Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:40, 24 December 2009 view sourceOff2riorob (talk \| contribs)80,325 edits Requesting full protection of Sarum Rite. (TW)← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:11, 24 December 2009 view source Off2riorob (talk \| contribs)80,325 edits →{{la\|Sarum Rite}}: addNext edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:
	==== {{la\|Sarum Rite}} ====		==== {{la\|Sarum Rite}} ====
	'''Temporary full protection''' ''dispute'', Content dispute at multiple articles. ] (]) 20:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)		'''Temporary full protection''' ''dispute'', Content dispute at multiple articles. ] (]) 20:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
			by Mister Flash was the original stable version. ] (]) 21:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

	==== {{la\|Julie & Julia}} ====		==== {{la\|Julie & Julia}} ====
	'''full protection''', Multiple instances of vandalism and Edit warring by IP's and confirmed accounts. ] ] 20:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)		'''full protection''', Multiple instances of vandalism and Edit warring by IP's and confirmed accounts. ] ] 20:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:11, 24 December 2009

"WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions, Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission, or Misplaced Pages:Random page patrol.

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.

Shortcuts

Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection)

After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.

Skip to table of contents
requests to raise protection
lower protection
requested edits
(purge)

Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level Request protection

Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection

Request a specific edit to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit

this header: view • edit

Archives

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Current requests for protection

Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Sarum Rite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary full protection dispute, Content dispute at multiple articles. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC) this edit by Mister Flash was the original stable version. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Julie & Julia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection, Multiple instances of vandalism and Edit warring by IP's and confirmed accounts. Momo san 20:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. - Evilhenny (talk · contribs) blocked by NuclearWarfare for 31 hrs. JamieS93 20:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Anwar al-Awlaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection, Anwar al-Awlaki--most IP edits have been vandalism; high level.--67.177.166.246 (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 20:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Tea Party protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection, For some reason, a lot of IPs and new users are getting reverted lately; it's probably because of the heath care reform bill being debated in Congress. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of five days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

InuYasha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection vandalism, Recent history of Vandalism here. Momo san 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

December 25 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. Anonymous editors are continually editing the article to add Jesus' birth in the "births" section, even though there is a clear disclaimer not to. Please protect this page, at least until after Christmas. — CIS | stalk) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 36 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Quest IX: Sentinels of the Starry Skies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Continual vandalism of the reception area to remove the same information regarding a verified reliable self-published source information on commentary about the initial launch of the title by Brian Ashcraft with probable cause that violates neutral point-of-view as it would make the launch of the title look less controversial and remove criticism of the criticism from initial fans. Because this specific information has been the only section continually removed in spite efforts that have shown the source to be reliable, it becomes quite hard to believe these continued removals do not violate good faith policy. 陣内 _Jinnai 18:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The article has only been edited by three IPs in the past 16 days. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Max and Ruby episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection With the exception of named accounts, effectively every edit after the last legitimate edit made by me on November 29th has been vandalism/nonsense. As every one of these edits has been made by an IP editor, semi-protect will make this a non-issue. HalfShadow 17:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Huxley (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Not sure why, just stumbled across it.WhereAmI (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 36 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

Shortcuts

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

To find out the username of the admin who protected the page, click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page," which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page, please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected, please use the section below.

Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Template:Support (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think consensus has changed, as evidenced by the fact that there are over 100 Discussion Templates now, and there weren't nearly that many in 2007 when this issue was last visited. I mean really, if we have Agree/ Disagree, Confirmed/ Denied, and Done/ Not done, I think we should be Checking... to see if it is Possible consensus has changed on Support/ Oppose. ɳoɍɑfʈ 04:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not unprotected Probably consensus has changed, but it's probably worth bringing up in a discussion someplace first (WP:VPP?). The only argument against bringing up is if you want to WP:BEBOLD, create it, and then take it to VPP. tedder (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Current requests for edits to a protected page

Shortcut

WP:RFED

Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Misplaced Pages:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, not here.
If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.

Fulfilled/denied requests

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection for a few days. A quick-fire edit war about new material on non-peer reviewed material used by IPCC about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. --TS 23:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please look into temporarily blocking the relevant users as per WP:PREFER. If the edit warring really is isolated to this new material then it can/should be sorted out in this way.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note there is a discussion at WP:AN3, where I commented that any protection should be brief because it's a fairly high-traffic article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

~~Protection may not be necessary if, as seems possible, the edit war has finished. There is an overture for discussion on the talk page.~~ (I may have spoken too soon). --TS 01:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was S-Ped yesterday as a result of rampant speculation from IPs and new users. That speculation has since been confirmed, so it would seem like the protection is no longer necessary. Aptery gial 23:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected Malinaccier (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

List of countries by income equality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page has peen permanently semi-protected since last summer. Is it really necessary? 84.250.197.178 (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected --Aqwis (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Chancellor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See Talk:Alexander Chancellor#Protected, User talk:Scott MacDonald#Alexander Chancellor for prior discussion and this for the impetus. The article is currently indefinitely semi-protected in order to ward against...something? Bringing it here to invite some outside review of the protection status. Protonk (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Extended content
Happy to have more views here. Three admins have now agreed with this semi-protection, so please no one undo it without consensus. I suggest since this has been discussed in various venues, we keep the discussion to the talk page.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC) With respect, I'd just as soon have the discussion here. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC) That's called forum shopping, and in any case means we'd have to repeat the arguments elsewhere. Additionally, it simply means we'd have to explain again next month. Better keep the discussion related to the article to the article talk page.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC) It's not forum shopping. It's bringing in more opinions--the whole point of dispute resolution. Protonk (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC) There's a notice here. That's enough. Those interested enough, can go to the talk page and opine. We don't need to have this discussion in multiple places. ++Lar: t/c 23:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Recently subject of malicious, anonymous IP vandalism. He's a minor figure that will never have many watchers. No value is being lost by the semi, and harm is being avoided and peace of mind is being generated. Indef semi is clearly the best course.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC) How do you know it was malice? The column even suggests it could have been error. And the whole premise of our protection policy assumes that value is lost on every semi. Protonk (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I'd be in favour of keeping it, as it has now become a minorly notable headache. The fact that the vandalism made it to the big media means that the probability of more to follow for notoriatey is significant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Forever? And how is it a headache? Honestly this is really inexplicable. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Also, let's compare this to this and see which attracts more press attention. I'll grant you, stuff like the vandalism that prompted that column is embarrassing. But the subject seemed to get the right answer, which is "don't trust wikipedia", how are we failing to get the right answer? There is a constant refrain from a subset of users that the "BLP problem" is the biggest problem facing wikipedia. All I say to that is . What is our expectation for future vandalism on this article? How does your thesis about future vandalism accord with this graph of page hits? Will the attention from that column persist forever? What is the tradeoff? At what point do we say "semi-protection causes too much hassle to be worth the risk of vandalism"? Protonk (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Happy to have more views here. Three admins have now agreed with this semi-protection, so please no one undo it without consensus. I suggest since this has been discussed in various venues, we keep the discussion to the talk page.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- With respect, I'd just as soon have the discussion here. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  - That's called forum shopping, and in any case means we'd have to repeat the arguments elsewhere. Additionally, it simply means we'd have to explain again next month. Better keep the discussion related to the article to the article talk page.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    - It's not forum shopping. It's bringing in more opinions--the whole point of dispute resolution. Protonk (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
      - There's a notice here. That's enough. Those interested enough, can go to the talk page and opine. We don't need to have this discussion in multiple places. ++Lar: t/c 23:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Recently subject of malicious, anonymous IP vandalism. He's a minor figure that will never have many watchers. No value is being lost by the semi, and harm is being avoided and peace of mind is being generated. Indef semi is clearly the best course.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you know it was malice? The column even suggests it could have been error. And the whole premise of our protection policy assumes that value is lost on every semi. Protonk (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of keeping it, as it has now become a minorly notable headache. The fact that the vandalism made it to the big media means that the probability of more to follow for notoriatey is significant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Forever? And how is it a headache? Honestly this is really inexplicable. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, let's compare this to this and see which attracts more press attention. I'll grant you, stuff like the vandalism that prompted that column is embarrassing. But the subject seemed to get the right answer, which is "don't trust wikipedia", how are we failing to get the right answer? There is a constant refrain from a subset of users that the "BLP problem" is the biggest problem facing wikipedia. All I say to that is . What is our expectation for future vandalism on this article? How does your thesis about future vandalism accord with this graph of page hits? Will the attention from that column persist forever? What is the tradeoff? At what point do we say "semi-protection causes too much hassle to be worth the risk of vandalism"? Protonk (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Declined, WP:TLDR, but take general arguments to WP:VPP. The article should probably come off indef protection eventually (perhaps as soon as 2010 rolls over), but not now. tedder (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making a general argument. I'm making the claim that this specific article doesn't need to be protected. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I disgree for now. Again, come back in 10 days. tedder (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am actually intrigued by your take on this Protonk given you were the one elsewhere talking about moving from a growth phase to a maintenance phase (which I agree with) - which I think semi-protecting fits right into. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor recently requested that this page be full-protected over a minor content dispute. However the "edit warring" wasn't unmanageable and only concerned a few sentences in the article. The page needs a lot of care, and the full-protection its been under for weeks at a time these past two months has prevented meaningful edits from being made. A writer at The Telegraph has explicitly named this article as biased and uninformative in its current state. It needs to grow at a faster rate than full protection will allow. Please consider unprotecting it. Thanks!--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: Has the protecting admin been contacted ? Cirt (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize I was supposed to go through him/her first. I'm not too well-versed in Misplaced Pages's policies. Thanks. Do I just report back here with the results of the discussion?--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Only if they decline - on a recently protected article, the acting admin is already up to speed on the relevant issues and editors. It would be best practice for anyone considering action here to consult anyway, so you might as well start by making your case for reconsideration to the person best able to judge the merits of your arguments. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not unprotected Alright guys I'll give it a bit longer on protection. Maybe unprotect a few days after Christmas to give everyone a chance to get into the discussion. Malinaccier (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See here for a weak "no."--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Estelle Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection - Harris's page has been subjected to repeated vandalism by an anonymous IP user (76.118.20.24) with a history of vandalism dating back to May 2008). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The article has only been edited by three IPs in the past 39 days. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My World (Justin Bieber album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indefinite Semi-protection - The page was under semi-protection before but since the protection has been move, influx of IP vandalism has taken over the page, forcing repeated reversions of edits. Candyo32 (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. There seemed to be one IP vandalizing the page and they've been blocked. If there is further disruption, feel free to re-report. TNXMan 15:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:173.21.221.97 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

semi-protection user talk of blocked user, Apparent vandalism target, needs protection to stop outside IP's from vandalising like what happened today. Momo san 15:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected For two weeks this time. TNXMan 15:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Cars (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection, repeated IP vandalism over the past week. --Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I See Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection, relentless IP vandalism. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 13:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just 1 IP today, and it seems to have stopped now. There are some good faith edits by IP's in the recent pass as well, so not protecting at this time. ≈ Chamal ☃ 14:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Delhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. Vandalism by IPs on almost a daily basis. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ged UK 12:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. IP user:112.118.130.101 (variable IPs) insists on removing partial content of the article and adding unsourced passage in the article. The Chinese counterpart of the article has inclusion of both information and considering the short length of the English version, the reason to divide it is relatively weak. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

~~Cancel. The anon seems to agree in some respects. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)~~
Please don't pretend. What you did is to own the article and undo whatever edits others have made to it, to the extent that you keep reinstating the old name of a newspaper cited. That's simple vandalism. I removed nothing from the article. Please quote what was deleted if you are serious with your allegations. 12:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
~~To administrators: Please ban Sameboat. Thanks. 12:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.130.101 (talk)~~
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is a content dispute that's boiled over into a full-on edit war. 3RR's been broken all over the place. I notice that nobody has bothered to try to talk to each other on the article talk page (and yes, I have noticed that there's a distinct possibility of another edit war breaking out on the talk page re the templating). Talk to each other, if you need to, actually ask for help from some of the projects whose banners are on the talk page, try dispute resolution, just don't edit-war. Ged UK 12:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. But I'm afraid 3RR wasn't actually broken, since the reverts were made towards simple vandalism. 14:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.130.101 (talk)
~~The accussation of vandalism isn't valid. My last reversion was because the anon didn't provide citation for an important information. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~If that was truly your motive by then you didn't have to reinstate the old name of a newspaper. 18:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)~~
~~2012 phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~
Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Since the last protection expired on the 18th, all but one of the IP edits have been unconstructive. This has always happened after unprotection: IPs start trolling again. Interestingly, on the 21st (at least on the Pacific Time Zone, where I live) there was only ONE vandal, but IP vandalism had been escalating since the 18th and especially since the 22nd. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Last protection period was only a month, so going indef is a bit of a leap. Maybe all the 2012 theorists were celebrating solstice? tedder (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)