Roger Pearse (talk | contribs) Requesting full protection of Mithraic mysteries. (TW) |
|||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==Current requests for protection== |
==Current requests for protection== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}} |
||
==== {{la|CAPTCHA}} ==== |
|||
'''semi-protection''' ''high-visibility template'', High visibility among many social networks due to a spreading [[meme]]. . [[User:R3ap3R.inc|R3ap3R.inc]] ([[User talk:R3ap3R.inc|talk]]) 20:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==== {{la|Mithraic mysteries}} ==== |
==== {{la|Mithraic mysteries}} ==== |
||
'''full protection''' ''dispute'', No consensus on changes being made to redate Mithras before Jesus, or add comparisons of the two. Lots of arguments, mostly being ignored by the user responsible. Can we have protection of the article until consensus arises?. [[User:Roger Pearse|Roger Pearse]] ([[User talk:Roger Pearse|talk]]) 19:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |
'''full protection''' ''dispute'', No consensus on changes being made to redate Mithras before Jesus, or add comparisons of the two. Lots of arguments, mostly being ignored by the user responsible. Can we have protection of the article until consensus arises?. [[User:Roger Pearse|Roger Pearse]] ([[User talk:Roger Pearse|talk]]) 19:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:13, 12 February 2011
Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here. | |
---|---|
Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection) After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism. Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
Request a specific edit to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here |
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 |
Current requests for protection
Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
CAPTCHA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection high-visibility template, High visibility among many social networks due to a spreading meme. . R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Mithraic mysteries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
full protection dispute, No consensus on changes being made to redate Mithras before Jesus, or add comparisons of the two. Lots of arguments, mostly being ignored by the user responsible. Can we have protection of the article until consensus arises?. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indefinite full protection dispute, Talk page discussion gave consensus for a redirect to Report about Case Srebrenica. Over the months, various SPA have been replacing a POV article, without engaging in any discussion. Long term protection is merited, not to be undone without consensus. We need to force the reverters to either discuss or move on. (I'm "involved" so no doing myself, although I can't see this as controversial) . Scott Mac 18:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
DJ Khaled (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi protect Prolonged IP vandalism. STATic message me! 18:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Royal Rumble (2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi protect Just an unessasary amount of IP vandalism. STATic message me! 18:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Abortifacient (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protect. A bunch of different IP addresses, who are probably all the same person, are removing text in what appears to be an attempt to disrupt NPOV. (I started a discussion in talk on the off chance this was actually a good faith attempt, which no one joined.) Blocks would also work, but since these are single-purpose accounts, I think semi-protection would be adequate. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Wittenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Recent spat of non-autoconfirmed vandalism. Has been protected three times for excessive sock puppetry. I dream of horses (T) @ 17:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Blue balls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, This article is currently a target of anonymous vandalism; I have reverted four times in the last five minutes, and ClueBot NG has been trying in vain to undo vandalism as well. Recommend semi-protection so only confirmed users can edit. AryconVyper (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 16:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Blow (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection vandalism, Simple mindless vandalism. Protection would be appreciated. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik_Zero 16:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Ho Chi Minh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection vandalism, there looks to be sufficient vandalism that it warrants consideration. While there are good faith edits, there are quite a lot of vandalism edits. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 16:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Top Gear test track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection - Continued addition of false information, removal of legitimate information and addition of fake times on results sheets.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik_Zero 16:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary full protection dispute, Primarily 2 editors are engaging in an ongoing dispute conducted primarily through short, semi-civil edit summaries. Only 1 has made any attempt to discuss on the talk page. Please protect the article to compel the editors to discuss; this instability is not good for the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- User:Babasalichai has a history of adding unsourced and poorly sourced negative information to this BLP; it is almost exclusively his only activity on this wiki. I am monitoring but would like an uninvolved admin to assess the situation please. Qwyrxian has also filed a 3RR report. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Chester Bennington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, This article has recently been ambushed with bouts of IP vandalism. DPH1110 (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Davewild (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Main Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indefinite full protection, Shouldn't the main page have an obvious infinitely protected thing on it?. GrammarSpellingWatch (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Cartoon Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection vandalism, Repeated vandalism attempts by IPs and "throw away" accounts. —Farix (t | c) 11:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Davewild (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Trevor Gillies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, High level of vandalism by IPs and new users. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I second this. All pages dealing with the islanders are going to get hit, bad, after tonights game. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 hour, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Semi-protected for 1 hour by Bsadowski1 (talk · contribs) [2] 10 minutes after this request was made; now expired but vandalism seems to have died down. Nev1 (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Cineplex Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection. Multiple incidents of spamming with promotional material; same material has been added by two different Bell Canada IP addresses, as well as one registered account. It appears possible that one editor is IP hopping in order to confuse the issue. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Declined Most of the spam was added by a registered user who would not get stopped by semi-protection and there is not enough activity from unregistered users to justifiy semi-protection at this time. Davewild (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Corn dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. –CWenger (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Davewild (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Current requests for unprotection
Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.
- To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
- Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
- Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
- If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.
Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Demographics of New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotection, Protected since December 2009 - though there doesn't appear to have been much vandalism at the time. Possibly one piece of vandalism though the user in question wasn't warned or blocked.
The page additionally appears to be well watched. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Nike, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotection, The log says that this page was protected because of "Excessive vandalism: protection while we sort out a good version." That was back in August 2008. Unless there's some strong reason to believe it's still going to be an unacceptably high vandalism target, it seems like at least a trial unprotection is warranted. . Qwyrxian (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unprotected Original protecting admin no longer active and been protected for over 2 years so lets try unprotection. Davewild (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Lowanna Secondary College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotect please. There was not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection, let alone an indefinite one. 113.197.210.85 (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
My Lai Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotection, Has been protected for over a year. Indefinite protection seems excessive at this time - especially as it was a first time protection. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Nerds FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotection, Protection at the time was justified, but indefinite protection seems excessive as its been protected for over two years. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unprotected Davewild (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Le Van Ty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotect. It may have been a sock, but those edits to me seemed reasonable, and in fact more likely to be a content dispute than anything nasty. At any rate, an indefinite for this stub seems like a suicidal overreaction. There have been previous good edits by unregistered users. 113.197.210.85 (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Jean-Baptiste Chaigneau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotect. There was not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection, let alone an indefinite one. 113.197.210.85 (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.
- Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among
{{Edit protected}}
,{{Edit template-protected}}
,{{Edit extended-protected}}
, or{{Edit semi-protected}}
to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed. - Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the
{{Edit COI}}
template should be used. - Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
- If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
- This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
Fulfilled/denied requests
Ave Maria College (Melbourne, Victoria) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotect. There was not enough (in fact, zero) recent disruptive activity to justify protection, let alone an indefinite one. 113.197.210.85 (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Pine Rivers State High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotect. There was not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection, let alone an indefinite one. 113.197.210.85 (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Declined, BLP problems, maybe somewhat heavy-handed to be an indef, but within admin discretion considering the crap all school articles get. Courcelles 08:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- There were plenty of decent IP edits to this article. There is no way this article would be protected for any time at all if it was bought up here - let alone indefinitely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is the kind of crap that gets us OTRS e-mails. Upon learning that obvious vandalism sat there for six days, I would have, and indeed have, done the exact same thing. Courcelles 10:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- To a certain extent children are going to insult their teachers so the page shouldn't be protected indefinitely - I do accept your point that some level of protection was warranted in this case, I would say approximately three months would have been reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Three months would have still been overkill and definitely not in line with what happens at WP:RFP, but still much more sensible than indefinite. As for schools warranting an exception to our policy, please see a pretty consensual outcome of last year's discussions. 113.197.210.85 (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- To a certain extent children are going to insult their teachers so the page shouldn't be protected indefinitely - I do accept your point that some level of protection was warranted in this case, I would say approximately three months would have been reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is the kind of crap that gets us OTRS e-mails. Upon learning that obvious vandalism sat there for six days, I would have, and indeed have, done the exact same thing. Courcelles 10:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- There were plenty of decent IP edits to this article. There is no way this article would be protected for any time at all if it was bought up here - let alone indefinitely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Irfan Pathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotect. The levels of disruptive activity did not seem to justify indefinite protection. 113.197.210.85 (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not unprotected There were significant BLP problems, and this run of YellowMonkey's protections you are bringing here is starting to look like a witchhunt. Courcelles 08:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please stick to the merits of the protection, thank you. 113.197.210.85 (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- YellowMonkey made a large number of extremely poor indefinite protections, they need to be looked at, and the protections removed if appropriate. I don't want to escalate the matter to ANI as that will upset everyone and create drama, but the indefinite protections do need to be posted here and looked at properly.
- As its getting on for a year since YellowMonkey stopped making indefinite protections now seems like a pretty good time to bring them up in decent numbers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your opinion on YellowMonkey's admin actions is well known, as well as your rather conservative view of semi-protection. WP:BLP trumps all, and this biography had BLP problems. They will return if it is unprotected. Courcelles 10:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- All, please let's stick to the merits of the protections at hand. Who protected and who is asking for unprotection is not relevant. A more relevant point to consider is whether a request to protect the same article would have been granted on this page by an uninvolved admin. 113.197.210.85 (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Its been protected for a year and its the first protection, how do you know that BLP issues will return? Per the policy WP:PP vandalism needs to be heavy and persistent for indefinite protection to be applied. I don't see how that applies in this case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- All, please let's stick to the merits of the protections at hand. Who protected and who is asking for unprotection is not relevant. A more relevant point to consider is whether a request to protect the same article would have been granted on this page by an uninvolved admin. 113.197.210.85 (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your opinion on YellowMonkey's admin actions is well known, as well as your rather conservative view of semi-protection. WP:BLP trumps all, and this biography had BLP problems. They will return if it is unprotected. Courcelles 10:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please stick to the merits of the protection, thank you. 113.197.210.85 (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The Roommate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indefinite full protection vandalism, This article is still being whacked with mindless IP vandalism after the previous semi-protection expired on February 9. DPH1110 (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 08:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Crawley Town F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protect. Vandalism from various editors, mostly insertion of obviously false information in the Current Squad section (fake players, etc). Brambleclawx 01:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 08:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Emmanuel College: Notre Dame Campus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotect. There was not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection, let alone an indefinite one. 113.197.210.85 (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Balwyn High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotect. There was not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection, let alone an indefinite one. 113.197.210.85 (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Declined, Suffered long-term disruption. Entirely valid protection, given the steady stream of crap and precious little besides Courcelles 08:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- In this case I agree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)