Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kx1186 (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 3 January 2006 (→{{article|RuneScape}}). 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 or image 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.

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.

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.

Semi-protection requested. Page is reverted on a daily basis, often multiple times. The article attracts the game's younger player base who frequently wipe it to talk about their gay friends. Semi-protection would be useful while we get on top of things and sort the article out. Withdrawn Kevin 23:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the situation is serious enough to warrant semi-protection. That form of protection is reserved for really hopeless cases of vandalism such as George W. Bush. Currently, any vandalism that may occur on that page can simply be reverted. Izehar 00:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely, semi-permanent semi-protection is reserved for that kind of case, and there is no clear community position on whether it should even be used then or not. I think what Izehar means is that you (Kevin) appear to be request basically indeterminate sprotection rather than sprotection to dispel a particular, localised, problem. -Splashtalk 01:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page needs to be reverted so often that it's making it hard to get a handle on the article. This request seems to have been too frivolous, I'll explore other avenues (Counter Vandalism Unit) with the other editors. Kevin 02:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jonah Ayers, sometimes using sockpuppets as listed here, has continually inserted POV material charging "racist" and/or "antisemitic lyrics" into the Biff Rose article. The subject of the article is alive and believes this to be libel. Sometimes Jonah Ayers makes the changes using anonymous IP addresses, and recently he has blanked out parts of the talk page discussion. (Here.) He will not supply evidence of these alleged lyrics on the talk/discussion page, which would allow constructive discussion. Sometimes he removes other facts or links from the article for no logical reason. Someone created a username consisting of my home phone number, as well, (visible to admins here) so things are getting ugly on a personal level.

The dispute has been going on for months. It has reached an absurd level.

A less controversial version of the paragraph has been agreed upon by several other editors and admins, as follows:

Rose's later work differs from his early recordings. There is strong language in his lyrics, and he makes controversial use of racial stereotypes.

Though it acknowledges racially-charged material, several of us believe this to be a less POV statement, more appropriate to the encyclopedia, more accurate, and free of libel. I request a protection of the page in this less controversial form, as above, for at least two weeks, or until we can resolve this dispute. Thank you.

--Sojambi Pinola 19:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted, but there is simply not edit warring in the volume that would necessitate protection. Protection is not a part of dispute resolution; it is not used to keep an article "less controversial." Instead please consider dispute resolution, like filing an RC against the editor in question. This isn't about stepping into a content dispute, but in stopping an edit war. Dmcdevit·t 22:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Thank you. --Sojambi Pinola 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er... RFC, I meant to say, btw. Dmcdevit·t 22:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leyasu has been arguing for his unproven opinion on the subject matter in the talk page for the past few days. He has refused to show any sources for his opinion. A very reputable source has already been cited in the article that shows his opinion to be wrong. However, he is very unwilling to be cooperative in editing. He has been trying to force his opinion into the article without citing any sources nor proving the source already given wrong. His edits have been reverted twice already, and likely will have to be reverted again if the article is not protected. -- LGagnon 18:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's just not enough activity on this page to warrant protection. Obviously there's a content dispute going on and judging from the talk page it's been fairly nasty. I would recommend that everybody take a deep breath, refocus your comments on content rather than contributors, and try to find a solution. Barring that, consider taking some of the steps outlined in dispute resolution. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other editor refuses to stop making personal attacks. He has been told to stop it by an admin, but still has not.
When he has focused on the article, he has gone about it immaturely. He refuses to give sources to back his claims, and he denies the legitamacy of a source used in the article that proves him wrong simply because it is not a web page. He has shown no respect for, or understanding of, academic honesty and won't make an attempt at it no matter how many times he has been asked to. -- LGagnon 21:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That does sound frustrating. But this is not the place to air these types of disputes; it's for requesting a page be protected, which has been denied. This sort of thing should go on the article's talk page, or on dispute resolution pages. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but he has begun editing the article without discussing his edits first. That needs to stop, and he needs to return to discussing first. If he changes the article back to his POV version again, it may still need to be protected. -- LGagnon 22:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is now a revert war. We need this page protected immediately. -- LGagnon 01:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{User_Galactic_Empire}}

Sherool and Cryptic have been reverting the userbox in violation of Wikipedia policy, targeting only Galatic Empire to strip of image, not Rebel Alliance or any other userbox images. They refuse to work out issue in talk, and continue to engage in a revert war and ignore the user-level protection tag. MSTCrow 18:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only revert warrior violating Wikipedia policy here is MSTCrow, who has been tagging this template as {{protected}} when it is not. I found it because I noticed a user page with the protected template inside a userboxbox, and have been reverting to the last revision that did not include the spurious template. I haven't weighed in directly on the image itself, though it violates WP:FUC (and which, at 1602x1600, is pretty ridiculously large to qualify as a "low-resolution image" as its tag claims). —Cryptic (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since a professor taught students how to vandalise pages, there has been a lot of vandalism. Every day or so someone gets on and either replaces the page with a joke or just adds it to a section. The vandalism has been coming from multiple addresses, and not from logged in users. I would like to suggest semi-protection to block anon editing of this page. Thank you, Brokenfrog 02:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The overall edit rate on this article is really pretty low: it can go for days without being touched at all. Blocks on the offending IPs are a better solution, imo. As an important aside, do note that WP:SEMI explicitly states that it is not intended to prohibit anon editing in general. -Splashtalk 04:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors are at their wits end over this page, and specifically the Singapore section. Anonymous user(s) are repeatedly adding the same POV and over-specific material to the section that is already covered in other parts of the article and in other articles, (ie Capital punishment in Singapore). A typical edit is this.

The anon fails to respond to any messages asking them to discuss the changes on the talk page, and also ignore a comment in the text of the article directing them to the talk page. The page has already been protected once and semi-protected once, but the semi-protection was removed as this is a content dispute, not vandalism. I'm not sure what can really be done from now since it seems impossible to have any dialogue with the anon. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FP. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs protection due to continuous edits by users such as 84.12.255.21 to change names to "Rofl Harris" thus reducing the credibility of the article to zero.

This happens once or twice a day. That particular IP is being problematic, and so I have blocked it for 48 hours. Blocks are better than protection since there is less (or no) collateral damage with blocks. -Splashtalk 17:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NB. There are other, superficially similar, IPs also being childish. They are from different service providers however, so a range block won't work. Only the one listed above seems to be repeatedly problematic. -Splashtalk 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah right now, it just isn't enough for protection. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow revert war between User:Thedore7 and User:PL (who claims Theodore7 is persistently adding copyvio material into the article...I'm "involved" inasmuch as I keep having to go back and disambiguate stuff everytime PL reverts to his version). Tomertalk 09:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will protect. It'll be PL's version because that's the version it's in right now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious vandal, school ip (I attend the school), students blanking every 12 hours. Request Semi-Protection Sceptre (Talk) 12:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost a day. I'll hold off for now. Dmcdevit·t 20:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is the school holidays at the moment.... Robdurbar 14:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been vandalized for the last couple of days now. Requesting page protection.

Lotta edits, but nobody's tried talking on the talk page! Why don't you try that? I made things a bit prettier; if things keep up with the reversions and other nonsense, it may need protection. Not quite yet, though. —BorgHunter (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wowzers. Protected. —BorgHunter (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be unprotected. BorgHunter locked it down without carefully reverting the vandalism. -- Mikeblas 19:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain further and link to the version you think is correct? An honest mistake in reversion doesn't mean it needs to be unprotected. Dmcdevit·t 20:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd be glad to revert to a previous version if there's vandalism I missed. I think I got most of the external link–changing. Just give me an oldid and I'll take a look. —BorgHunter (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the revision around "05:46, December 31, 2005 MarkGallagher" looks like a decent version. As it stands, the last paragrap (starting with "Prior to being fired from MCA...") includes "audiophool", the name of the vandal -- and was added by him earlier in the evening. The "Juice Newton" stuff is drivel. I think we should have a version without that paragraph, -- Mikeblas 21:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry I didn't catch it all in the first place. —BorgHunter (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; thanks for helping. Thing is, now it's locked and there's no locked template so that's confusing. (How do you guys decide when to unlock?) -- Mikeblas 21:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like BorgHunter acidentally reverted out the template as well. I put it back in. Articles protected for vandalism will be unprotected in a short time, likely in a matter of days (without some unusual circumstance). If not, you can always request unprotection below. Dmcdevit·t 21:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can a moderator please look at the talk page? The is an error in a URL that needs to be fixed. Thanks for all of your help!

Zloch1

Requesting temporary (a week?) semi-protection. Lots and lots of edits by anons, repeatedly inserting disputed/unverifiable info. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Protected. In this case, Izehar, the anons are adding unverified/disputed information, which is vandalism. I mean it's not "PENIS!", but it's definitely still within the realm of the definition of vandalism that we use, especially since it's being done without discussion. Hopefully this will encourage them to create accounts and discuss what they want on the talk page. I counted one anon post on the talk page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think i'm no longer neutral towards this article, so i'm not going to protect it myself. However, an edit war's been brewing over there, and it doesn't look like it's going to stop anytime soon. karmafist 11:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd protect it but given that I've had iffy dealings with one of the users involved lately (not you karma, one of the others), I'd rather not. Someone else want to take this? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Protected. We'll let it settle out for a few days. Wikibofh(talk) 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The second it was out of page protection the vandal came back and every day the same vandal with different IPs come and edit hundreds of more fake episodes most people are removing it but that vandal keeps coming back. -- Caldorwards4 19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. I lied - let me investigate the possibility of blocking the anon. Izehar 19:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of anons. Whether they are dynamic IPs or proxies, I don't know. I think that semi-protection would be appropriate, but Woohookitty seems to think that SP should not be used in this case. I can't tell if SPing it would be compatible with the policy either. Semi-protection is used to deal only when vandalism is a serious problem - is that the case here? It looks more like a content dispute (I don't know if the anon's/anons' edits are rubbish/joke edits or not). IMO sporadic vandalism can be reverted, but it depends how often the page is vandalised. If it is actual vandalism, then you are exempt from the 3RR and can revert the vandalism on sight. Izehar 19:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to semi protect it. This just keeps going and going and it can certainly be considered vandalism at this point since it's clear that what they are putting up is speculative. Let's make it a bit clearer and semi protect. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:08, 1 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.

I'm not sure it needs to still be protected, but if it does, could it be changed to a redirect to Wikipedia:Etiquette? Thanx -Vastango 08:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I unprotected and made it a redir. I'll put it on my watchlist since before, it's been recreated many times. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are all redirect pages that were vandalized in November. I think the vandal has gone away by now... --Khoikhoi 06:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request unprotection (or reduction to semiprotection) of these two redirects so they may be nominated for deletion. After a discussion with a vandal last night I discovered that, while the user went about things the wrong way, his issue was a legitimate one; The redirects are inappropriate. I wish to recitify the problem via an RFD. The protections are over 6 months old. -- Shinmawa 19:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to sem-protection, since it was anon/new user vandalism anyway. Dmcdevit·t 20:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by this. They have both been vprotected for months, thus there cannot be a current vandalism problem by definition. Why maintain any level of protection in that case? -Splashtalk 23:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, LUElinks (note caps) was deleted a few days ago at AFD. Basically, that vandal desperately wants to get their hands on these redirs and recreate the deleted article. Didn't spend too much time looking at this, but I figured that at least a downgrade to semi was warranted, but wasn't confident in full unprotection. Feel free to look at it again. Dmcdevit·t 01:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request admin remove semi on this page. Was un-semied recently (see history of page). There has been only 1 instance of vandalism since the un-semi and has been resemied? SEMI is not pre-emptive. novacatz 07:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually going to inquire with BDAbramson to see why he reprotected. I don't want a semi protection war. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think he's justified. For a few days. It looks like the dynamic user who heavily vandalized the article so much that it caused SP is back. The whole idea is to make them go away. :) So I'll keep it SP for a couple of days. I think that's fair. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Curps arbitrarily protected this page, and I wish to dispite its neutrality. Ardenn 00:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy if the article simply has the NPOV tag re-added. Ardenn 00:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I urge that it not be unprotected immediately, as various users are edit warring over mostly-minor details.--SarekOfVulcan 00:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to be stepping in to help out. Mr Sarek. Put your money where your mouth is. Ardenn 00:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ardenn, they're helping you out by having it protected. For those of you who don't know, Ardenn and Anakinskywalker both broke 3RR on this today, but Ardenn is a newbie. For more info, check here on WP:AN/I. karmafist 04:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=33673503"