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 20:03, 20 February 2006 (→{{la|Byte (magazine)}}: 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 link to 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

Please place new requests at the top, and use suitable link from prevoius section.

Full Protection. There has been an edit war which turned into a deletion war which is back to an edit war of disputed content. This has been going on for near a month. The difference in the edits is about 3/4 of the content of the site. Requested for mediation, and a protection would help. Sbloemeke 19:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection. Move war between BYTE and Byte (magazine) with at least one user refusing to discuss on the talk page. Nohat 19:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected from moves due to edit war.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 20:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection. An anon ip user continues to insert false information that has been proved incorrect regarding this subject's age and to place their own negative point of view and non sourced information in the article despite my warnings not to do so. Arniep 15:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected. A dispute over facts can't very well be vandalism, even if the tenor (pun!) of the anon's edits are really very poor in other regards. I've read the external website linked from talk, and this gives me the distinct impression that there is some dispute about the birthdate in places other than Wikipedia. I would suggest, therefore, that you craft a phrasing of the article that acknowledges the difficulties in this regard, rather than trying to make the article reach a conclusion of its own as to the worth (or otherwise) of alternative birthdates. -Splashtalk 16:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection. Revert war has been going on, which has been temporarily stopped due to one user observing the three revert rule, however the edit war is likely to continue when 3RR no longer covers the editors. Deskana (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hopeful we can reach a resolution on the talk page, but if the administrators feel that protection is in order, I'll certainly respect that. KHM03 13:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection. Revert war between two users. Please make it stop! --Khoikhoi 08:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected. --Khoikhoi 08:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Revert war that has been going on for weeks. --Khoikhoi 05:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Khoikhoi 05:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a revert war or vandalism? If it's a revert war, it has to be full. No way around it, no matter who is doing it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The request here even describes it as a revert war. I have increased this to full protection. Voice of All, please don't use semi-protection to specifically exclude anons from disputes. The Ed, Edd things further down has the same problem, and should have been fully protected. Anons can dispute in good-faith, just as well as logged in editors. -Splashtalk 13:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Semi-protect please.) This page is frequently infested with petty childish quibbling between members of rival groups, dating back to the time when this page was a section in Newgrounds. Please see talk page for discussion. --Billpg 20:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 04:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Seems to be a lot of content warring here. The article has been nominated for deletion and one side is busily paring it down to a dicdef while the other is trying to restore information likely to make it more encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway 05:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oi. Dislike when people try to influence AfD voters like that. Protected. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please restore the "disputed" tag? We are still conferencing on the talk page.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anonymous users keep adding wave after wave of fancruft, very minor details on episodes of the cartoon even when users revert the page. semi-protection wanted. --Phil 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've semied it for now. In two days or so, hopefully the IPs adding cruft will go away. Still, it is not that bad, as far as reverting goes. There are many different IPs though...so a quicky semi-pro might do the trick.Voice_of_AllT|@|ESP 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure this amounts to vandalism? -Splashtalk 16:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since they're almost certainly acting in good faith, no it doesn't.--Sean Black (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for unprotection

Discussion here and here seems to have come to a consensus. --nihon 08:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=40468912"