Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
This page is for requesting that a page or image be protected or unprotected.
See Wikipedia:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection. If you would like to request a page be protected; please list it (and the date) below, with the reason that it needs protecting.
Please remove pages once they have been protected; or once the requestee no longer wishes for them to have protected status.
This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.
Current requests
- Place new requests at the top.
Atheism
Please unprotect Atheism. The current protection has been on since Nov 8. According to the policy, pages may be protected temporarily upn request to enforce a cooling off period in an "edit war". It seems that 25 days should be cooling off enough. If the editors aren't "cool" by now, they are never going to be "cool". --BM 13:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've unprotected. Please use talk page before editing. If revert war returns I will reprotect. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 13:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Ummo
Please unprotect Ummo. anthony 警告 19:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I really think that pages being VfUed should be protected in blanked formats so as to not functionally simply be an undelete. All information needed to decide on its undeletion is in the page history. If you want to make a new version of the page as a case for restoration, you can use Ummo/Temp. Snowspinner 19:38, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think that sometimes the way to try to fix a problem is to go and try to fix it, and then let other smart people suggest ways of fixing your fix until you get the perfect solution. Kinda like the best way to write an encyclopedia article is to have one person take a stab at it and then let other smart people suggest and try ways of fixing the article until you get the perfect article. Snowspinner 20:10, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
- It works with Wikipedia articles because anyone can fix the article. Not everyone has admin powers. I've already suggested that we unprotect this page, because protected the page in an undesirable state is worse than having no page at all. But so far my suggestion seems to have been ignored. We've also already had a vote on whether or not non-admins should be allowed to view articles. Most people (I believe including you) voted that they should not. Had this passed, we could begin working on a solution which is much less kludgy. Kate has already written a script which could easily be modified to work for only certain articles. anthony 警告 21:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think there's a difference between allowing anyone to export an article and this, which is really just the short term ability to view an article during a debate on the article's future. I do still oppose blanket viewing of deleted articles. But I see this as a different issue in some key ways. Snowspinner 21:20, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that articles on VfU should be protected. Andre (talk) 21:38, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
- They certainly shouldn't be blanked first, and this shouldn't be on VfU in the first place. How about this. I'll take it off VfU, and you unprotect it. anthony 警告 23:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No reason to unprotect. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No reason to unprotect. The relevant policy says "If you wish to view a deleted article, list it here and say why. A sysop will provide the deleted article to you in some form." From the variety of means suggested, it is clear that it is not prescribing exactly how the sysop is to do this. It does not say that "the sysop shall undelete the page without editing it or protecting it." If the article were unprotected, what, exactly, would anthony 警告 do that he cannot do now? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No reason to protect! The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Protection policy. Protection "is only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful." This is not one of the reasons. What would I be able to do? I'd be able to edit the article, of course! anthony 警告 23:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Which you can do now at Ummo/Temp, currently still a redlink, and will be able to do in due course at Ummo within a few days, assuming a majority agrees with you. What's the urgency? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don't want to create a temp article, I want to edit this article. It's not so much a matter of urgency as convenience. Sure, I could write down the name of this article somewhere, wait a few days, and then fix it, but I don't want to have to do this for every single article listed on VfU. This is a terrible kludge invented to accomplish something that we already have code written to accomplish - allow the history to be viewed but keep the article out of the archives. anthony 警告 02:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Which you can do now at Ummo/Temp, currently still a redlink, and will be able to do in due course at Ummo within a few days, assuming a majority agrees with you. What's the urgency? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Unprotect. anthony 警告 16:09, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Reason? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- So that non-admins can edit it. anthony 警告 23:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- First of all, what do you need to edit? The vote is closed. I can't think of anything that anyone needs to change on there. Secondly, "This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page..." — Have disputes been resolved on the talk page? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I need to clarify the vote count. And there were no disputes in the first place. anthony 警告 02:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- This wasn't a dispute? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Not really. I suppose there was some disagreement as to the exact wording, but things were quickly converging on a compromise until someone came along and protected the page. anthony 警告 03:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I saw no evidence that you were willing to compromise with anyone on this, nor do your subsequent Talk: comments indicate any such compromise was in the offing. But since you were willing to compromise after all, and according to you there were no disputes, then obviously un-protecting is not required, since there is nothing you would wish to change at this point. Jayjg 03:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Pages without a good reason for protection should be left unprotected. Protected pages are considered harmful. anthony 警告 16:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It appears that there was a good reason for protection. And editors who make "provocative edits" on vote pages are also considered harmful. Jayjg 16:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Huh? anthony 警告 22:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- There's no reason to un-protect, since the vote is over, and there is good reason to protect that page, since you clearly intend to make provocative edits on it if it is un-protected. "The arbitration committee instructs Anthony to refrain from playing around and making provocative edits on VfD and associated pages." Jayjg 02:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The vote may be over, but there are still edits being made after the vote is over. As for your suggestion that the page should be protected because you don't like the edits I'm making, this needs to be resolved though the dispute resolution process, not by protecting the page from editing. I should note that this is not VfD nor an associated page. "Provocative" was a terrible choice of terminology made by the arbitration committee, and I don't think anyone has any clue what it is supposed to mean, but fortunately it doesn't apply outside the realm of VfD. anthony 警告 11:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- There's no reason to un-protect, since the vote is over, and there is good reason to protect that page, since you clearly intend to make provocative edits on it if it is un-protected. "The arbitration committee instructs Anthony to refrain from playing around and making provocative edits on VfD and associated pages." Jayjg 02:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Huh? anthony 警告 22:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It appears that there was a good reason for protection. And editors who make "provocative edits" on vote pages are also considered harmful. Jayjg 16:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Pages without a good reason for protection should be left unprotected. Protected pages are considered harmful. anthony 警告 16:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I saw no evidence that you were willing to compromise with anyone on this, nor do your subsequent Talk: comments indicate any such compromise was in the offing. But since you were willing to compromise after all, and according to you there were no disputes, then obviously un-protecting is not required, since there is nothing you would wish to change at this point. Jayjg 03:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Not really. I suppose there was some disagreement as to the exact wording, but things were quickly converging on a compromise until someone came along and protected the page. anthony 警告 03:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- This wasn't a dispute? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I need to clarify the vote count. And there were no disputes in the first place. anthony 警告 02:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- First of all, what do you need to edit? The vote is closed. I can't think of anything that anyone needs to change on there. Secondly, "This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page..." — Have disputes been resolved on the talk page? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- So that non-admins can edit it. anthony 警告 23:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Protect Charter of the French Language
Subject to an ongoing revert war. The author of this page is reverting referenced edits on opposition to the French Language Charter. He insists that the opposition is not rational, whereas I contend that I am reporting that the opposition exists, not on whether it is rational. The talk page contains the account of our dispute.
- Note: The above was contributed by Richardvdf.
- You don't seriously expect us to sort through all the stuff on the talk page, do you? Brianjd
- I am the "author of this page" (not really, but I am the one who contributed the most information to it so far.) As I have stated in the talk page and contrary to Richardvf's claim, I do not object to an entry stating that opposition to the Charter exists. This subject will inevitable have to be covered in full, as will many other subjects related to the Charter and the precariousness of Quebec French. I objected to the paragraph he entered because it contains a logical fallacy in almost every sentence. I have attempted to make it clear that I removed it because I couldn't find a way to integrate this entry into the article. I have later stated that I thought that if really "it" had to be in, it would have to be fixed so as to be a lot less biased and logically be inserted inside Office québécois de la langue française and not Charter of the French Language. In fact, there is already the beginning of something related to that subject in the OLF article. -- Mathieugp 05:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Unprotect Template:Categorybrowsebar
This was vandalised exactly once, and the vandalism was reverted within minutes. Then it was protected, in violation of the policy that protection should be a last resort for use in cases of persistent vandalism. (One instance of vandalism is not persistent vandalism.) Please unprotect. —AlanBarrett 08:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no reason that this ever needs to be unprotected. It is a main page template, and I don't see any reason most users would need to edit it. If a change needs to be made, it's easy enough for one of our 300+ admins to make it. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- We should err on the side of not protecting, considering the purpose of Wikipedia. Brianjd 08:41, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
- Concur with
BlankfaceBlankfaze. There is no reason to err in this case. Keep protected. Ambi 08:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)- OK AMBI. Come ON now, surely that wasn't a typo. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Eep. My apologies. Ambi
- Why should we say that only a certain group of people are able to edit part of this project when there has been no persistent vandalism? Isn't that something we try to avoid on wikis? Brianjd
- Of course it is, Brian... however, as Wikipedia gains a higher and higher profile we need to maintain a certain degree of professionalism. This template is at the top of our Main Page - even if someone came along and vandalised it and it was reverted a minute or two later - that's still enough time for someone to see it like that – which is something I don't want. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- They can vandalise other templates that appear on the main page, and with more admins we are more likely to have them vandalising as well. With only one past occurence of vandalism I think we should allow everyone to make worthy contributions to this part and as much of this project as possible. Brianjd
- I agree with Blankfaze -- there are parts of the site, like the front page, that should never be vandalizable. I can think of very little that should happen to the templates that compose the most basic parts of the site that would be beneficial to change by random users. --Improv 09:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Concur with Blankfaze. This template seldom needs revision and is high-pofile enough to merit protection. Cool Hand Luke 10:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Of course it is, Brian... however, as Wikipedia gains a higher and higher profile we need to maintain a certain degree of professionalism. This template is at the top of our Main Page - even if someone came along and vandalised it and it was reverted a minute or two later - that's still enough time for someone to see it like that – which is something I don't want. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- OK AMBI. Come ON now, surely that wasn't a typo. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It should be protected for all of the reasons cited. An intermediary step like only allowing logged in users, (or controversially logged in users with some positive history) to modify certain pages would be helpful. Anarchy gives way to rules, hopefully a minimum of rules, but rules nonetheless. However changing the main page especially should not be anonymous. dml 13:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Logged in users are more anonymous than IP-only editors. silsor 20:19, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)