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 03:39, 21 February 2006 (→{{la|Nazism in relation to other concepts}}: 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.

Request protected redirection to Nazism. The material on Nazism in relation to other concepts has been broken up into topical parts and moved or merged to others pages; and the page Nazism in relation to other concepts (disambiguation) has been deleted with my blessing. The suggestion from the deletion discussion was to rely on the Nazism Template. Be aware that the intent is to notice this page for deletion aftre a week or so after links redirects are fixed. One user has been reverting months old text which simply creates large blocks of almost identical text on multiple pages: Fascism and ideology, Nazism and religion, and a stub, Nazism and race, as well as Fascism. The dispute discussion most recently is at: Talk:Fascism_and_ideology#Nazism_and_socialism; but this particular editor has been engaged in similar activity over the issue of Nazism and socialism for many months.--Cberlet 03:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky. WP:PPol demands that admins not make edtorial choices when they protect, nor during protection save to remove vandalism or act in accord with a talk page consensus. This sounds like a request by one user for a particular (yet to be) version of the article to protected in a preferred state. I don't think I feel comfortable granting that. If it's just needing link redirects (?) fixing, I'm not sure why protection is needed. Also note that protection will not stop the other user from retrieving the material from the history and taking it anywhere they like. -Splashtalk 03:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well...this seems to be a serious revert war...and the redirect goes nowhere (nonexistant disambig page?). Redirecting to nowhere is not much better than blanking. Lets see...wait...[1]...looks like an AfD removed the disambig page. Either way, perhaps people will talk now instead of just reverting.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protected due to nast edit war. Maybe an admin should keep an eye on thins at the talk page too.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, what? The page hasn't been edited in days. -Splashtalk 03:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been blanked out and moved multiple times, wildly edited, and the name changed multiple times, presumably to POV titles which removed the word 'torture'. A number of users (seven or so?), so far unanimously, have voted for the current title and protection from blanking and moving. I did not propose the protection, but supported it, but apparently a sysop said all requests for protection need to be made here, so here it is.--Firsfron 02:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected due to edit war.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was protected about a week ago, I think it's safe to unprotect it now.TheRingess 01:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected by user:Commander Keane.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 02:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Protected.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 20:06, 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]
I'm just wondering why nobody has even replied to my request. Deskana (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can do it without needing protection, that'd be better. Given the message from KHM03 above, perhaps we should hold this request temporarily to see if discussion happens without the need for protection. -Splashtalk 23:25, 20 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]

I requested the protection because of edit warring during a deletion debate. The debate is now over and productive discussions seem to have taken place, so I think it's time to unprotect, so I endorse this request. As I'm involved (as Cool Cat's mentor) I shan't be unprotecting it myself. --Tony Sidaway 03:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -Splashtalk 03:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=40515915"