Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Go for it! (talk | contribs)
9,531 edits
false alarm - sorry 'bout that, I somehow got logged off and didn't realize it. The page is semiprotected and that's fine.
Line 134: Line 134:


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -->
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -->
=== {{article|Jonathan Sarfati}} ===

After an informal RfC, attempts were being made to follow the suggestions. The were rolled back multiple times to what the admin in question called a 'consensus version' (if you check history, this is a common comment against any revision attempt to bring the article to NPOV). As the article stands in protection, it reflects ''libel'' (and against policy, as the subject of the article is living) in unsupported allegations in the 'Scientist?' section, does not address '''any''' of the points made in the iRfC, and reintroduces ''neutral'' errors into the text to the confusion of both sides of the debated issues. Requesting unprotect so that editors interested in meeting the iRfC points, and correcting the neutral issues that both 'sides' agree upon, can edit the article to include that information. 04:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


=== {{article|User_talk:EdHalstram}} ===
=== {{article|User_talk:EdHalstram}} ===
I have cooled down since my fight to keep the [[Quibbly]] article alive, and I would like to be able to edit my own talk page; I feel as if I am being treated like a second-class Wikipedian. [[User:EdHalstram|EdHalstram]] 02:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I have cooled down since my fight to keep the [[Quibbly]] article alive, and I would like to be able to edit my own talk page; I feel as if I am being treated like a second-class Wikipedian. [[User:EdHalstram|EdHalstram]] 02:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:15, 10 February 2006

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.

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, then use {{Ln|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} instead. If the page in question is a talk page, use {{Lnt|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} (or {{Lat|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} if the page in question is an article).

Please help! Our featured article is getting vandalized like crazy! Semi-protect, please!--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:29, 10 February 2006

It's getting hit by a whole bunch of ip addresses. Please Semi. --waffle iron 01:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valentines day is fast approaching, its already a constant battle against linkspam, and honestly it'll only get worse. Requesting semi-protection, that should cut down on the spam significantly. Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 01:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are a school and students are vandalising the page. As this involved under age students, as an administrator there, I would like to protect or semi-protect the page.

Not nearly enough activity to warrant protection. howcheng {chat} 21:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost daily vandalism occurs on this page. Requesting semi-protection to prevent anonymous users from vandalising it on a regular basis. ---moyogo 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough to warrant protection, though. RC patrol and CVU should be able to handle this. howcheng {chat} 20:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Basil Rathbone has now moved to this article. I have added a protect tag already to forestall a repeat of the same type of actions on this article as on Freemasonry by the same user, as noted below, but it is only a pseudo-deterrent, as I am not an admin, so it doesn't really do anything to the editability of the page. MSJapan 17:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Rathbone has only made one edit, so this is premature. Also, please do not add the {protected} tag yourself. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 20:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Basil Rathbone is making extremely offensive edits without discussing them first. Ardenn 16:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection; daily vandalism from the same vandal posting nonsense since Feb 7. Vandal has been warned and blocked - but attack again with different IP. --Hurricane111 15:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I tried something a little different here. I deleted the article and restored it to November 8, leaving all the vandal edits out. Given that, in order to vandalize it again, s/he'll have to retype the whole thing and hopefully s/he'll feel it's not worth the effort. howcheng {chat} 21:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like unprotection of this page was premature, as the edit war resumed. Pecher Talk 08:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this alone for now. Your last edit seems to indicate that at least some consensus is being reached. howcheng {chat} 21:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone thinks so, as you can see. Pecher Talk 22:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like unprotection of this page was premature, as the edit war resumed. Pecher Talk 08:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll let this one go for now. You've offered a compromise version and there seems to be some discussion going on, so let's see if you guys can't work it out without protection. howcheng {chat} 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, at this point, protection would probably be a preemptive one. My prediction, though, is that edit peace will last only until Farhansher sees the changes. He managed to do two reverts in several minutes without saying a word on the talk page. The same is true for Infidel. Pecher Talk 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection; multiple daily instances of vandalism from random IPs. This page has a long history of this issue. Semiprotect was added a couple of weeks ago, then immediately removed by another admin. Nothing was solved. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 03:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it just isn't persistant enough. 2-3 vandal edits a day with some 0 edit days just isn't enough. Has to be heavy and current. Not heavy enough. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a typical request for protection. I would like to request page protection for Wikipedia/Stable (38860953) and Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr./Stable (38861785) as an experiment of Wikipedia:Stable versions. In any case, I think it can be protected on the following grounds:

  • Protecting a high-profile page from vandalism
  • Maintaining the integrity of press releases
  • Protecting certain "system administration" pages

Except that it may not satisfy:

  • Protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version

-- Zondor 03:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to say no but will keep this here for others to chime in. It's "stable" but it could be changed just like any other article. The problem I have with protecting these is that it's assuming vandalism. It's pre-emptive. "High profile". Well I'm not sure about that either. People will see Wikipedia, not Wikipedia/Stable. It's my experience that subpages aren't seen by many people. So I'd say no but again, I'll let others chime in. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really pre-emptive because any "improvement" is vandalism - it's standards are much, much, much higher than any typical article. Improvement edits are gated reached by consensus. Edits must be verified for editorial validation. Being bold does not apply as stable versions is a different beast. It is anti-wiki because it is not a wiki. Perhaps, its not high profile or high traffic as yet. A prominent link from Wikipedia to Wikipedia/Stable would be there, though. -- Zondor 09:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still pre-emptive. If it starts getting hit, let us know. Otherwise, even if it shouldn't be edited (and I'm not convinced of that), we shouldn't protect articles because vandalism might occur. It's just a bad precedent no matter what the circumstances. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Some anon keeps on adding the words "Armenian traitors" into it. Semi-protection please! --Khoikhoi 01:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Semi protection is needed here, that anon has being going at thing for days. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 01:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main culprit (Erdalfirinci) has been blocked for vandalism, so maybe that will calm things down. howcheng {chat} 07:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi protection. Some fans (anonymous users) are changing the sales numbers and certifications nearly every day. --Red-Blue-White 22:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline but I'd say no for now. Just not enough. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the publication (see wikinews:French satirical weekly reprints caricatures) of the controversial Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons in this newspaper, this article is constantly blanked and defaced. --Marc Lacoste 22:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the main culprit for 24 hours. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of a recent YTMND.com page, it has become the target of repeated vandalism nearly every 15 minutes. --GunMetal 20:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected. howcheng {chat} 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constant reverts for days. Needs protection. Zeq 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected yet again. howcheng {chat} 21:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. it's borderline and Zeq is not supposed to be involved in any shape or form with this article. I'll let it go for a couple of days, but honestly, I would've said no. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize there was an ArbCom case here, but now that I've seen it, Zeq is only prohibited from editing the article, which he hasn't done. Looks like others have carried on in his and Ian Pitchford's stead. howcheng {chat} 07:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been the subject of an ongoing revert war for about a month now. Please protect it so people can start discussing things. --Khoikhoi 05:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I hate to get into the middle of another dispute between you and Inanna, it's protected. howcheng {chat} 18:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for unprotection

After an informal RfC, attempts were being made to follow the suggestions. The were rolled back multiple times to what the admin in question called a 'consensus version' (if you check history, this is a common comment against any revision attempt to bring the article to NPOV). As the article stands in protection, it reflects libel (and against policy, as the subject of the article is living) in unsupported allegations in the 'Scientist?' section, does not address any of the points made in the iRfC, and reintroduces neutral errors into the text to the confusion of both sides of the debated issues. Requesting unprotect so that editors interested in meeting the iRfC points, and correcting the neutral issues that both 'sides' agree upon, can edit the article to include that information. 04:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


I have cooled down since my fight to keep the Quibbly article alive, and I would like to be able to edit my own talk page; I feel as if I am being treated like a second-class Wikipedian. EdHalstram 02:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that in this heated socio-political environment that there are probably difficulties with vandalism upon this subject. However, 1) There are a number of ways of dealing with this, other than what could be seen as soft-censorship. 2) Is it not a right or a neccessity for people who are affected by a subject to elucidate it in a manner that -while being non-partisan/non-biased-, may contain facts that may be considered (by some) BOTH "subjective" AND pertinant? In a democracy, most especially here, in Wikimedia, something which is tantamount to 'the people's encyclopedia', must it not be allowable in these most pressing subjects for sober, backed-up, facts that are currently outside of the information radius to be given the oppourtunity to be known? re: 1) - a) could not vigilance on this one, possibly one of the most important, subjects, be extended, so that any edits are checked before publishing? b) could not a simple computerscript flag edits that have keywords/keyphrases that are by consensus agreement, biased or vandalism? Without the ability to edit, in truth, compose the truth about a matter- it is for all purposes, being censored. Here, in what I thought was the most democratic of informational databases on the Earth, I am finding what I honestly feel to be an undemocratic compliance with a biased viewpoint. For, if one can not expand, clarify, or add to the information- how can it be said to be "free" in any sense but financially? Please take this into consideration. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It's unfortunate, but George W. Bush is the biggest vandal-magnet we have and the vast vast vast majority of vandals are not logged in. Vandalism on this article tends to be of the juvenile, "impulse" type. All you have to do is create a user account and wait a few days and you will be able to edit it and really, you're even more anonymous with a user account than without because IP addresses of registered users are kept secret (only a select few have access to them). Nothing is being censored here. howcheng {chat} 21:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As we've said recently, the entire SP policy was made because of GWB. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unnecessary protect by RexNl after a few edits back and forth (hardly an edit war). No reason and we're working it out with each edit. Just jumped in, protected adn then threatened block for 3RR when I never blindly reverted, but was constantly adding to the edits and explaingit hem throughly in the edit summary (which is why they are there). Please unprotect right away as the admin only made it worse. Thanks.Gator (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In oterh words, you don;t protect an artcile when ever there is any dipsute as to content. This was REALLY minor and uncalled for. I have already found a good cite adn am ready to put it in. Please unportect.Gator (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. howcheng {chat}

Template:Main article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Main articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is no need for these to be protected. Radiant! locked these for "high use", but they are on so very few articles (couple hundred) compared to the real high-use templates. on Wikipedia talk:High-risk templates, we're even discussing putting a rough threshold of 5000 usages on what's considered high-use enough to think about protecting, which Radiant! also agrees with. He's left, these are very low-use, so please unprotect. -- Netoholic @ 08:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page was protected seven days ago. I arrived as a mediator to try to get people to agree on things on the talk page. After seven days, no conclusion is in sight, and the number of people getting involved is increasing. However, I believe it would be a good idea to unprotect the page and allow people to edit it again. I believe that people will now be able to obey 3RR and everyone has ended up being very civil.

I don't see talk page discussion as resolving things, and the page cannot be protected forever. Let's see what happens. Sdedeo (tips) 00:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. howcheng {chat} 21:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not temporarily protected for any of the reasons at Protected. Not a Wikipedia:List of indefinitely protected pages. No discussion in MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning regarding this page being protected. -O^O

Can you explain why you want to unprotect it? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So that I can edit it. -O^O
All pages in the MediaWiki namespace are protected automatically because they are a direct part of the site interface, and thus should not be messed about with casually. This especially should remain protected for legal reasons.--Sean Black (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I now see that my original post was in error. Wikipedia:List of indefinitely protected pages does reference the entire MediaWiki namespace. -O^O

Protected since October, without discussion. It's also showing some nonsense about dopamine (at least in my browser) instead of the proper Template:Disambig text, unprotecting might fix it. Wkdewey 16:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. I don't see any text about dopamine though. I suggest you check your computer for spyware if that's what you're seeing. howcheng {chat} 18:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The text I saw was from here (a newbie test on the template that had been reverted days ago )[1]. The article looks fine now. Wkdewey 20:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion of issues, turned into chatr room.Harrypotter 15:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem I have is that if we unprotect, they are likely to do the same thing on the article page. Let's hold off for another day or two. maybe your comments on the talk page will get people on point again. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No talk in Discussion for a week.--Mike18xx 10:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inquired on talk page. howcheng {chat} 18:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected. howcheng {chat} 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No talk in Discussion for over half a week, and no appearance in Discussion by any "protected"-version supporters for over a week.--Mike18xx 10:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inquired on talk page. howcheng {chat} 18:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected. howcheng {chat} 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No talk in Discussion for a week.--Mike18xx 10:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inquired on talk page. howcheng {chat} 18:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be any objection, so it's unprotected now. howcheng {chat} 21:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

86.129.74.148 15:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Despite no evidence whatsoever of an vandalism Gregory Lauder-Frost and the Conservative Monday Club have blocks on them against ALL anonymous users. However this is supposed to be one of the great strengths of Wikipedia - that anyone can edit. Can this be examined independently please. I am of the opinion that these pages are being watched an manipuated byUsers with a political agenda. I have commented on Gregory Lauder-Frost's Talk page.[reply]

The protection log for both of these article states that SP is necessary to enforce Arbcom ruling on two anon IPs, Robert I and articles related to GLF, although I'm can't find the ArbCom ruling anywhere myself (I'm probably just looking in the wrong place). I would suggest you talk to User:Homeontherange for more details, as that's who protected those two articles. It's a little unfortunate that the template specifically refers to vandalism when there may not be any in this case. howcheng {chat} 21:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_I specifically Gregory Lauder-Frost[2] and Use of anonymous ips and sockpuppets by Robert I[here ] located under "Findings of fact" and the Remedies at the bottom of the page. Homey 00:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overzealous semi protection. This page gets vandalized rather infrequently. There isn't really a need for it. ccwaters 01:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=39021016"