This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
| General help | General issues • Site directory • Image & media copyright • Userpage help • New user help • Community assistance |
|---|---|
| Report abuse | Vandalism • Spam • Edit warring (3RR) • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sock puppets • Copyright violations • Long term abuse • ISP reporting • BLP sanctions logging |
| Request assistance | Editor assistance • Page protection • Checkuser • Oversight • Arbitration • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Wikiquette alerts |
| Noticeboards | Administrators' • Incidents • ArbCom enforcement • Conflict of interest • Biographies • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources • Ethnic and cultural conflicts |
| Requests for page protection | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be fully protected, semi-protected, move-protected or unprotected. Please read up on the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to Wikipedia:High-risk templates; semi-protection is usually used only to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars After a page has been protected, the protection is listed in the page history and logs with a short description indicating why it was protected, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins do not revert back to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.
If you would like to request a page to be protected or unprotected, please follow the following steps:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Example
===={{la|Intentionally permanent red link}}====
'''semi-protect'''. High level of IP vandalism. ~~~~
Current requests for protection
Place requests for either semi-protection, full protection, move protection, or create protection at the TOP of this section. Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Semi-protection - IP's removing chucks of sourced content despite talk page resolution by an Admin that the content was perfectly legitimate. Article instability for about 3 weeks. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection Abuse from blocked user.--§ Lights talk 16:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protected for duration of block (1 week). Tan | 39 16:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
temporary full protection Dispute, Same dispute as at David Icke, same participants. Maybe someone wants to look into 3RR and/or blocks for edit warring. .Avruch 15:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: I'm having doubts about all three. I'm going to leave this one for the time being, as it's now moved to ANI. Depending on how things go I might reconsider if the warring begins again. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
temporary full protection Dispute, Same dispute as at David Icke, same participants. .Avruch 15:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected Maximum of 3 days. Temp discussion can be moved to Talk:Paul Berry/temp for the time being. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
temporary full protection Dispute, Ridiculous edit war over a link to uncyclopedia. .Avruch 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected Maximum of three days. Temp discussion can go to Talk:David Icke/temp for now. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
protection: Persistent vandalism by User:Shihab20, a (suspected) sock puppet of the temporarily blocked Hisham 5ZX. Repeatedly adds unsourced POV and changes factual information from the citations used. Not sure of the level of protected required.Lawrencema (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note: User warned. No need for protection here. Aside this, the user's talk page was redlinked, indicating that not enough effort was placed into helping/guiding/warning the user yourself. Please bear this in mind for future reference. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection: The article was semi-protected yesterday due to a high-level of IP vandalism; however, that protection has now expired, and it seems as if the vandalism has not stopped. IPs have been repeatedly changing various factual info. -- Luke4545 (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for another 12 hours. After 12 hours the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
temporary full protection Dispute, Edit warring that has been going on for months. Refusal of the involved parties to take issue to the talk page despite numerous requests. Suspected sockpuppetry. .Cambrasa confab 10:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Declined Warring has been dormant since 5 July. Suggest relisting if it becomes a problem again. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
full-protect. See article history. Kariteh (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
full protection Article created by me in 2007.Repeatedly vandalised by Pdipu.Please fully protect as soon as possible.Also please let me know if only the creater or owner of the article can edit Satyajit nayakSatyajit Nayaktalk 05:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Declined See WP:OWN. No material can be owned on Wikipedia, and the level of vandalism is not currently high enough to warrant protection at this time. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Current requests for unprotection
If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, consider simply adding {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. See the list of current {{Editprotected}} requests.
If you do want a page that exists unprotected, please try and ask the protecting admin first before making a request here. This is also not the place to dispute a protection.
Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
This template has never been vandalised. I asked User:Ral315 whether he could undo the protection he introduced. He said that it was too high-risk anyway. The template is on the articles of all EU member states, and it is of course a high risk template in that regard. But I think a semi protection from anonymous users would be better. E.g. that has recently been done with Template:G8 nations which is on the same risk level. - SSJ ☎ 03:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Declined There is surely no reason for this to be changed, as the members don't chop-and-change. But these politically-relevant templates have experienced edit warring, which is why it is "high risk". I'm declining this because there's no reason t change it. In the unlikely event that it will be need to be updated, the template will become a hotbed for edits, which will probably lead it to full protection once again. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- "no reason to change it"? Lazy and ignorant admins? In fact, I am intending to edit the template, and that doesn't mean I'm adding a new country. Why can't it have the same protection as the G8 template? That template has been subject to warring over whether the EU should be included or not, but still it's protected only from anonymous users. The protection level shoul be equal for templates of the same risk, and in this case, the G8 template's record shows that it's more high-risk than the EU template. I thought full protection was supposed to be the last resort on wikipedia. Semi protection would be much better. - SSJ ☎ 21:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Current requests for significant edits to a protected page
- When making requests here, either:
- Provide a good reason for a substantial edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. Please link to the talk page where consensus was reached.
- Demonstrate that there is a clear dispute over a protected page, and that a specific dispute tag would be appropriate to add. Please link to the talk page where the dispute exists.
Note: Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change rather than requesting it here, though most of these should simply wait for unprotection. See also: Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests
Fulfilled/denied requests
The edit war (the creator trying to declare it policy) that caused the locking has resulted in further discussion and is unlikely to happen again, so it would be useful to unlock the page for further work. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Declined I accepted it at first, and you immediately rejected the proposal. I can't stress this enough: The proposal is not concluded. I'm not involved, but this is clear from the discussion. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
short-term semi-protection Google remade their logo using his artwork in honor of his birthday (7 July) so seems an uptick in vandalism may be worth semi-protecting. Banjeboi 06:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hello? I just reverting a page blanking, this seems to be continuing. Banjeboi 07:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days. After 3 days the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
full protection Hacked into by anonymous web users showing private information. Please fully protect as soon as possible. Geoking66talk 05:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Already protected - Fully, users have been blocked, and I have deleted the edits in question and requested for them to be oversighted (meaning they won't even show up as deleted edits). VegaDark (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
temporary full protection Dispute, Two newer members of wikipedia have repeatedly made changes to this article that do not meet wikipedia quality standards... (issues with references, formatting and style, and the use of an image gallery)... I fix their changes and they just revert them... i don't want to discourage them however, so i think this may be a better option than reporting them for administrative action....lesthaeghet (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected for one day. I was inclined to decline this request, but after really looking at the issue, I see your point. Frustrating, as the editor in question isn't vandalising and everything seems to be in good faith, but he/she really needs to read a lot of WP:MOS (and have their caps lock/ "!" key disabled). At any rate, try to engage them on the article talk page (as you've been doing) and/or on their talk page; I will leave a short note on their talk page also. Bring back here if problem persists. Tan | 39 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
temporary semi-protection Vandalism, A new XKCD.com comic was released that mentioned this article by name. There have been a few vandalisms and it's only been the first 10 minutes..Nick Garvey (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, was on my way to suggest this when Nick beat me to it. Yvh11a (Talk • Contribs) 04:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Already protected VegaDark (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
semi-protect. High level of vandalism. Edgehead5150 (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected Until August 1st. VegaDark (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Salt. This link is in today's Motto of the Day, and so is a likely target for vandals looking around user pages. There's obviously no reason for a page to be created there anyway, and could feasibly be used as an intentional redlink. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 02:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
temporary cascading full protection , This Image is going to be added to the Main Page in the next DYK update because it is listed here I would do it myself but I'm not an a admin and User:BorgQueen has decided to take a break from DYK and asked me to keep the DYK running in her absence but not being an admin I can't do everything and it is DYK policy to protect the Image before it goes live on the main page. Thanks and All the Best.Mifter (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected. Please let us know when you would like it unprotected. — E ↗TCB 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection - Considerable levels of IP vandalism over the past few days. -- Comandante {Talk} 00:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of one week. — E ↗TCB 02:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the simple past tense form of chide, and should therefore redirect to castigation. Neelix (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Declined - Chode is not mentioned in the target article so the appropriateness of a redirect seems limited. Further, 99.9% of the population that has heard of this word does not associate this word with the past tense of Chide. If you feel strongly about this, you can take the deletion to WP:DRV where you can propose a redirect be placed instead of a deleted page. VegaDark (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Masculinism is, according to User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, a belief in the superiority of men or the masculine. It should not be a redirect to masculism, which is a discourse that involves various movements, theories and philosophies that are concerned with the issue of gender difference, which advocate equality for men, and campaign for men's rights and interests. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note: So, where should it be redirected to, if anywhere? Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- It could exist as a stub with the above definition (to be expanded). It could be deleted. Are redirects to Wiktionary allowed? However, leaving it as is would be akin to redirecting misandry to feminism. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
Done Redirected to Wiktionary using {{Wi}}. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thanks! JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
Full protection. Edit war since June 30 over inclusion of the word "surgical" in the first sentence. Coppertwig (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected for a period of 3 days. After 3 days the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection Recurrent IP posting of sexual accusations, based not only on gossip sites (perezhilton.com), but on non-existent articles on those sites.Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. Not too much disruption yet, but as I say, relist it if it becomes a problem. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection In the past 24 hours, with the exception of a series of edits by ReyBrujo, every single edit has been reverts, or vandalism/disruption - which includes addition of scrollbars, uncited additions, among others. More disruptions goes on through the entire history. --haha169 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected until September 1. VegaDark (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection. As Per Rafael Nadal. Mangwanani (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected until July 10. VegaDark (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Please unprotect the article as there have been some recent edits like which are defamatory and need to be removed. Sindhian (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC) - + :
Declined See the logs; the page was being flooded with vandalism. Therefore the page was protected indefinitely. Nevertheless, as an autoconfirmed user, you can fix these yourself. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have access to edit it. And no one is responding to my discussion points on the talk page. Look at the history a lot of editors have left in disappointment. This may be a delibrate attempt to sabotage an article on one of the largest religions. Sindhian (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 7 July 2008, at 17:01.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:Requests for page protection".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.