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 00:02, 25 August 2005 view sourceJpgordon (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Administrators82,331 edits →Request to protect Rosemary Kennedy← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:30, 27 December 2024 view source Cyberbot I (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors1,716,933 edits Clerking main page and moving requests to appropriate subpages.Tag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{adminbacklog}}<!-- 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 fullfilled 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. -->

===Request to protect ] and ]===
Agriculture claims on his user page and user talk page to be "gone for good", and because of this, he's sticking around to ensure his user page and user talk page stay in this exact same state, no matter how they are edited. Perhaps this makes sense to someone, but protecting the pages would save him a lot of trouble. ] | ] 07:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
===Request to protect ]===
This topic is the target of ongoing edit and slander wars perpetuated by persons associated with former FM associate, Ackerman. Official government records verify that publisher Ferry is the trademark owner but these people take every opportunity to slander the publisher and libel the publication out of spite. Complaints have had to be made to other sources including Ebay, Amazon, and AOL. In the interests of preventing internet resources being used as personal vendetta vehicles the page should be protected. August 23, 2005
===Request to unprotect ]===
It seems as though this page has been forgotten. Considering the ongoing event concerning this orginization (and the fact that the page has been protected for a while now), I think it's reasonable that the page should be unprotected. Cheers ] 05:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
===Request to protect ]===
This page is the latest victim in an edit war between ] et al. (See ], already protected, ] and others for further details.) I would prefer to see protected, because it's a more sober, less speculative version, but at the moment it's only a mild preference. ] <sup>]|]</sup> 01:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
===Request to delete and protect ]===
This is a VfDed page of nonsense which keeps being recreated. --] 00:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
:I realise this isn't a voting page per VfD, but I was about to request this as well, until ] beat me to it, if another voice helps. ] ]&nbsp;|<small> ]</small> 00:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

:The page author {{user|Sydney J Bush}} appears to have done the same to ]. (BTW, thanks, Tony.) --] 01:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

::Deleted and protected both. --] 02:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

===Request to protect ]===

A mental sick person is flooding ] page with all time insulting, u-18 language and very bad pictures. {{vandal|64.229.134.234}} his website is ] and he as many virtual IPs and many usernames. Please do anything for me. he is not hestitaing to use any bad abusing language.
visit his log of changing my page content to the worst possible language ]

:Vandal blocked by Changlc. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 23:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

===Request to protect ]===

This is my user page, and it keeps getting vandalised in relatively minor but still pretty annoying ways. I just keep reverting it without making too much fuss. The problem seemed to stop for a while, but today it's been vandalised twice. The thing is I'd still like to be able to edit my own User page, if that's possible. --] 22:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


===Request to protect ]===

There is an on-going edit war with this (and related articles). . I suggest that Hardy Boys be protected (with the questionable link, IMHO) until the link spam and plagarism accusations have been resolved. . There have been hundreds of edits/reverts to these pages in the last 72 hours. --] 21:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

===Request to protect ]===
against established consensus on this article, often with or edit summaries and sometimes . Despite urging them to communicate with other editors before making contentious edits, the behavior continues. I would protect the page myself, but because I have been involved in reverting the anon's edits, I did not want to give the impression of impropriety (although I have no vested interest in the article above and beyond a desire to keep it NPOV). -- ] ]/] 20:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

:"Established consensus"??? Read the discussion: there has hardly been any "established consensus" on this matter. I, for one, strongly disagree with the categorization of Aetherometry as "pseudoscience", and so have a number of other contributors to the discussion. Or do you use the word "consensus" to mean the opinion of people who agree with YOU? ] 17:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

*Your comment is out of line. I don't have any opinion on aetherometry. My analysis of the established consensus is that most of the registered users on the talk page see aetherometry as psuedoscience; the majority of contrary opinion comes from anonymous users, who could all be one person with a dynamic IP for all anyone knows. Please keep your comments civil, coming out of the gate with an ''ad hominem'' as your 15th edit does not reflect well upon your character. ] ]/] 18:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

: Normally I dislike protection. But in this case, the article content isn't at issue, only the psuedoscience cat, which the anon persists in removing. So it whould be protected with the tag in. ] 21:32:47, 2005-08-23 (UTC).

Oh yes. I wholeheartedly agree - though I actually LOVE protected vandalism. How can we possibly hope to smear Aetherometry with our Pseudoscience label if people keep coming in and taking it off? Lock it up so we can trash this page while silencing that pesky opposition, right Billy boy?. We'll make them swallow it's pure NPOV yet! Tried and true bureaucratic policy people: repeat the lie often enough and our wards are just bound to believe it. Rise to your noble duty brother and sister admins - the wikipedian power of censorship is OURS!

:: The categorization as pseudoscience is clearly POV. This point has been made repeatedly on the talk page. The Wikipedians involved are the only ones calling Aetherometry a pseudoscience -- they have no sources. I have clearly stated why I believe the subject to be a protoscience. Perhaps someone should mount a cogent defense of the pseudoscience label instead of AGAIN protecting the article.] 01:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

:::I believe ] is clearly defined:
::::This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics or the mainstream scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method. The term itself is contested by a number of different groups for a number of different reasons — see the main article for more information.
:::and the ] fits it &mdash; this debate is one piece of evidence for that conclusion. Note that the cat does not imply falsity; merely an accuracy dispute. ] 02:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

::::The debate is evidence? It's evidence that the people calling Aetherometry pseudoscience haven't read the material, and unfortunately it's evidence that you haven't either. Aetherometry as a body of work is rigorous in application of the scientific method -- read some papers and it's quite clear. The experiments involved are relatively simple and definitely repeatable, but the science is too new to have gathered much replication -- thus protoscience. The pseudoscience cat. most definitely implies falsity, as it removes the subject in question from even the ''consideration'' of the scientific community. That is clearly Mr. Connolley's intention in this, based on a demonstrated hostility to the notion that certain mainstream theories might even POSSIBLY be wrong. And still, no-one has defended the notion that Aetherometry is pseudoscience. This page does not need protection but rather proper attention to the details of the subject by those new to its ideas. ] 22:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


* Pure mainstream POV. '''Pseudo is Pseudo - ie, FAKE by any standard'''. '''Aetherometry IS supported by scientific principles and the scientific method'''. If any administrator would care to demonstrate factually that this is not a true statement, they should clearly and concretely do so using facts as their tools and not by hoping to bully others into swallowing their uninformed opinions through relentless plastering of idiotic disinformative labels - and by locking up a page when such bullying just doesn't work . A category of Protoscience would at least indicate this extraordinary body of work is serious science, though quite admittedly NOT mainstream. '''The pseudoscience label is not NPOV. It's highly POV, obnoxious, and deliberately misleading and should be removed. - permanently'''.

===Unprotect ]===

There has been no activity on the talk page since 8 August, and this article needs to be refiled and cleaned up. -- ] 02:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
:The anonymous user who caused the protection of this page is still actively vandalizing ] () and ] (). It seems they also vandalized ] last night , apparently in the belief that removing the ] page from that list would unprotect it. So it looks like they intend to go back to their old hbits on the CIRA page as soon as it's unprotected. ] 09:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
::Blech. -- ] 13:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

===Multiple===
on the following pages until Misplaced Pages makes a decision because of --] deleting and changing contents all the time and overstepping his boundaries as a Admin and giving Misplaced Pages a bad name.
*]
*]
*]
*]
and
*--]

Thanks in advance,
Sincerely,
]

===Request to protect ]===
Anonymous users are using very explicit language targeted against this community. Active edit war is being waged rendering the history page non-effective. I think this page needs active intervention and also protection as this is a very sensitive topic of social strata/caste in India.
--] 01:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

===Request to protect ]===
Very active edit war being waged (mostly by a number of anonymous IPs) with very little use of the talk page and next-to-no edit summaries (one is fond of using "back she goes" for reverts). I've warned a couple of them about some of the nastier behavior (blanking the talk page and removing dispute tags), but I think this calls for more active intervention. ] ] 18:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

===Request to protect ]===
For some months now, an anon user from an ever-changing PacBell IP has been doing hit-and-run changes to the article. Primarily this has consisted of deleting properly sourced and verifiable material, and also inserting material without sourcing. Typically this has only happened once every couple of weeks, so I've simply reverted each time. Within the past few days, however, the anon actually popped up on the talk page to start talking -- which is great (except for a few incivility issues). We agreed on a few changes to the article. However, there were several items he wanted changed for which I requested a source, but none was given and he is no longer choosing to talk on the talk page (except to blank our earlier conversation and insert "Stop changing my corrections" ). He has continued making those changes (and also removing properly sourced and pertinent information -- most recent ), and the amount of reversions he's doing in the past few days (4-7 per day) has become untenable, particularly since he apparently sees no more need to justify his edits. I am requesting this block as a way to force the IP user to continue our discussion on the talk page, which I think could eventually result in a compromise we could both live with, instead of allowing him to force his unsourced additions and near-vandalizing deletions into the article with impugnity. Thanks. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup> 03:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
*This page was protected by another administrator. --] ] 07:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

===Request to unprotect ]===
No protection notice on this one (once again), but I'm assuming it's to protect against what looks like pretty moderate levels of recurrent vandalism. Seems over-hasty IMO, and will protecting admins please rememeber the notices? ] 20:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
*Unprotected. --] ] 07:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

=== Multiple request to protect ],] and ]===
I found people requesting that my pages were delted, claming it was a student film. As the writer of the film, I can confirm that the movie is real and being made. It is not a student film. I was shocked and digusting at the accusations that because of my age, I wa snotbelived. SOme one accused me of starting several page sto promote a film I want to make. It is being made and it is not promotion. I am adding a geunie independent film and tweo confirmed cast members. Please, I request that people stop mocking my film and discontinue their requests for my pages to be taken down. I hope you make the right descion, because I am very upset at this unfairness.
: I think you misunderstand what "]" in this context is, protecting a page prevents normal users from editing it and is used to prevent edit/revert wars (where different editors argue over the "correct" version of a page) and vandalism (including blanking, i.e. deleting all the text from an article). Protecting or unprotecting a page is carried out by ], this page is designed for people to request that an admin protects or unprotects a page. It should be noted that even whilst protected any admin can change a page, it only prevents the edits of "ordinary" users (i.e. like you and me). Given that the only edits to the pages apart from yours have been to add the <nowiki>{{vfd}}</nowiki> ] to the pages to inform all those interested that someone has ''suggested'' that they may be deleted there is no need to protect them. Also if they are ] then be protected will not prevent this I'm afraid (as it's an admin that has to carry out the actualy deletion anyway).
:--] 12:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

===Request to protect: ]===
User banned for 24 hrs. for 3RR. Onging dispute with same editor, seemingly trying to impose a minority POV on the article. This editor has been recently the recipient of considerable criticism on other as well, due to alleged intents of advocacy. I request a page protection, so that we do not have to restart the revert war tomorrow and the spirits can be cooled-off for a while. Thanks. ] 22:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

===]===
The factual accuracy of part of this article is under dispute. The information under dispute is whether or not the video game Zero Mission is a remake of the video game Metroid or a prequel to it. Dispute resolution is and has been underway on the ] page. ], an administrator has made it clear that he will use his admin privileges to block me should I edit the article to show anything other than his own belief. He justifies this with the incorrect purpose of consensus. The consensus was not agreed upon or regarded from the beginning. Therefore it does not constitute an article change according to Misplaced Pages consensus policy. This article is under dispute and is already seeking mediation and arbitration methods to resolve the issue. The edits to the page make the article favor a theory that has substantial evidence against it, and ignores the Neutral Point of View method. I request that the page ] be protected as a NPOV article until mediation or arbitration resolves the issue. ] 00:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
:There is no dispute notice on Earth, saying people think it's flat, so why should there be a dispute notice, saying one person thinks it's a remake? -- ] 00:59, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

:There is no dispute. Dai Grepher ignores consensus, which has been reached on the talk page. There's no need to protect the page for this stubborn editor. ] (]) 02:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

===]===
An anon user is posting ] to the list again. -- ] | ] 19:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

===]===
Some editors are now without consensus removing the Two-version template which has as a purpose to prevent an edit war. The template has previously caused a valuable discussion which has improved both versions. However, the editors supporting the less critical version are now refusing further discussions (See for example, many new referenced facts about communism and democracy and earlier talk discussions , , ). They are now deleting well-referenced facts without any attempt to explain why. They seem to be afraid to let others even see the the referenced facts and form their own opinion. Some of the same editors previously tried the same on ] which caused it to be protected. That protection has now caused a good discussion on the talk page about the content and was thus necessary and valuable. This link leads to a version of ] with the Two-version template included so that the two most recent versions can be compared. I therefore ask for page protection with the previously included Two-version template again included. ] 20:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
*The page in question devolved into two versions: one being edited by everyone, including Ultramarine, and one being edited by only Ultramarine. All other editors were content to have Ultramarine's version remain the "B" version while we all improved the "A" (collaborative) version. Ultramarine repeatedly reverted to "his" version, claiming that the two-version tag gave him the right to the "A" version, and asserting in effect that consensus could not exist without his consent. All other editors found his version biassed in whole or in part. There were multiple calls for him to abandon "his" version and join in actively editing the collaborative version. After a few repeats, I proposed a poll to verify consensus: the vote was 3-to-1 to remove the two-version template and invite Ultramarine to actively edit the collaborative version. I implemented the consensus, sparking a quick revert war, landing us here. See the talk page. ] 22:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
*Furthermore, Ultramarine has threatened before to have this page protected, "using my version", if he didn't get his way; he also appears to have attempted a similar ploy on ] &mdash; resulting in its present protection. See ] for details. I am not convinced this page needs to be protected; I am certain this sort of gaming of policy should not be rewarded. ] 22:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

::If they are accusing me of violating Misplaced Pages policy, then they should ask for arbitration, not simply delete without explanation. Regarding Vladimir Lenin, it was not my version that got protected, but simply a version that included the Two-version template, which is all I ask.

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

::The above editors now make no attempt to have a factual discussion but simply deletes embarrassing bur referenced facts. They are the one gaming the rules. I want to keep keep the Two-version template and referenced facts so that everyone can form the own opinion, and to continue the factual discussion so that one good version can be formed, and avoid an edit war. ] 09:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Comment:] is 153K. Most of this has been spent discussing Ultramarine's proposed text and claims of fact. Every sentence he has suggested there has been discussed; most of them have been included. But he is right that this is not the forum for edit disputes ] 13:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
::::This is simply false. Many of my referenced facts have not been included in their version and many have never been discussed. The discussion also shows many instances of factual inaccuracy and npov violations in their version which they refuse to correct. ] 15:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' I suggest that all involved parties read ]. Articles are not owned. There cannot, either legally or in Wiki policy, be an "Ultramarine's version" and an "our versions" existing concurrently. '''All versions are collectively "owned" if they are owned at all.''' Therefore I would suggest that this page be protected, and either both versions be merged or one version deleted. There is no encyclopedic point to having two versions. --] ] 07:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:I agree that we should find one factually correct version. See this for a discussion of differences and which version is factually correct . ] 11:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

::At this point, I'd be more interested in finding the least controversial version so I can protect the page and end this revert war until consensus is reached. Misplaced Pages is about ], not truth or factual accuracy. --] ] 16:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Please see ]; in which all three other editors recognize a consensus to use the version which Ultramarine does not choose to edit. They do not regard it as "our version"; Ultramarine has been repeatedly invited to contribute to it, but he has not done so (except to add back the 2V tag there deprecated). (Details at the requests for comment and arbitration on Ultramarine.) ] 16:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
::::See below about RfA. ] 16:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
::After looking at that debate, I would have to say that the involved parties could very much use a good read of ] and ]. Most of these factual disputes could easily be resolved simply by shifting the microphone to the reference rather than Misplaced Pages. For example, if the statement "Technological progress in the Communist states was sometimes highly uneven" is contentious, then Misplaced Pages should say "XXX said _here_ that technological progress in the Communist states was sometimes highly uneven." The latter claim cannot be disputed whereas the former can. Thus, everyone can be happy. Present ''facts'' -- not interpretations. Both sides of the aisle seem to be guilty of original research in their interpretations of facts. --] ] 16:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Shall we move this to ]? I will need some time to phrase a reply anyway. ] 16:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Yes, I will repaste this comment there. --] ] 17:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Note that there is an RfA about this . You may want to add your interesting argument that "Misplaced Pages is about ], not truth or factual accuracy." there. I have provided sources for my facts. ] 16:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

*I have reverted and protected the page. --] ] 17:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

===]===
Repeated deletion of factual information (such as the registered name of the site's owner) from the article itself, as well as significant deletions on talk page. I've attempted to address the issues (both the deletions and the use of multiple userIDs by same person) on the article's talk page but to no avail. --] 05:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
*Removal of personal attacks on the article itself and on the talk page isn't a valid reason to head for wp:rfpp. Perhaps Carlb wants ] instead, where the community can form some concensus? ] 05:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
*The ] route was one that I had considered before the deletions of entire talk page sections started occuring. I won't rule the option out, however what has been going on goes well beyond "removal of personal attacks" and is cause enough for concern to be raised here. --] 05:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
*I second the request to have this page protected. --] 15:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
*Whatever the correctness of the variouse version being reverted to/from it is currently an edit war so '''Thirded'''--] 15:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
:*This isn't a good case for page protection. It's only one persistent, and a few drive-by editors who are trying to push changes against several other people. If the "warring" editors are that strong about it, then it will go to 3rr or some form of dispute resolution. ] 15:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
:*As a matter of fact, the persistent user is well past 3RR, was reported as 3RR yesterday, and nobody did anything about it. There is no reason to keep the article from well-meaning editors because of the lack of enforcement of 3RR by the warring party. ] 15:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
::*Your both as bad as one another!! You never know (flips a coin) you might get lucky and it's protected on the version ''you'' like, can't we just kill them all (protect it) and let god (the admins or consensus) decide (over the image/information about the owner/whatever)? --] 16:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
*I '''FOURTH''' this request. Some Wikipedians have been placing the picture of the owner of Encyclopædia Dramatica on the page, when she has specifically dislalowed her picture to be used on Misplaced Pages. From her website (bolding is mine, italics are mine):
:::''The previous agreement on re-use of these images was for personal use, with a link required. At no point have I released these images into the public domain or in anyway relinquished my rights of ownership or my copyright of these images.''
:::''Due to the ambiguousness of the previous statement, I will make it more concise now: These images are not to be uploaded to any server for any reason at anytime. No one has permission to use these images for any purpose. Specifically, these images may not at anytime be uploaded to any open content server or re-liscensed. '''To go further, these images are specifically prohibited from being used on the website wikipedia.org or any other sites associated with wikipedia's owners, mirrors or affiliates.'''''
:::''If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at the contact info page. Keep in mind, however, that no one has permission to use these images for any purpose.''
:::''All rights reserved, copyright 2003.''
:See for more information, including a copy of the above text. Wikipedians keep placing her picture back on the Encyclopædia Dramatica after it has been removed. We should respect the wishes of the owner of the picture and not use it, otherwise, if we can't respect others, why should others respect us and use Misplaced Pages?--] 01:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:While you're at it, see . "Feel free to take these pictures if you'd like. Please make sure to give a link back to my site when you do though." Someone has been playing fast and loose by editing the site after the fact. That same someone presumably has been the one creating multiple userIDs ], ] and the like in order to repeatedly delete public-record information from the article as to who even owns the site. --] 03:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
::Seems to have died down. I don't think we need protection. Any other opinions? ]·] 08:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
:::Except that ] continues to place her picture up, even though others have commented that it is not relevant for the article, nor will he/she/it answer comments on why they feel that her picture (especially that one) needs to be up on the article to begin with. Perhaps a removal of the picture in question would be best, with a warning to everyone that a return of the image will result in something or other.--] 14:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Surely this shouldn't be the place to argue for any particular version, just simply protect it until consensus/admin/rfc is resolved.--] 15:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

<!--Please add new requests at the top of the page. Do not add 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 comments left here that do not meet the above guidelines 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 -->
===Request to protect Rosemary Kennedy===

Edit war, please rv to version with external link to http://fatboy.cc/Rosemary.htm and protect. This is an ongoing battle of reverts by a group of left wing POV pushers. Thank you ] 23:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
:You're the only one inserting the URL which seems to be considered inappropriate by everyone else, I don't think this needs protecting. You do need to stop reverting though, as you've violated the ]. Reason why you think the link is appropriate and improves the article on the talk page and get people to see your point of view instead. --]] 23:31, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think if you take the time to read the history you will find many others with my view on this. To say that I am the only one proves your bias or ignorance of this matter. Thank you. ] 23:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
*We know you're capable of making two statements in a row without personal attacks; please try to make a habit of it. --]] 00:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

===Request to protect ]===
Someone with a lot of dynamic IPs to their disposal keeps removing some of the links. Has been going on for a while. --]] 22:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

:Protected. ] |<small> ]</font color>| ] 22:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

===Request to protect ]===
page is continually being vandalised by anon ip addresses ] 15:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
It has been edited over 50 times in 2 hours
:Protected. --] 20:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

===Request to protect ]===
65.35.120.139 keeps on adding spam links, takes him/her/it around 24 hours to do so each time but he always comes back. Suggests page protection or permablock, I already reported the vandalism but nothing was done about it. Please intervene. ] 07:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
*Adidas, I see that you and other users have reverted the commercial links, but no one has left the anon a user on his talk page. I've already gone ahead and done so, but if you see it happen again, leave a spamming warning from ] on his/her talk page. If the spamming continues in spite of repeated warnings, then report it ] and the user will be blocked. ] ]/] 18:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

===Unprotect ]===
This article is being reverted every few days by a new Misplaced Pages user who takes offense at other people editing his changes and who won't respond to requests to discuss. I asked for suggestions on how to handle this user, and someone immediately protected the article in an attempt to deal with the problem; but I don't think that's the right solution, because it's punishing people who want to make positive edits to the article and it's not going to change the behavior of the new user after the page is unprotected. Please unprotect this page, and I'll continue looking for ways to resolve the issue with the new user. - ] 17:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
::I've just unprotected it. From the history checks I made this morning and now I don't see that PP is currently justified. Should the problem suddenly get 'out of control' however it will be reconsidered (although present history doesn't suggest that it has done so as yet at any time). --]:] 17:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

===] - two requests===
Protected. ] ] 15:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

====Request to protect ]====
This is the third day of a painful edit war (see ) involving whether and how ] should be linked to. All sides seem to be claiming consensus (or at least correctness), and consensus does not seem to be clear. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 14:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:Seconded, though I think that there is likley consensus aside from one or two troublesome editors (one on each side) to Vashti's version. ] 14:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

====]====
Extremely tiresome edit warring continues, with today's disagreement being whether or not there should be a See also to ]. Could someone please protect it to encourage people to discuss on the talk page and not in the edit history? Thanks. ] 15:07, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
:Looks like there was a 3RR block today. We'll see if it starts up again tomorrow, but nothing for now. ]·] 06:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:30, 27 December 2024

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
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 and 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



    Archives

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



    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.


    Antisemitism in Canada

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – IP Hopper we simply not here.... Infamous IP see also spammer... too many numerous shocks to deal asking to get page protected. Moxy🍁 02:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Y-chromosomal Aaron

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Drive by IP restoring contentious WP:LEADFIX edits.

    PS: WP:ARBAIC sanctions may also apply considering the involvement of the editor (and other users editing the article) in that topic area (, ). Gotitbro (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    24 Oras

    Reason: Persistent unreferenced edits. Hotwiki (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    2024 Pakistan-Afghanistan Tension

    Reason: To save neutrality of article as people may try to vandalize it and edit wars. NAUser0001 (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Yaris678 (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Malaysian Chinese

    Reason: Persistent unsourced edits by a single IP hopper using Malaysian and Korean IPs. hundenvonPG (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    TeenNick

    Reason: Persistent sock puppetry. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Ganesha

    Reason: Request for "infinite semi- protection". Continuous vandalism by a sockpuppet for many months and also a high level of IP vandalism. Hbanm (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yaris678 (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Burney Relief

    Temporary pending changes: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent addition of difficult to understand, nonsensical sentences, and grammar errors by IP addresses since 13:30, 16 November 2024. This is a resumption of disruptive editing from IP-hopping individual who has frequently targeted this article since 12:24, 23 March 2024, which resulted in protection that expired 18:46, 19 July 2024. Alith Anar 16:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    2018 Syrian–Turkish border clashes

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Navin Ramgoolam

    Reason: Misleading statements repeatedly added (Vandalism) Nikhilrealm (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Ujjivan Small Finance Bank

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Disruptive edits by various IPs over the past week. Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    State Bank of India

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Disruptive edits by various IPs over the past week. Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    List of CatDog episodes

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Persistent unsourced changing of dates by IP jumping editor. Escape Orbit 17:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    CatDog

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Persistent unsourced changing of dates by IP jumping editor. Escape Orbit 17:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Nexz

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent addition of non-neutral "global" from "Japanese" without any reliable sources backing. And also sockpuppetry, this has been reported separately to SPI. — 🎄☃️ Paper9oll ☃️🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 18:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

    Reason: Recurring WP:FORUM and WP:NPA violations by non-ECR users and IPs. Borgenland (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    African diaspora religions

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism across several IPs over the past day or so; also, an edit notice that should probably be vanished. ~Darth Stabro 18:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Killing of Khaled Nabhan

    Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement – WP:CT/A-I. Tarlby 18:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Hurricane Milton

    Reason: Frequent sock IP disruption. Departure– (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Book of Joshua

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Serial vandalism by multiple IPs. These are religious POV-pushers and won't relent any time soon, since mainstream history offends their religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Sandra Dewi

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Taffer 😊 (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Sir Salimullah Medical College

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Page history shows lots of recent edit warring. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 20:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Heliocentrism

    Reason: High level of ip vandalism by users . Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Madhava of Sangamagrama

    Reason: High level of ip vandalism Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Nikola Birač

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Plasticwonder (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    WETA-TV

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent edit warring by IPs. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Nankudi Vellalar

    Temporary extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement – Edit warring related to WP:GS/CASTE. Kline • talk • contribs 20:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Pakdam Pakdai

    Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Various IPs have resumed adding unsourced info. Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    List of South Korean billionaires by net worth

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Socking users keep putting things about kpop in the article. Has been going on for months. Maybe indefinite needed. seefooddiet (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Moai

    Reason: General medium to high level of disruptive editing(see hist&diffs). Requested type of protection: Pending changes protection. RaschenTechner (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Muppets Most Wanted

    Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Political party affiliation in the United Kingdom

    Reason: Constant removal of cited content and additions of original research. Helper201 (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2024 (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

    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.

    Category: