Misplaced Pages

:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:44, 4 August 2005 view sourceSilverback (talk | contribs)6,113 edits →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:17, 30 December 2024 view source Cyberbot I (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors1,718,157 edits Clerking main page and moving requests to appropriate subpages.Tag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{noadminbacklog}}<!-- Do not hide or modify this, a bot named "Cyberbot I" will manage it automatically.--><noinclude><!-- Please put protection templates *inside* the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{Short description|Wikimedia noticeboard for requesting protection of pages}}{{/Header}}{{Floating link|class=sysop-show|Administrator instructions|Administrator instructions}}{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|1=vandalism|action=edit|small=yes|expiry=}}}}<!-- Put interwikis at the Wikidata entry and categories in /Header instead of this page -->
{{Shortcut|] or ]}}
__FORCETOC__</noinclude><!-- Do not hide or modify this, a bot named "Cyberbot I" will manage it automatically-->
This page is for requesting that a page or image be '''protected''' or '''unprotected'''.
<!-- DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE. The formatting is enforced by Cyberbot. To make changes, please contact Cyberpower678. -->


<!-- Please copy the following example code to add a new entry at the bottom of the correct subpage:
If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and the date) at the ''top'' of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Before you do so, however, consult ] for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection.
=== ] ===
* {{pagelinks|Example}} ~~~~
-->


== Current ] in protection level ==
Only consider protection as an option that is necessary in order to resolve your problem and that the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection. Sometimes the problem will go away after a week or so.
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Button protect}}{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Increase}}
<!-- DO NOT PUT NEW REQUESTS HERE. GO TO THE SUBPAGE ABOVE -->


== Current ] in protection level ==
After a page has been protected, it is listed on ] with a short description indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. '''This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.'''
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Button unprotect}}{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Decrease}}
<!-- DO NOT PUT NEW REQUESTS HERE. GO TO THE SUBPAGE ABOVE -->


== Current ] to a protected page ==
When submitting a request for page unprotection, you may want to consider the reason given for protection at ] (or lack thereof).
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Button edit}}{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Edit}}
<!-- DO NOT PUT NEW REQUESTS HERE. GO TO THE SUBPAGE ABOVE -->


== Handled requests ==
Administrators: When you have fulfiled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and move the request to the old requests section at the bottom of the page.
''A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at ].''


== Current requests ==
:''Please place new requests '''at the top.'''''
<!-- Please only edit below this line. -->

===]===
user called DreamGuy is constantly trying to move a section from the vampire article tro this section w ithout consensus. please udo his changes and protect the article. id undo his changes myself, but im sick of editwarring, and im trying very hard to be a good 1rr person. thank you
] 06:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

:Err, actually the section in question from the ] article was already moved and not currently present, and the other article is already locked so the section he is talking about can;t be moved there. And the discussion is clearly showing consensus for the section's move anyway, with at least four editors in favor and only Gabriel (undergoing RfC for extensive POV editing) and a brand new user created today who talks like the same guy who was blocked from the page and Misplaced Pages in general twice for sockpuppeting, etc. But then Gabriel is currently trying to move movies and televisions shows off the fiction page so perhaps a lock is in order anyway until the sock can be cleaned out and Gabriel gets banne for the 3RR violation he made today. ] 06:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

you never got consensus to do any such move, and you only said you did while i was blocked. a blockl which you got me to accidentally undergo by using insulting baiting edit sumamries. and the RFC is not becasue of that, I suggested Vampire Fiction be merged with Vampire, yes, but tjhat has nothing to do with yuor excessive reverting of what multiple editors disagree with. please stop crudsading. to admins, please undo his lone ranger-esque changes and protect the page. thank you.
] 06:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

:Does that mean you're both in favor of protection? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

===] ===
Please unprotect the ID page, there was no request for protection, and have been no significant revert wars. Edit summaries have been good and discussion, while lively has been civil. -- thanx, --] 05:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

:I protected this because there was a revert war today and an apparent mass deletion of material by Silverback, which two editors objected to. I'd like to keep it protected so that a consensus can be reached on the talk page. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
::Most of the material deleted was duplicative of material on related pages. What happened on this page hardly qualifies as a revert war. Those two editors that "objected", did not request protection and are still communicating on the discussion page. Try to go someplace where you are really needed.--] 06:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

:::If the other editors want me to unlock it, I will, but what I saw was a revert war. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

::::The talk page shows complaints on both sides about the reverting, including from you. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
:::::Since when are reverts not allowed? They are part of the dialogue. You should reserve page protection for vandalism and intransigent revert wars.--] 06:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
::::::''"Since when are reverts not allowed? ... You should reserve page protection for... revert wars."'' - am I the only one who sees the comedic value in that statement? ] 06:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Hopefully not many here get off on mocking like you do.--] 06:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
:::::] has left wikipedia (see his user page). If ] goes on vacation you could be blocking the community for weeks. Why not remove this unrequested and unnecessary block?--] 06:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

===]===

The page has undergone some recent changes recently as the author decided to shut down the sites mentioned in the article. This page has been linked on a few online forums as a reference for the history of the comics and related incidents, and it's been consistently vandalized over the past couple days by anonymous IP addresses. Protecting it for a few days would probably cause most people to lose interest and we could resume editing afterwards. The article is far from complete in its current form and people have complained it may too be biased for the author, but in the short term that's preferrable to it getting vandalized, and discussion for improvements could just be put on the talk page.

===]===
An annonymous user (in the 65.182.172.* range) keeps on vandalising my user page with "Racist and professional asshole to the stars aka "Reuben Perelman"", and has done so 3 times. I'd like it protected as what it currently is. ] 23:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:They appear to have gotten fed up with being told off for vandalism and gone away, so protection not needed atm. ] 00:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
::The user has a history of personal attacks againt me and several other editors who dared to disagree with him/her over the ] article. I doubt it's over. ] 00:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

===]===
request that the last version by Heah be protected. ] continues to revert to a npov version, and has failed to respond or discuss on the talk page. please see ] and ] for background on the debate and citations.
--] ] 19:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

===]===
This is the latest battle in the war over "BC" and "AD" vs. "BCE" and "CE". ] ] 16:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

===]===

Igor Bogdanov himself is altering constantly this article by removing any fair allusion to the critics against his "work" and by adding fallacious references to acadamic support of his "work".

I suggest to protect the last unmodified version of this article.

He is currently doing the same thing on the french page "Igor et Grichka Bogdanoff".

A solution would be to block the IP range 82.123.178.0 - 82.123.178.255.--] 17:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

===Sveasoft===
James Ewing, owner of Sveasoft, has continued to linkspam ] on several ]-related pages, as well as editing the ] to remove any content that may be "detrimental" to his business. His main argument is that he removes links that violate the ], however:
* He has tried to get Google to remove said links. Google found nothing wrong with the links, and subsequently did not comply.
* He has tried to get ] to remove so-called "illegal" content. They never did, though the customer eventually cancelled his account. See this link: .

I for one do not approve of Sveasoft's business practices, but despite any former disputes with them I have tried to keep the Wiki article. Therefore, it is my suggestion to ban Sveasoft's IP range of 62.20.102.128/25:
<pre>% Information related to '62.20.102.128 - 62.20.102.255'

inetnum: 62.20.102.128 - 62.20.102.255
netname: SE-SVEASOFT
descr: Sveasoft Utveckling AB
descr: Wireless ISP
country: se
admin-c: JE730-RIPE
tech-c: JE730-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: TELIANET-LIR
source: RIPE # Filtered</pre>
--] 22:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:'''Update:''' An edit war appears to be starting. I've already reverted once, but I'd rather not fuel the fire. --] 00:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
::http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sveasoft&oldid=20160974 is the complete page containing correct information. The discussion page has details on why changes were made. This page should be set for page protection as of the revision that I posted the URL for. ] 01:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC) Update: Changed URL to more recent revision ] 03:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
::Also, ] has edited my user information page (not my talk page) with links to FUD and threats. ] 01:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:::I did not add any of the links, and there are no "threats". It should also be noted that ] is an employee of Sveasoft. Refer to ] for the full discussion. --] 01:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
::::http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Kf4hzu&oldid=20146906 Saying the page will be set protected sounds like a threat to me. And those look like links. The history doesn't lie. ] 02:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::That's merely enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies. --] 03:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===
Page is being repeatedly vandalized by one user (IP 65.33.200.199,) but vandalisms seem too low priority to request administrator intervention, unless I'm misinterpreting the "Dealing with Vandalism" page guidelines. 65.33.200.199 has vandalized the page a total of four times, causing two reverts to be made today alone. Requesting temporary protection just to force a cool-down period. Barring that, at least requesting admins to look into the matter and determine the appropriate action.

===]===
This articles has been edited by 202.69.161.135, adding irrelevant and wrong information to the article. --] 04:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
:Currently tagged as a copyvio with no edits since ]. Protection not currently needed. ] 16:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===
Despite the fact that the referendum in the talk page, with 17 vs. 5 votes, asks to keep the controversial image, it keeps being deleted and reverted. --] 10:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
* I second this request - the image has been deleted several times today, despite the consensus on the talk page being that the image should be included. The page needs to be protected until this calms down. --] 00:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
**There have been no edits regarding the picture today so I'm holding off on the protection unless the dispute starts up again. ] 16:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
***Just noticed that the images have been deleted again - have re-added them. --] 08:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

<!--Please do not add new requests below this line-->

== Old requests / Completed requests ==
*Only old requests that have been actioned or rejected should be in this section.
*If you want to disagree with an administrators decision to protect or not protect you make a ''brief'' comment here.
*Other discussion should take place on the talk page of the article concerned or on user talk pages.
*Any ccomments left here that do not meet the above guideliens may be summarily moved or deleted at the discretion of any administrator.
*Requests that are in this section and have had no new comment in the last 3 days may be removed by any editor. Requests may be removed earlier at any administrator's discretion.
<!-- add old requests to the top of this section (but below this line) when they have been actioned -->

=== ] ===
vandalism I and others have reverted many times. May need temporary page protection or banning of vandals. ] 23:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
:No vandalism today, so I'm hoping the vandals are bored of getting reverted. Request again if the situation changes. ] 16:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===
There is a problem with an 'edit war' on this page. The group most closely associated with Charles Taze Russell's Last Will & Testament, and documented legacy, have had factual data removed from the article in favor of groups who have no association with him. A permanent protection is requested to maintain the integrity of the Misplaced Pages entry, and to prevent accurate material being removed, and innacurate material being added, etc... Thank you. ] 18:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
*permanent protection is '''never''' apropriate on an article and is only used on a VERY VERY select few pages, e.g. the main page, copyrights page and disclaimer pages (the latter two of which are done for legal reasons). There does appear to be a lot of editing hapening here, but there is contructive editing going on amid the reverts, and apparently active, civil and constructive dialog on the talk page. For these reasons I don't think protection is apropriate at the moment. ] 23:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
**The situation has deteriorated, where one user is persistently removing the majority agreed NPOV and wikify tags, and removing constructive edits. Advocate ] recommended I request page protection (see ]) --] 09:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
***Furthermore, note that ] (aka ]) is the subject of an ongoing user conduct RfC - ] - for POV pushing and misconduct to that end. ] 18:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I think that this article does need protection now, but having looked more into the history of the article, its talk and having read the RfC (which I will shortly be endorsing) I am no longer neutral. As such it would be inapropriate for me to protect the page on any version. Please could another admin do this. ] 20:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
*I looked at the history and there hasn't been any editing in a couple of days. Perhaps this has cooled off for now. ]·] 23:09, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
** I don't see anything either. --] ] 19:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
*** I agree this has settled down. Request withdrawn. ] 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

===]===
This is basically a revert war in progress. I thought the person had lost interest but they started up again today. I suspect that the same anonymous user is the one who keeps inserting the same editorial line at the end of the article. The IP addresses are not the same, but very similar. If this were a registered user I would be more than happy to take it to their talk page. I've already reverted twice today. Request a proteciton of the page, but without the editorial comment included at the end. An example is http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=If_You_Leave_Me_Now&oldid=20196135. I also suggest banning the IP range of 211.24.65-70 if possible. --] 16:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:Protected, don't really see a reason to block the IP range, only a mild annoyance if anything. ]{{unicode|&#08596;}}]{{unicode|&#08596;}}] 19:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:That's cool. Thanks much! --] 20:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

===Request to unprotect: ]===
As below, the person requesting protection has done nothing to attempt to resolve the issues related to his request for protection. The article stood for months until he attempted to change, and limit, the scope of the article. There is no reason to keep this article protected. The nominator of the protection violated the standing version of the page and that is what is being protected currently. I have attempted to detail the differences between versions of the article in an attempt to have a valid discussion. If he is the only one objecting, than this protection is only serving to protect a version of the article without consensus and prevents other editors from moving forward. If there is some issue here, explanatory text in the article and not reverts and protection, are the answer. ] 19:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:" ''The article stood for months until he attempted to change, and limit, the scope of the article.'' "
:Please don't say something which is not entirely true. Kindly take a look at the edit history, and one can tell what was the title of the article , what was it created for , and who changed its scope . Further, as below, I requested for protection not because of the disagreement, but the refusals to put on, and the many trials to remove the {{tl|twoversions}} tag. &mdash; ]] 19:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
::The change stood. People took that change of scope, went with it, and made subsequent edits. You, and you only, came along and complained. You revert warred. You reverseed everyone else's edits. Your version stands now. Once you got your way and had the page protected, you took your ball and went home. I've asked you to come to the talk page and discuss it to get it unprotected. It's been ignored for a week. Please justify why it needs protection. Please engage in meaningfull discussion on what's necessary to get the page unprotected. ] 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

HELLO ADMINS. PLEASE NOTE THE MADDENING DISCUSSIONS ON THE TALK PAGE OF THESE ARTICLES. We are now at 40k each of this ridiculous discussion. This is one single user who refuses to make any concession, who refuses to talk, who refuses to address questions, and whose proposal to move forward is to fork the articles (via the twoversions template). This page protection is ridiculous. We cannot have a single user acting as the arbiter of these articles. ] 22:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:The point of the protection is to stop the revert wars. I do not have any confidence that if the protection was removed the revert wars wouldn't resume just as soon as both sides became aware of it. There is an arbcom case ongoing, hopefully the outcome of that will shed some light on how to procede here. ] 23:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

===Request to unprotect: ]===
Since being protected the person asking for protection has not attempted any effort at resolving the issue and has had a week to do so. She obviously sees that her version is the protected one. In my world, a person asking for protection for non-vandal reasons hsa the obligation to at least attempt discussion or to find a mediator or RfC to resolve the problem. I've attempted to jumpstart that discussion by detailing the differences between preferred versions but there is no valid reason to keep this protected from people not involved in the overall dispute. ] 18:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:I requested for protection not because of the disagreement, but the refusals to put on, and the many trials to remove the {{tl|twoversions}} tag. The disagreement here is part of an ArbCom case. Both sides should refrain from controversial edits, instead of making edits as such: . &mdash; ]] 19:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
::It is simply ridiculous, that while the Arbcom is on-going, you decided its perfectly alright to spark major arguments by making controversial edits, yet at this point in time, you actually think others should refrain from doing so by quoting an edit aimed at salvaging the situation.--] 19:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:::To repeat, the notice I added was similar to those on many other mainland China-related articles. &mdash; ]] 20:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
::::And to repeat, that can hardly be called an excuse when you are clearly aware that it will be met with strong protests particurly when its usage is not appriopriate.--] 20:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::As far as I know that was so far the only instance that the notice met with protests. And please be reminded here is not a place to continue the discussion on the articles. I requested for protection because of refusals to put on the {{tl|twoversions}} tag, and many trials to remove it, while I have explained for several times in the edit summary why that version was chosen. &mdash; ]] 21:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
::::The twoversions tag is not an end, it is ugly, and should be removed by discussion and work towards consensus as soon as possible. It means nothing to readers. Obviously the dispute is not about that ugly template. Come to the talk page and discuss. You put the tag on, revert everyone else's edits, and then you got the page protected, took your ball and went home and stopped discussing. Do you propose that this article stand with this meaningless template in a protected state forever? ] 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not going to unprotect this at the moment, for the same reasons as the airports article above. ] 23:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

===] again===
Two issues: dispute over a potentially biasing title/method of presentation, and, dispute over whether a dispute exists. Continued edit war appears to me to be censorship of the existence of a dispute: . ]] 17:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:Don't worry about zen. S/he is upset that the title change s/he so desperately wants to that article has no consensus, and s/he now thinks its appropriate to place warnings on the article itself. This is in the context of zen's desire for the term "conspiracy theory" to be excised from the WP. S/he is holding the article hostage. --] 17:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

::A quick glance at the ] and history will show there are half a dozen other editors that agree there is no consensus to sweep the existence of a lack of neutrality complaint under the rug. ]] 17:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

===]===
An anonymous user keeps deleting sentense about Limbaugh meeting his wife on Compuserve. There is consensus among article contributors to keep it in, he has deleted it more than a dozen times. He shows no sign of giving up, and we tried reasoning with him on the talk page. Put it up on RFC as well. ] | ] 15:17, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
:I have blocked the anon user for 24 hours for breaking the ]. As it was only the one user, page protection shouldn't be needed. If they come back with a different IP or others take up his cause without disucssion then re-request page protection. Note that ] violations should be reported at ]. ] 16:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

===]===
Edit war has taken a pause, but based on the past history of the users involved, I'm sure this will rise up again as soon as everyone wakes up in the morning. We're in the middle of discussion seaking compromise on the talk page, so hopefully we will work out things in a few days. Will also throw up on WP:RFC--] 02:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:No evidence of edit waring today, hopefully this will continue to be the case without protection. ] 16:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===
For weeks external links are being added and deleted (with no other type of edits). (This page had burned out at least one editor - Weyes.) It is the most frequently spammed page I have on watch (out of 2,500). ] 15:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
:I <s>applies</s> applied {{tl|vprotect}} to it. ]{{unicode|&#08596;}}]{{unicode|&#08596;}}] 15:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
::I speaks goodly :) ]·] 21:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
:::The lady doth protest too much =P ]{{unicode|&#08596;}}]{{unicode|&#08596;}}] 23:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

===]===
This has been vandalised 7 or 8 times in recent days (always in the same way, although by different IPs). Please could it be locked until the vandal loses interest? --] 11:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
:Done ]{{unicode|&#08596;}}]{{unicode|&#08596;}}] 15:53, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

===]===
Edit war with ] who keeps removing factual information. ] 21:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:Another edit war, protected. ]·] 21:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
::And unprotected five minutes later. Guess it wasn;t as contentious as they thought. :) --]·] 21:51, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

This article is filled with Copyvio information that a particular anon keeps reinserting into the article, and is currently the focus of an intense RV war. ] 18:06, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
:According to the Edit Summary notes, it has been requested that you cite the Copyvio material on the Discussion page so that it may be reviewed and removed if necessary. It is impossible to tell from your edits what information you refer to, since your reversions corrupt 90% of the article. As of this moment, there is still no indication on the Discussion page of exactly what information you feel may be in violation. ] 19:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
:: The issue is still in talk, and by the way Copyvio infringements can be avoided by removing one or two words. ] 20:19, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
::: They can? I'll bet there are some attorneys that would disagree with you. I've checked the Talk page, and you are right: The issue is still there. I see requests for TDC to cite the alleged violations, and I see TDC ignoring those requests. I see TDC tried this same stunt in October, 2004 and again in February, 2005, and Admins had to intervene. Closer examination of TDC's recent edit history leads me to believe his reversions are intended as antagonism, and not constructive editing. ] 08:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:::: I am sure that some attorneys might argue all kinds of crazy things, but not this time. Also, if you go to talk, the citations are now there. ] 14:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
*] has protected this article. ] 16:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:*Slight correction: ] has selected a preferred version, then reverted to that version and protected it. ] 17:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

*Continual RV war with no end in sight with myself and an Anon user whose blocking would result in the blocking of too wide a band of EarthLink users. Anon user continues to insert potential copyvio material into article without discussion. Please protect article until issues can be sorted out in talk ] 14:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

:I've protected the article, with the intent to unprotect in 24 hours. ] | ] 14:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

===]===
Javascript library written by someone else. I don't want this to change (until it's time to upgrade it). ]] 15:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure customized skins are protected by default. Only yourself or admins can edit it. Try logging out and see if you can edit it. --]·] 18:09, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

::Well, there's been a (helpful) edit made by ] to ], so I don't think that's quite correct. ]] 19:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

::That's because he's a sysop and can edit protected pages... see . I don't think protection is going to make a difference. ]{{unicode|&#08596;}}]{{unicode|&#08596;}}] 20:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

:::OK, thanks for clearing that up! No need for protection, it seems. ]] 21:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

<s>'''Please also protect ]''', for the same reasons. ]] 19:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)</s>

===]===
Last 40 edits are reverts. ] did not answer to the talk page, but kept reverting. ] | ] 09:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:Sheesh. Protected, but you two need to come to an agreement. ]·] 03:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

===] (request unprotection)===

Protected on July 19 because of an edit war about an external link. In response to an RfC about the dispute, only one registered user supported including the link, with 11 opposed. The only other support came from multiple anonymous IP's, most with little or no edit history except for comments on ] and vandalisms. The informal mediator, ], has recommended unprotection. ] 18:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
:Unprotected now. ]·] 08:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===
There is presently an edit war ensuing on this article. Myself, and at least 2 other editors have taken to reverting the article to preferred versions -- sometimes on a minute to minute basis. The 3RR has also been violated several times (by myself as well, I'm embarrassed to say). I'm requesting an Admin step in and temporarily protect the page in the hopes the other editors will be steered to the Discussion page for productive discourse. Simply requesting discussion hasn't worked thus far. ] 00:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

As discussion has died down, and main beef appears to have been resolved, I request that this be unprotected. If more problems occur, I will put in for an RfC. ] 15:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

:"Main beef" has been resolved? After reviewing the Talk page, I see no such resolution. I also see more than one point of contention being discussed, without agreement. I predict edit wars will resume if the editors can't even form concensus on the Talk page. ] 16:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

:: Of course you predict edit wars, as you have proven yourself more than willing to Rv an article over a dozen times a day if the new version does not suit your tastes.] 17:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

:::And this statement comes from "TDC"?? What a hoot. :) ] 19:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

*protected. ] 16:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

:Please unprotect, anon user has no intent on "discussion", just force feeding his version of the article. ] 15:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

::Unprotecting would result in continued revert wars and/or vandalism, as User TDC appears intent on maintaining a POV article. ] 16:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

''personal attacks and irrelevant discussion removed''. I quote from the top of the page: "'''This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.'''
:For the record, admins do not have access to the IP addresses used by logged in users. This facility is available only to developers and those who have been given permission to use teh ] utility - I believe this latter is only ] and ] on the English wikipedia. ] 16:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

* Issues appear to have been mostly resloved in talk ]] 17:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
:* Outstanding issues remain, but TDC has been exceptionally reasonable in working towards concensus thus far. ] 17:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
::* Any chance the article is going to be un protected any time soon? ] 19:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
:::*We're close to agreement on the intro, but do you anticipate more wars over the rest of the article? There are differences between the latest two revisions that we haven't addressed. ] 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
::::*You appear to be engaged in productive dialoge, so I have unprotected it but please continue the dialoge rather than reverting each other. You might find a {{tl|controversial}} tag beneficial if other editors start altering your agreed versions. ] 00:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:17, 30 December 2024

Wikimedia noticeboard for requesting protection of pages "WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions, Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission, or Misplaced Pages:Random page patrol.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.
    Shortcuts

    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.

    Skip to requests for protection
    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level Request protection
    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection
    Request a specific edit to a protected page
    Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit
    this header: view • edit


    Archiving icon
    Archives

    2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025



    Current requests for increase in protection level

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level Request protection Shortcuts

    Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create 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.


    Gurgura

    Reason: vandalism and constant editting/removing content. please protect the page and allow changes to edits with only references Hurso77 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @Hurso77: It is not possible to allow only certain kinds of edits. You should discuss issues on the article talk page. Please ask for assistance at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Gurgura

    Reason: vandalism and disruptive editing/removing of factual text Hurso77 (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I will leave a CTOPS notice on the talk page, though. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Daniel Case: Oops. I was coming down and just semi-protected the article for a week, partly as a favor for the requester so they didn't run into an edit-warring problem. Please adjust if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Protection

    Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Janufff (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Pease do not request protection for non English articles here. Heyaaaaalol (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you help us protect ourselves? Janufff (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Janufff: English-language Misplaced Pages administrators have zero authority on the Hindi Misplaced Pages. You need to ask at the Hindi Misplaced Pages's equivalent of this page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 02:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    I see no signs of vandalism in the page history, but I have nominated it for speedy deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not done. I see you've now made a request on the Hindi Misplaced Pages's administrators' noticeboard. (There's also hi:विकिपीडिया:पृष्ठ सुरक्षा अनुरोध.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Jeevitha

    Reason: From August through December 2024, an IP has repeatedly made bad edits and has repeatedly reverted attempts to correct them. Please prevent further IP edits. Thank you. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Yes, there was one disruptive right after the last protection I imposed expired ... in late September. Editing as a whole has been rather minimal since then. Daniel Case (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Jelly Roll (singer)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – repeated vandalism and genre-warring. Ten Pound Hammer • 05:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Seems to have died down a few days ago. Daniel Case (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    2025 Finalissima

    Pending changes: Persistent disruptive editing – Repeated recreation of an article for a future football event that was eventually rescheduled to 2026. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Doesn't seem to have been recreated much since the middle of last year. Daniel Case (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ongoing IP vandalism. SugarRat – t c 07:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Generation

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Addition of unsourced content/vandalism. Sjö (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Current requests for reduction in protection level

    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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.

    Shortcuts

    Ramkripalyadavg

    Reason: Request unprotection We are unable to create an article for this....... . Janufff (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Janufff: Make a draft for this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 02:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Show Me series

    Reason: It was recreated same other page article Cardinals vs Royals closed as redirect at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Royals rivalry (3rd nomination) I think this protection is no longer need because no one gonna use this page anymore since is deleted per CSD G4 applies. 173.219.25.75 (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Insofar as I can actually grok this request, that isn't an argument for unprotection; in fact repeated deletions (of any sort, not just G4) is grounds for a salting. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 08:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Request a specific edit to a protected page
    Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit Shortcut

    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 Misplaced Pages:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
    • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Misplaced Pages: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.
    Further information: Misplaced Pages:Edit requests


    Handled requests

    A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Archive.