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.

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.

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

There is an edit/revert war going on at Algorithm. I'd like to request a temporary protection to promote discussion on the talk page, and avoid having Theodore7 (who is outnumbered by those who will revert his edits) break the 3RR. /* Pradeep Arya 11:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) */

Loughborough Endowed Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request protection from un-registered users due to repeated vandalism from multiple IP Addresses., Rlloyd3 01:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been hours since the last vandalism, so it may have already passed. I'll keep an eye on this one, but no protection as of yet. Dmcdevit·t 08:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Lord, it's an edit war, and I'm involved. Could an uninvolved admin protect this page before I get tempted to fly off the handle and break the 3RR? Thanks. —BorgHunter (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Extended articles about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

Long ago the article about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero become too long (about 72 KB). Several extended articles were created to lodge part of the information, in order to make the article more readable and help users to find what they were really looking for. The titles of the articles are: Zapatero's years as an opposition leader, Zapatero and the Local and Regional Elections of 2003, Zapatero and the 2004 General Election, Zapatero's foreign policy and Zapatero's domestic policy.

User:SqueakBox, who had not taken an active part in the improvement of the article on José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, decided one day to substitute the articles with redirects to the main article, although they contain far more information than it, without asking anybody's opinion. The original articles were recovered, but he substituted them again with redirects. Finally, after threatening him with reporting his behavior, he started an AfD. That AfD (whose discussion page can be found here) ended with "NO RESULT".

SqueakBox, on January 7, 2006, substituted the articles again with redirects. I ask them to be protected until the conflict is solved to avoid an edit war. Zapatancas 17:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected. howcheng {chat} 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Telling lies on the protection page doesn't seem like a good idea to me, Zapatancas, ie I have a good contribution history in that article. Perhaps Howcheng would explain why he chose to revert before proetecting as a revert is an edit, and therefore the protection by this admin is contrary to policy, and especially if said admin did not check the veracity of Zapatancas' statements about me. Can Howcheng please explain his actions here, SqueakBox 01:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The articles went through the deletion process and all survived (albeit with no consensus), thus my removal of the redirect. Please note that protection of any version of the page is not an endorsement of the content there either. howcheng {chat} 01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case why link to my home page in your edit summary. It makes you seem aggressive and supportive of User:Zapatancas which is not appreciated given his vast history of nasty attacks against me, it merely encourages him, as does your informing him of what you did but not me. That is not what I would expect from a dispassionate admin and while I am not questioning the protection I strongly question the way you handled it, SqueakBox 01:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Badly needs an sprotect, anonymous user keeps switching Ips to place spam, on an almost hourly basis.--Urthogie 09:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Among three of us we've been reverting their constant spam, so we have difficulty not reverting it 3 times in a row, as they switch IP's.--Urthogie 10:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Normally I would say there's not really enough vandalism on any one day to warrant semiprotection, but it appears that this person or persons has been doing the same thing all month. I'll sprotect for a little while and hopefully he'll get the message. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like someone else beat me to it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, Urthogie just added it himself. (Tsk.) · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The Turkish people page regarding the Turks of Turkey needs to be protected. Turkish nationalists seem to want to monopolize it for their purposes including inserting pictures of non-Turks so as to claim some wider 'glorious' past I guess. See the talkback page for details. I have provided references, both online and otherwise, including from Turkish academics to no avail. I'm reasonable and have asked for evidence regarding their claims, but to no avail. Thanks. Tombseye 23:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like both edit warriors have broken WP:3RR. I'll enforce that and avoid protection. Dmcdevit·t 23:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You're refering to User:Hybridlily and User:-Inanna-, right? --Khoikhoi 23:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

We hate tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Geez, I feel like a tattletale... Okay, the Wehatetech crew are continuing to try to force their way into Wikipedia (check their site -- mostly hot air, but a little disturbing). I took the alternate-named article and changed it into a redirect to the deleted page, which has a protected-do-not-recreate box on it. They may be blowing smoke, or they may be ready to turn this into a full-blown war. I don't really know, but they've definitely got a chip on their shoulder about Wikipedia. Haikupoet 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted as a recreation per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wehatetech. Note to admins, Wehatetech has already been converted into a {{deletedpage}}, if this shows up as a blue link again, you may want to think about doing that too. Dmcdevit·t 06:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected. And you aren't a tattletale. We appreciate alerts like that. I wasn't going to protect but I saw the comments on Talk:Wehatetech and also the recreation attempts at We hate tech. What's the point of deletedpage if people recreate it somewhere else? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Er... whoa! I beat you anyway! Nya nya. Dmcdevit·t 06:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. These guys need to be watched -- like I said, I don't know if it's hot air or a vendetta, but something is up. Haikupoet 06:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Just keep playing with it.....just keep going.....All this because there was a vote that wasn't close to being Neutral. Xerves 19:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

-This really isnt a vendetta, the users/listeners of We Hate Tech are not insane, we only seek to find a fair and just solution to this problem. The core users of We Hate Tech do not wish this to become anything more than an open and fair debate about their right to a Wikipedia article. In general, those who have edited the article, during its time, strived to remain within the parameters of Wikipedia's numerous policies, in an attempt to prevent it from being viewed as a delete page.Anticitizen 1 21:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's all well and good but it was deleted per a valid articles for deletion vote. And it was pretty decisive. If we allowed articles to be recreated immediately following AfD votes that end in a consensus for delete, then why even have AfD votes? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the vote had nothing to do with neutrality or any merit (I give you, on both sides) in reguards to the article posted. It was fairly even until a post was on Digg about the article and a few people showed up and started marking the article for deletion. It clearly broke the neutrality clause in the voting procedure. Just because you "don't like" something shouldn't give you merit to delete it out of spite. I am sure plenty of people don't like President Bush, then again the site is now protected. Xerves 23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As stated: Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing. Xerves 23:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Vandal revert war, article wiping, personal attacks in Talk page;--Takeshi Namura 22:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected, note on talk page. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

A vandal repeatedly blanks seccions of the article using different IP every time.--tequendamia 20:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Temporarily semi-protected. Izehar 20:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

24.0.91.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

After a brief discussion with user on talk, I believe the user page should be unprotected and the {{Sockpuppet|Shran}} template should be removed. --Viriditas 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Aspie (edit | [[Talk:Template:User Aspie|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Had a revert war, but has been resolved satisfactorily.

Prodego ^talk 01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep - I saw. Looks good - unprotected and take care guys :) WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hey, how do we get George W. Bush's site unprotected. I see some false info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikiman12345 (talk • contribs)

If you would point out the errors, I'd be happy to fix them for you. Semi-protection means that new users cannot edit the page; you should be able to edit semi-protected pages approximately four days after you register. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The article was being reverted because a vandle (User:Brazil4linux) kept wiping months of productive changes from the page. The vandle was even banned for simmilar vandalisim that was made to other pages and user pages. The vandle keeps making these changes anonymously through different IP addresses, and the article has currently been protected on the un-developed version of the page. I made a mistake earlier on by thinking it was Doom127 who was vandlizing the page, but it was acctually Brazil4Linux who was removing over a month of work to the page. I request that the page be put back to it's state before Brazil4Linux started wiping the article (this one) and put into "semi-protected" mode so that normal users can edit it and improve it while Brazil4linux can be kept from vandlizing it needlessly.

Thank you, Noneloud 21:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for protected edits

See Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests.