Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aaron Schulz (talk | contribs) at 01:31, 14 January 2006 (→Current requests for unprotection: 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 full 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.

Current requests for protection

Please place new requests at the top. and use {{article|ARTICLE NAME}} when listing a page here, where ARTICLE NAME is the article or page you wish to be protected.

(Copied from Talk:Monkey) This article suffers greatly from vandalism [1]. I suggest a semi-protection. RexNL 00:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A semi-protection request. A certain user has consistently made edits that have required reversions to be made far too frequently, which include but are not limited to blanking out entire sections of the article itself without giving any prior reason for doing so in the edit line or the article's discussion page. TheMonkofDestiny 19:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page isn't really getting hit enough to warrant protection. Sorry, I know it's frustrating, but just revert him. Katefan0 19:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Will do. TheMonkofDestiny 19:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for semi-protection. This page was protected for a shortwhile however it was removed soon after. Some background on the spammer and their motives may be found at the following linux talk section. The main history for the article will give an indication of the spammers insistence. — Graibeard 09:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


When he removed the protection, Splash mentioned that if the vandal comes back under another IP, the page could be SP again. Well guess what? :) Different IP. Will SP again. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request Admin semi this page. Last 16 edits are vandalism or reversion of the same. It is a bunch of IP hopping anons with the same POV edits -- several pleas on the talk page have been ignored. Give it semi for a few days and hope they go away. novacatz 01:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just watchlist it for now. Noticed that the vandalism/day rate is not that high in and of itself. Good/bad edit ratio is not the bases of Semi-Pro.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 02:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I already semi'd this. I reckon this is ok, because it is clearly being targetted, probably by only one or two people, who are simply trolling with it. Sprotection in this case does have a specific target, rather than a generalised reduction in anon editing: there is one person we need to get rid of. -Splashtalk 02:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, the rate is high, so doesn't matter much, but I would have waited another day.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a candidate for SP for 7-8 days. It's been doing the protection shuffle for a few weeks now...3-4 protection periods. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This person Tomasdiazh sanmiguelguide.com keeps removing my link to copiadoralyz.com and also to mercadosanmiguel.com as well as many others I am sure. The business practice of sanmiguelguide.com is to promote advertising and is not allowed by wikipedia policy. My site on the other hand promotes useful daily news and information from San Miguel de Allende and Mexico. This person(sanmiguelguide.com) obviously has a problem if we can not coexist together on the same website, pity they don't put more time and effort into updating information on their own website. other ip they use is 200.94.232.138 and 200.94.234.83 Donovanmartinez 22:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, there's not enough edits to warrant protection. Please use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to help you come to an agreement. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive watched this article for over a year and it is one of the most heavily vandalized articles on my watchlist. I've never seen a dispute or edit controversy, it's almost all constant reversion of vandalism. This is a big topic for high school students doing research. Anything that can be done to slow down the vandalism of this article would be appreciated. --Stbalbach 22:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the lat 100 edits, about 40 have been vandalism/reversions. I'll temporarily semi-protect it Sceptre (Talk) 23:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is NOT a factor in the decision to semi protect. % of good edits over x period of time is not a factor. If it was, we'd be protecting hundreds of pages and that's not an exaggeration. I'll leave it protected for a time. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At first I though kitty was out of his mind, but I actually agree when I think about it. The reason is simple, a) counting reverts inflates the number and ratio of good to bad is not the main factor. b)If an article has 20 vandalisms spread out over a long time, out 100 edits over that time, you get 40% vandals/reverts. But it could clearly not need protection.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. For the entire month of January, the article in question has 12 edits...total. And that's including reversions and the SP tag being put on. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Semi is a solution to a serious, current vandalism problem. This article just does't have one. It can go days without being edited at all. Note that there is an explicit statement in WP:SEMI about not using it for run-of-the-mill vandalism and that it is not a tool to reduce or prohibit anon editing in general. Clearly, in this case, that is the primary effect of the protection. I've unprotected. -Splashtalk 00:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not "run of the mill" vandalism. Obviously its not like Hurricane Katrina, but there are not as many people watching this article either. Since December first I count 21 different people who vandalized the article. This is a slow period, a month like Sept or Oct is much higher. Contrast this with the number of legit edits by people who would otherwise be blocked by a semi-protection, I count 2 or 3. Thats about 10 bad edits for every 1 or 2 good edits (just looking at people who would be effected by a block), and this ratio is worse in most prior months. What's "run of the mill" when there is an order of magnitude more anon vandals than legit anon editors, consistently month after month. --Stbalbach 03:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every article gets vandalism. This particular article gets 3 or 4 edits total per day. That isn't a problem so large it justifies wholesale restriciton of anonymous and new users. Further, consider that there is no problem in particular being addressed by semi here, other than a desire to reduce anon editing in general: WP:SEMI forbids that, since it is a non-negotiable Foundation Issue. -Splashtalk 03:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there is no problem in particular being addressed by semi here - I thought I made a case there is in the big picture. Your focus is on the number of edits per day in the past motnh or so, that semi is only used when there is a "storm". This article has a systemic long-term problem where 9 of 10 anon edits are vandals, that is not typical, and is frankly a real drain on the time and resources of otherwise good editors. But I have no doubt this article will see storms in the future. --Stbalbach 05:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would like to link to this discussion from the article Talk page so there is a record of this discussion for future protection requests. I dont see an archives of this page, are protection discussions archived? --Stbalbach 03:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you'd have to find the removal diff in the history, unfortunately. -Splashtalk 03:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, I would simply copy this and put this in your userspace, Stbalbach. As far I know, that's allowed. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok will do.. an articles history of protection discussions is a valuable piece of information/evidence. --Stbalbach 05:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the argument that we should archive the discussions somewhere but it's always shot down. so I'm with ya. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will a moderator please me or something about this? Two anonymous users (83.88.137.34/70.176.12.154) kept screwing around this article to change my version (The Meat Puppets were) to his/her own version (The Meat Puppets started or The Meat Puppets formed). Although, I didn't mean to be rude to the anonymous user on my last revert. But I just need someone to avoid this edit war. Any help you could provide will be very appreciated, thanks! Alex 101 20:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been enough editing to warrant protection. You should read Dispute resolution, you may want to file an RFC to attract some more attention to the ongoing problem. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the anonymous user has nearly broken the Three Revert Rule. By the way, I'm not trying to say he/she was vandalizing (or hasn't yet); he/she's just "content remove" squatting. Alex 101 21:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting protection or semi-protection of the Whaling article because the entire article has been deleted and replaced by an offensive comment.

  • I've reverted the vandalism, only one isolated case though. You can revert it back vandalism too, leave a note on my talk page and ill explain how. Mike 12:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have a vandalism problem on this page. I can't fathom why, but whatever. Vandalism is vandalism, right? Haikupoet 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to have received more attention than usual in the last couple of days. I don't think there's a specific problem that would be fixed by semiprotect here though, other than a general reduction in anonymous editing which WP:SEMI singles out as not a reason: this is just isolated, run-of-the-mill vandalism at the moment. -Splashtalk 03:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep the request on here for a couple of days, but yeah...right now...not enough. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Current requests for unprotection

Please place new requests at the TOP and use {{article|ARTICLE NAME}} when listing a page here, where ARTICLE NAME is the article or page you wish to be unprotected. {{Editprotected}} can be used to request edits to protected pages as an alternative to requests for page unprotection.

Template:afd top

also Template:afd bottom

I can't find any reason those two templates should be protected. →AzaToth 01:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it protect to avoid vandalism. very few edits are made to that, or need to be.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 01:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect article: Benjy Bronk . I have several published citations with legitimate information about him that would correct false information another user keeps putting up. User seems to cite his own personal knowledge for many of so called facts which is a violation of wikipedia policy. User also make many assumptions with no direct sorces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stacyshell (talk • contribs)

Just wait a few days and you should be able to edit it. howcheng {chat} 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a single case of vandalism against this template, which was apparently immediately corrected by the vandal. Work on this template has been ongoing, and I expect to be making further refinements to it. Please unprotect it. I'll monitor it for vandalism. Thank you. Go for it! 17:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but due to its A)high visability (GUI level) and b) the lack of need to change often at all, I see no need to unprotect. It will just get vandalized otherwise.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for protected edits

See Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=35092769"