 are committing repeated acts of vandalism. Over 50 acts of vandalism in the past two hours to this point, and they have been listed as vandalizing numerous times in the past couple of weeks. Please help. --Kitch 18:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Insane amounts of vandalism. Probably kids. Semiprotected for now. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is under constant attack from vandals. I count 14 different vandals in the recent couple of weeks. I would propose Semi-protection as it is always anon's that vandalise. -Localzuk (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough vandalism for semiprotection. Just revert, as annoying as it is. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been vandalized by IP-users MANY times. I just reverted 9 edits by two different IP-addresses some minutes ago. As I see no vandalizing contributions by reged users and at the sime time no constructive contributions by IP-users, I think this page should definatly be semi-protected. --BSI 10:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isolated cases so far. Several vandalistic edits in a row do not chronic vandalism make. I will check back later though. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 explaination of what you want to add to the page.

PLease unprotect the above page Adam88 08:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since protection is the only thing stopping the edit war (that you were involved in)...then no. Please try to resolve this on talk. Likely the redirect should stay anyway.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 08:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually seen any vandalism on this page for at least a fortnight so I'm querying why SlimVirgin has protected it now (and why it wasn't protected at the time vandalism was going on?)

Then you can't have looked carefully. Someone was blanking the article and replacing it with a SPEAK protest, so it was semi-protected. Unprotected now. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kriya yoga

Users have been adding voluminous content to this and Mahavatar Babaji page to promote their spiritual teacher, Guru Siddhanath. They have a very strong POV on these postings. Their postings are not being entirely removed - only reduced to the appropriate size and section. They are essentially objecting to the fact that they cannont dominate the page with references to their Guru. Further, Hamsahacharya Dan, a teacher of this lineage, claims "the knowledge of the Nath lords is constantly being edited out by someone biased - there is no reason for this, as this knowledge is widely held throughout the world by various scholars." There is no 'widely held' view that the Nath lords teach the Kriya yoga that is mentioned here. Arguably, the existence of the Nath lords is 'widely held', but not their teaching of the same Kriya Yoga that is on the Kriya yoga page. Please also see Discussion page for Mahavatar Babaji for discussion of the Siddhanath group attempting to flood these pages with their personal, but not 'widely held' beliefs. And review past Babaji pages to see examples of their lengthy postings.

Priyanath 21:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath[reply]

This page isn't protected. Once again, someone has placed a protect tag on an article who doesn't have the ability to actually protect it. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ruckman

User Arbusto / Arbustoo is determined to undermine the value of what is clearly a legitimate reference point by any objective standard. His/her "edits" are frivolous, inconsistent, and based on pretended standards of writing (not to mention his/her very poor use of the language). The only person the page needs to be protected from is Arbusto / Arbustoo. To be fair, Arbusto/Arbustoo has one general line of defense: corrections of his edits are mean. User:GlimmTwin

It's semiprotected. If you want to edit it, get an account. If you have an account but still can't edit it, just wait a few days. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting edit[1], which was signed by GlimmTwin yet the editor was PSRuckman. Funny how the editor's user name is PSRuckman and the article is about a P.S. Ruckman too. Arbusto 11:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Outside view here: Arbusto's edits may not have been the highest-quality edits ever seen on Wikipedia, but they weren't disruptive or vandalism, and they weren't that terrible even from a language point of view. On the other hand, the complainant here, who edits anonymously, as PSRuckman and under the GlimmTwin sobriquet, has a serious case of WP:OWN going on, and has reacted angrily, condescendingly, sarcastically and with a unique fixation on Arbusto's edits to "his" pages (which are about his father, grandfather and great-great-grandfather as far as I can tell). Check out his antics in AfD to see evidence. He is a classic bad actor and needs to step back, learn about Wikipedia, and re-evaluate whether he wants to contribute to it. Semi-protection so that he has some accountability is exactly what is called for here. · rodii · 16:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:DragonWR12LB (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has protected material taken from my User Talk page, in violation of specific request that he not reprint from my page. I wish the material taken from my User Talk page, which I have deleted from my own page, deleted from this page.

Davidkevin 08:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material removed, dispute resolved as far as I am concerned.
Davidkevin 09:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page isn't protected. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user page has been protected since 3 February 2005. I think the vandal has gone away by now... --Khoikhoi 05:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected be user:Ryan Delaney.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why this page was protected in the first place, as the only reason would be to prevent further guesses, and I don't see how the protection policy would justify this. Now that the millionth article milestone has been passed, the protection doesn't really have any use at all. --Constantine Evans 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pool was closed and all new edits are moot regargless, so they just protect to prevent guessing, as you said. On the one hand I see little reason to edit, but on the other, I see little reason to protect. I would leave it for now...maybe we can unprotected in a few days, as most archived pages/AfDs are not protected.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 02:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The games ended Sunday, so it should be ok to unsemi. --waffle iron 00:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Jkelly 02:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no edit war and there is no discussion about the protection. Most of the comments point to the direction of leaving things as they are now. --giandrea 19:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war over this will have calmed at this point, as well the publicity. The discussion section was clearly largely contributed to by the initial editors, who as clearly were not experienced wikipedians - see the format of the discussion page. Those of us who are both experienced Wikipedia editors and Second Life users should have the chance to improve this article, or merge it into Second Life, rather than leaving it in its current incomplete, unimproved form.
Xinoph | TALK 17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Unprotected. Hopefully things have calmed down.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 22:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After several long rounds of discussion and voting, I believe that we are ready to move on. I humbly suggest that the Jesus article be unprotected. Arch O. La 18:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for edits to a protected page

Please demonstrate solid consensus for having an edit protected, such as giving a link to a talk page where a consensus was established for the proposed version, or where consensus that the current, protected, version contains highly questionable (per WP:V) or baised (per WP:NPOV) statements that should be removed.

Consider simply requesting that {{verifiy}}, {{Disputed}} or {{NPOV}} tags be added to the article's last state after being protected.

No article can be protected indefinetely, so an RfC or aribitration request may be required for a permanent solution.

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, simply add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explaination of what you want to add to the page.

unprotect request

PLease unprotect the pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_Groups Thanks, Adam88 08:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=42081049"