Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

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.

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.

Request for temporary protection. I have been engaged in an edit war with User:IronDuke over this page. In particular, he added the statement "heroin deaths at Reed are not uncommon", a false claim and also completely unverifiable. After a brief revert war, he has taken to chopping the page up and rewriting it, but always coming back to the same issue. I have suggested (and posted) a survey, and suggested that we settle things on the Talk page (see my comments there), and IronDuke will not oblige. We need a cooling-off period. -- Gnetwerker 06:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the last intervention by User:brenneman and some minor edits following it, the D&N page looks OK but given that some users have had the nasty habit to vandalize it in the past, perhaps, the page should be protected for some time in its present form, so that the entry be stabilized. --john sargis 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is not to be used preventively, we are a wiki. Please read the WP:PPol. Dmcdevit·t 20:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This request for protection was suggested to us by User:brenneman and SarekOfVulcan. So please explain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SarekOfVulcan#Democracy_.26_Nature john sargis 16:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did. :) Protection is not to be used pre-emptively. Basically, you want it protected because it's been vandalized in the past. So you are trying to prevent future vandalism. That would be pre-emptive. If it starts getting hit daily, then we can protect. And btw, Aaron signs his name as just "brenneman", but his username is Aaron Brenneman. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? When did I suggest protecting it?--SarekOfVulcan 22:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the link I provided above. Of course, your name might have been hijacked. I have copied/pasted your/someone's response for your convenience (of which I italicized your protection suggestion) to brennerman about the Democracy & Nature page:Thanks! I opened a Politics RFC earlier, and knew that I had hit my 3rd revert already. Since this isn't clear-cut vandalism, I don't have a get-out-of-jail-free card. :-) SProtect would be nice here -- we know who's doing the edits, pretty much, but at least this would require them to put their name on it.--SarekOfVulcan 00:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) john sargis 19:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer would still be no for now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(3rd edit conflict) - I did suggest semi-protecting the page, as at that time it was seeing heavy editing w/ little improvement. Following the re-write contention seems to have focused on a single citation, and things have generally cooled down. Much better than I expected, to be frank. But we don't do prophylactic page protections. Woohookitty is, as usual, correct.
brenneman^(t)(c) 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you. I try. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK.We'll go with your suggestion for now. john sargis19:45, January 17 2006 (UTC)

This gets vandalized repeatedly. I'm not sure if it's multiple sources or just one person, in any case there are high amounts of vandalism on it (probably from students). I, personally, am tired of it. I like reverting vandalism and such, but this is ridiculous. --ImmortalGoddezz 15:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as needing occasional blocks, rather than protection. It's a very low level of vandalism that only happens every 3 or 4 days. This time, it was just one IP. Why wasn't that IP blocked in preference to limiting access by all IPs and all new users? Minimise the collateral, people. I will unprotect this in a couple of hours, unless I hear a good argument for why I shouldn't. -Splash^talk 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that. There are times when this article needs SP but right now isn't it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unsprotected. -Splash^talk 03:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism is coming from a shared IP, possibly multiple shared IPs, apparently all at a high school. Any suggestions? Thanks, Master Scott Hall 04:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If it's just a few shared IPs, we can do short range blocks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect this page as it is being abused by students. What is currently on there is our official statement that we would like public. If people want more information our website is listed. If this is not possible please could you protect that statement and allow adding more information below it. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.132.33 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is fine how it is, aside from needing wikification. This school administrator, contributing as 80.237.132.33, would like the page to reflect a POV version of the page that is approved by the school for public consumption. See this diff. That is not what we do here. — Scm83x ^talk 10:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not fine as it is inaccurate and false. We do not want to have to chase around after inaccurate information and getting into lengthy disscussion over what is and isn\\\'t approved by the school. If it is unable to be protected please could it just be removed in it\\\'s entirity as this is taking more time than it is worth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.132.33 (talk • contribs)

Please indicate what parts of the article are inaccurate or false. I\'m sorry, but this article will not be protected or removed. — Scm83x ^talk 10:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to follow the line, updated the article to be accurate, left all stubs, titles and any other bits and bobs alone and it had been reverted. What point is there to this article if it is not allowed to be updated to be kept accurate! What am I meant to do? If I can not get it protected or deleted it is going to be changed every evening by students filling it up with rubbish. But you will not allow for it be updated and made factual? I\'m sorry if I am sounding slightly annoyed but this is taking up far too much time for something we don\'t even want up as an establishment!

I am actually going to full protect it, because I see an edit war between users and anons. I see "agreed upon as a compromise" in the edit summaries but there is literally 0 discussion on the article. Protecting to spur it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As as result of an AfD discussion this article was changed to a redirect to Pope with a general recommendation to protect if necessary. It appears to be necessary. [1] [2] The associated talk page is now a redirect to Talk:Pope and also keeps getting restored; should it be protected as well? TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to just be one unhappy user. No need to lock it up (although there is little need to edit either). Contact me if he continues so I can block.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a stub to be made for the article for Holy Father. The rcc's pope is only "Holy Father" to at least some rcc members, but not to everyone. Redirecting automatically to a their pope is not NPOV and more would agree if more knew about what was going on here. The article was doing fine for some time before it was blindside afd'd by people that didn't have much to do with the article. I would like the article to be protected from being redirected exclusively to their pope. --jeolmeun 07:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:DRV. There was a full discussion about this, and if you don't like the outcome this is not the place to change it. (BTW, check my user page. I'm not Roman Catholic, so please don't go on about "my" pope.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say you are rc or the rcc's pope is your pope. I say the rcc's pope is the rcc's pope. Their is meant for rcc and not you if you aren't rcc and if the rcc's pope isn't yours. --jeolmeun 07:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this to DRV, by the way. A) Redirects are content issues not deletion issues, and B) DRV is for process problems, this doesn't have one. - brenneman^(t)(c)

My apologies. What is the correct process if he'd like to change the decision from an AfD? TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied on your talk. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing revert war over text. Several users support including critical text, one user (primarily) reverts without editing.--Cberlet 01:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest dispute resolution. Don't see enough to warrant protection. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already been through more than one month of a failed mediation over these pages with Nobs01, which then turned into a weeks-long arbitration in which Nobs01 was banned for a year. The editor deleting material has pledged to defend all of Nobs01 entries. I have twice filed RFC's on these pages. The current one has produced no comments. In the meantime, all the text I would like comments on gets deleted. What do you seriously suggest? I have been trying to edit these pages for three months. I keep trying different wording and rewriting text. All I get in return is deletions. If I request mediation, I will be told to try "dispute resolution." I have been in dispute resolution on these pages for months. Give me a concrete suggestion that deals with these facts, please.--Cberlet 03:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to administrator's noticeboard/incidents. This page is only for protecting pages. If you feel like protecting the page would spur discussion, we can do that. But that's the only place for protection in cases like this. I don't see an edit war where you have reverting or multiple edits going on every day. If you are looking for blocks or something more punitive, take it to AN/I for ideas from the community. We don't do that anything beyond protection from this page. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll give it a try. I really don't know what to do.--Cberlet 03:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know. It's frustrating. Been there...way too many times. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mulitple-IP user making 3RR violation. Semi-protection would be sufficient. -Will Beback 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Should be fairly brief though. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User:Zeq has been given ample opportunity to justify each of the changes he wanted to make. In some cases he has declined to so and I take that as an indication he no longer wants to make them. The 1948 Arab-Israeli war, which underwent a similar standoff involving basically the same group of editors, has been unprotected recently and that seems to be working. Brian Tvedt 01:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Ste|vertigo 18:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quite understand this. Like we said earlier, those pages cannot be edited by non admins anyway unless it's your user space. Protection on those is pointless. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page was deleted and then protected against recreation. Then someone turned it into the first redirect in a double. It needs to be unprotected to be fixed. Tedernst | talk 21:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 23:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting downgrade from full protection to semi-protection. Every single vandalism was from IPs, so it shouldn't be full-protected. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SP for now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a meta-template which produced userboxes for the various wikipedia groups (administrators, recent changes patrollers, counter vandalism unit, et cetera). AzaToth had created individual templates to replace each of these functions so that individual user pages could be changed to access the new templates without any pages being disrupted in the process. Instead, it was decided to change this page to a simple 'this user is a wikipedian' version before the user page changes were complete and protect it in that form. Commander Keane has now generously done the scutt-work of converting all existing calls to this template to the various individual templates which were created to replace it. This achieves the same result which AzaToth was originally working towards and thus there is now no longer any reason for this page to be protected... even supposing there ever was such to begin with. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was n reason to block it to begin with. Kingjeff 04:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, looks like a mess. I'd rather you asked Essjay directly, since he was involved in whatever has happened with this account. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 06:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did.Kingjeff 14:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 All^T|@|ESP 01:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is a wiki, first, is this a high-risk template? Have it been a lot of vandalism? etc... _→AzaToth 01:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since both of them are on every single closed AfD we do, yes. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do the math, we close about 100-120 afds a day. That's about 4,000 a month. About 50,000 a year. So yes. Very high risk. And templates can always be altered if there is a consensus to change them. The talk pages on the templates are open. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remeber when the Flux template was a huge picture of a penis, so every current events page had it. One word: yikes :(.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 02:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I bet if you did a "What links here" on the 2 templates, each would end up with well over 20,000+ articles linked to it. Just since January 1st, there have probably been close to 2,000 afds closed. These are actually 2 of our most useds templates. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is almost always subst:ed, and is thus in actual use in far fewer places than one might think. -Splash^talk 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but it's still high use if you look at "What links here" for it. I just don't see a reason to unprotect. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests.