Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.html |
| | | ca | | | de | | | en | | | es | | | fr | | | it | | | nl | | | no | | | pl | | | pt | | | ru | | | ro | | | fi | | | sv | | | tr | | | vo | | |
| |  |
|
| Requests for page protection | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be fully protected, semi-protected, move-protected or unprotected. Please read up on the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection is usually used only to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. After a page has been protected, the protection is listed in the page history and logs with a short description indicating why it was protected, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins do not revert back to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.
If you would like to request a page to be protected or unprotected, please follow the following steps:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Example
===={{la|Intentionally permanent red link}}====
'''semi-protect'''. High level of IP vandalism. ~~~~
Current requests for protection
Place requests for either semi-protection, full protection, move protection, or create protection at the TOP of this section. Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Chasingsol(talk) 10:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Temporary full protection vandalism, lots of vandalism.Killa Koz (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. It's hardly been vandalized at all lately. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
temporary semi-protection Repeated vandalism by IPs and new users who appear to be attending this school. Cunard (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of ten days. After ten days the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/65.9.38.161 using multiple IPs to evade block and re-add same spam..Mfield (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Already done - Protected by Prodego for six hours, if my math is to be trusted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protection: A lot of unconstructive edits have been made to the article as of late. -- Luke4545 (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 08:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, They just won the championship and there has already been some vandalism.~Richmond96 t • c 05:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for three days. Tan | 39 05:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protection - an anon keeps coming in and deleting content from the citation templates, and then adding unsourced information to the article. I have repeatedly warned them not to delete information, but they are changing IPs every few hours. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for three days. Watch the edit warring yourself, Bignole. Also, seems silly to wikify the date. Tan | 39 05:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
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 explanation of what you want to add to the page. See the list of current {{Editprotected}} requests.
If you do want a page that exists unprotected, please try to ask the protecting admin first before making a request here.
Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Article has been protected since November 11, 2007 with little activity. AP1787 (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
- When making requests here, either:
- Provide a good reason for a substantial edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. Please link to the talk page where consensus was reached.
- Demonstrate that there is a clear dispute over a protected page, and that a specific dispute tag would be appropriate to add. Please link to the talk page where the dispute exists.
Note: Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add {{Editprotected}}, {{Editsemiprotected}} or {{Request edit}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change rather than requesting it here, though most of these should simply wait for unprotection.
See also:
I know this page has been deleted on multiple occasions. There's obviously a reason for that. Here is why I hope it can be recreated as a redirect to Wikipedia:Template messages. When using Special:Export for common templates and then importing the pages into a different wiki, the links end up coming through as Wikipedia:Template messages instead of w:Wikipedia:Template messages. When people on the other wiki click the link, they end up at Template messages (a deleted page) that is completely useless to them. While Wikipedia itself should be the primary driver of what content ends up in which namespace, it's also helpful to remember that a lot of outside sources link to it, and when dealing with the Wikipedia namespace, things can get a little confusing. A simple redirect will help out a lot, and is not confusing in this case. Otherwise, all templates that link to that page should be updated to use the "w:" prefix (a lot more work but probably a better choice ultimately -- work for a bot?). Thanks. --Willscrlt (Talk) 01:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 22#Template messages → Wikipedia:Template messages. Sorry but the consensus was to delete, and the discussion occurred only a few months ago. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the discussion was about deleting a duplicate page, not a redirect. Having a redirect to the Wikipedia namespace is not the same thing as having project information inside the main article space. But, if that's the decision, then how would we go about fixing all the links in various templates that point to [Wikipedia:Template messages] with [w:Wikipedia:Template messages] instead? It does present a few other problem, because then it's an interwiki link (light blue) and there is no checking to see if the link actually exists... But it's still better than having people from off-site end up on a broken link with no redirect to end up where they need to be. Thanks! --Willscrlt (Talk) 23:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Request to temporary edit this page in order to add Suspected Sockpuppet to this page. This user was found to be a likely sockpuppet and should be labeled as such. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson. Only his withdrawal to evade a block prevented his identification. At the time, he was attempting to get User:Frater Xyzzy, a sockpuppet in the category Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati unblocked. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined. The cases are over, the user is inactive, there's no real reason for the label. Tan | 39 03:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Fulfilled/denied requests
Indefinite full protection user talk of blocked user, Continued highly active use of talk page by blocked user to disseminate sensitive personal details about (presumably) others..Vianello (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fully protected indefinitely. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 04:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protection: The article is being repeatedly vandalized again. -- Luke4545 (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
full-protect indefinitely blocked sockpuppet abusing talk page to make personal attacks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fully protected indefinitely. Tan | 39 03:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
semi-protection, High vandalism and addition of WP:SPECULATION and WP:UNSOURCED statements by IPs..Truco 02:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for one month. Tan | 39 03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
semi-protect The vandalism and BLP problems have increased far beyond normal this month. --Ronz (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month. After 1 month the page will be automatically unprotected.caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 02:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
full-protect for one week only. Edit wars betweena Serb nationalist whose account namedForsena with other editors.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined. Either you are involved in the edit war too - where requesting protection is inappropriate - or this user should be dealt with separately. Tan | 39 03:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Protected long enough. Wanted to spilt off the talk from it to the other archive. Also all those Disney articles should be unprotected eventually. 74.249.96.167 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Forgot: the article User:Eagerleast/Charlotte's Web 2: Wilbur's Great Adventure should die. It's useless and made by the ever-deaded Disney Vandal. I've saved it to a notepad on my computer, and can pul it up if neccery. The other one he made was deleted allready anyway. Also the page for Charlotte's Web the book and the one for the page of Charlotte's Web 2 should be unprotected. I was gonna add the characters to the book and upgrade the Charlotte's Web 2 talk. 74.249.96.167 (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
-
- Declined: Uh, no. seicer | talk | contribs 02:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fully protected Talk:Bambi/Archive 2 seicer | talk | contribs 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Continuous vandalism by IPs and new users.DiverseMentality 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for one week. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
semi-protect for 2 weeks. High level of IP vandalism. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for one week. After one week, the page will unprotect automatically. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
semi-protection: high level of IP and un-autoconfirmed vandalism. Page has been protected numerous times before, but vandalism always begins again soon after it ends. Andrea (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month. After 1 month the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Consistent vandalism by several different IPs .TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 days. After 2 days the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
semi-protection vandalism.-- IRP ☎ 23:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, The article was semi protected yesterday but has just somehow been vandlized again by an IP. Is something not working with the protection?.Mfield (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- The protection expired. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protect, recurring IP vandalism. Elbutler (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting.
Unprotection, Forgot to have this unprotected after last years wikibreak!.John Sloan (view / chat) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)