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 18:37, 9 March 2006 view sourceKatefan0 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,081 edits →{{li|Drwhostub-02.JPG}}: rm; dealt wtih← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:15, 24 December 2024 view source Cyberbot I (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors1,716,384 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 -->
</center><div style="text-a--] 22:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)lign:right"><small>''''</small></div>
__FORCETOC__</noinclude><!-- Do not hide or modify this, a bot named "Cyberbot I" will manage it automatically-->
{{Shortcut|]<br />]<br />]}}
<!-- 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:
This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be ''' fully protected''', '''semi-protected''' or '''unprotected''', including '''page-move protection'''.
=== ] ===
* {{pagelinks|Example}} ~~~~
-->


== Current ] in protection level ==
If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and sign the request) {{highlight|at the '''TOP'''}} of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Also, make sure you specify whether you want the page to be full protected or semi protected. Before you do so, however, consult ] for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection. ] is the policy that covers semi-protection of heavily vandalised pages.
{{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 ==
Only consider protection as an option when it is necessary in order to resolve your problem, and when the '''only''' solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection.
{{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 ==
Generally, full page protection is to stop edit warring or severe vandalism. Semi protection is only for vandalism. Full protection is also used on ''templates'' that are frequently used and not in need of frequent edits (this includes most editorial templates; see ]).
{{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 ==
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. Admins do not revert back to previous versions of the page, except to get rid of vandalism.
''A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at ].''

{{tl|Editprotected}} can be used to request edits to protected pages as an alternative to requests for page unprotection.

{| align="center" style="font-size: 100%; margin: 2px 0px 2px 0px; border: 1px solid #006400; padding: .3em; text-align: center; background-color: #ddffdd; color: black;"
|-align=left
|<big>'''This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.''' </big>

'''If the entry is being used for edit-warring or content disputes or contains personal attacks or uncivil comments, or any other unrelated discussion, it will be removed from this page immediately.'''
|}

] is the log page if users want to look up whether or not pages have been protected.

'''Administrators''': When you have fullfilled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and, optionally, remove the request, leaving a note on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user(s) requesting protection might be good, as well.

] lists current protection edit requests.

==How to list page==
Note: Always use <nowiki>==== headings. Do not use ; or : or ==</nowiki>.

{| class="wikitable"
!Namespace!! Link to page !! Link to talk page
|-
|Generic||{{tlp|ln|<nowiki>NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME</nowiki>}}||{{tlp|lnt|<nowiki>NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME</nowiki>}}
|-
|Article||{{tlp|la|ARTICLE}}||{{tlp|lat|ARTICLE}}
|-
|Template||{{tlp|Lt|TEMPLATE}}||{{tlp|Ltt|TEMPLATE}}
|-
|Misplaced Pages||{{tlp|lw|PAGE}}||{{tlp|lwt|PAGE}}
|-
|User||{{tlp|lu|PAGE}}||{{tlp|lut|PAGE}}
|-
|Category||{{tlp|Lc|PAGE}}||{{tlp|Lct|PAGE}}
|-
|Image||{{tlp|li|IMAGE}}||{{tlp|lit|IMAGE}}
|}

== Current requests for protection ==
''Request either '''semi-protection''', '''full protection''', or '''move protection''' by placing it in bold text (add <nowiki>'''</nowiki> before and after a word to make it bold) at the beginning of your statement.''
<!-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Please only edit below this line.
New requests at the top.
Add ===={{La|THE ARTICLE'S NAME}}==== as the request title
(or Lt, Lw, Lu, Lc, Li for Template:, Misplaced Pages:, User:,
etc.).


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -->
===={{la|Safety}}====
Request ''semi'' -again! vandalism came back as soon as unprotected, damn YTMND vandals. Thanks ] 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

:There is not enough recent activity to justify ] at this time. ''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 18:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

===={{La|Japan}}====
Request '''semi-protection'''. A majority of page edits over the last week are vandalism by IPs. --] 14:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

:There is not enough recent activity to justify ] at this time. The article is well watchlisted, so it can hold for now. Maybe if the vandalsim lasted for longer I might protect, but it just gets reverted. I've watchlisted it myself. ''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 17:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

===={{La|Joel Leyden}}====
Request Full Protection

The bio of ] has been almost a daily target for vandalism. As an Israeli journalist and media consultant who works with the government I am used to media attacks by Palestinians, Syrians, Saudis and Iranians. But do not need this harassment here in Misplaced Pages. I.e. - User:Rasmus Faber has been vandalizing my bio stating that I have been married twice (not true and not citing sources), and nominating my bio for deletion on a regular basis. Furthermore, I am involved in a child custody dispute where the other side may also be attempting to vandalize this article. Have just filed a police complaint after obtaining and IDing the IP address of an anonymous user who has also been vandalizing the article. I kindly request that this article be protected so that he and no other person with a political or personal agenda can upload libelous statements that could hurt my children. I would rather be spending time contributing to Wiki as a professional editor than defending my own bio. Thank you. ] 10:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

: I wouldn't mind someone taking a look to see which of us is out of line. From my POV, ] aka Joel Leyden is asserting ] of his own ], removing info that reflects badly on him, as well as violating ]. ] ] 10:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not quite true Rasmus. I have not deleted any material from my bio, except for inaccurate and libelous information for which you posted without citing sources as per Wiki guidelines. Furthermore you continue to ignore all Wiki guidelines including the one clearly posted on the top of this page which states: "This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies." ] 11:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
::Nowhere near enough edits for a protect. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)





====California vehicular routes====
;{{La|California State Route 1}}, {{La|California State Route 283}}, {{La|California State Route 85}}, {{La|California State Route 15}}, {{La|California State Route 17}}, {{La|Washington State Route 99}}, {{La|California State Route 330}}, {{La|California State Route 371}}, {{La|California State Route 905}}, {{La|California State Route 190}}

Request '''Move protection''' (if not on already)

A user has taken the liberty of moving these pages to variants of "State Route x (California)" which is against consensus at ]. Edit wars have erupted or are about to erupt. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 23:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:As someone involved in those edit wars let me say... '''protect those pages'''.] 23:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:The names of the highways are "State Route X", not "California State Route X". --] (] - <small>]</small>) 15:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::You should both now better. Just don't move the pages around in an editwarrior manner and the move war will go away. There's no way I'm handing you a protection on such a large number of articles just because of one move and move back. Self-control is key. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)



===={{la|Al-Khwarizmi}}====
Tony Sidaway unprotected, but edit warring continued. I briefly reprotected, but feel I'm too closely involed to protect. —'']'' 21:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

:'''Fully protected.''' ''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 04:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There was some minor jockeying over the subject's nationality or ethnicity, and a reasonable amount of productive editing. I don't think protection was called for here. --] 08:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

===={{La|Bill of Attainder}}====
Request semi-protection, this article is undergoing an edit war by a group of very silly anonymous ips arguing over whether sperm-whales with nuclear warheads or orcas are the better way to phrase something. One of them even posted on the talk page about it. ] 20:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

:'''Semi-protected.''' ''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 21:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

===={{la|Outright Libertarians}}====
Requesting full protection to avoid an edit war, forcing all participants to Talk instead of revert. We just went through an ugly edit war, block and protect cycle over this exact same issue on both ] and ], but now there's a new editor who hasn't quite figured out that this is about consensus.|

Just to remind you, when I asked for a Protect for ], it was refused, leading to the war I predicted. I'd like to avoid that this time around. ] 07:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
*I understand your concern, but protection is not a pre-emptive strike. It has to be in response to a problem that cannot be otherwise solved. I don't see that here yet. (])<sup>(])</sup> 12:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that the "other way" will once again involve blocking everyone involved. ] 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

:There is not enough recent activity to justify ] at this time. ''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 18:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet the guy who's been removing content just filed a 3RR on me. I hate being right. ] 18:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the 3RR had an off-by-one error so it was rejected. I'm going to talk to this guy and see if I can get him to discuss his desired change instead of edit-warring for it. ] 18:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not a justified reason to protect. I vote '''no'''. --] 20:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

:Great. So how do you suggest I avoid an edit war here? ] 21:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

::An edit war always has at least two participants, no matter who is "right". Limit yourself to ] and use some of our other ] such as ] and ] to try to establish a consensus among other editors. (])<sup>(])</sup> 12:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)



====]====
Requesting full page protection to stop edit wars over a disputed reference that is currently the subject of a RfM. -- ] 05:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:OK...not getting IP drive byes and name changes mixed in, I'd say tha the edit war is not sever enough. I will notifify the editors. I do not know of any binding RfM condition so I will have to ignore that (You need to be more specific).''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 06:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
::''NOTIFIFY?????'' ha ha, j/k! --] 06:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
::My intention for page protection was to enforce a "cool down" period and prevent ] from removing a template that was meant to call attention to our current dispute. Initially, I added this template and removed the disputed content because the template is worded in a manner that suggests that the content has already been removed from the article. In the spirit of avoiding confusion and as a result of the end of a truce, I wanted to protect a version of the page until we could resolve our issues when assigned a mediator. It appears, however, that ] has not removed the template, so I withdraw my protection request for now. -- ] 18:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:The requesting user '''is''' the "edit war". Removal of data that is the instant subject of a ] is vandalism (in the spirit of a request for mediation, the data's inclusion or deletion will be the decision of the Committee&mdash;it was included at the time the user filed the RfM and, therefore, '''deletion by the same user''' is a violation of his own ]) and will be reverted as vandalism. ]] ] 13:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

===={{La|Girls Aloud}}====
This article is turning into ] MkII. Frequent edit-warring and POV edits. Continual revert warring and POV-type vandalism. --] 20:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:The Bogdanov affair was used as a likeness on this article a few days ago. The two do not compare. This is getting two or three edits per day, and suggesting it is the subject of a deep-set, long-running, unfixable edit-war on the scale of Bogdanov doesn't work for me. So no, I'm going to reject this request again. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:Well, it's starting to become that way! A new ]. --] 18:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

===={{La|Jahbulon}}====
The editors of the page as a group requested protection untill we are assigned a Mediator since any constructive edits are impossible untill mediation starts. Tony Sideway decided to remove protection today, I am re-requesting protection. Both sides of the issue have agreed to this enforced cease fire the only reason it's been locked for so long is that the mediators are taking forever to assign us one. It's not a case of if a revert war will happen again, it's a question of how many hours untill it happens. One group has publically stated they want the page deleted one group feels it should exist, this isn't an issue of "lets work out a compromise" since it's a delete or not delete question. Once again, the editors of this page requested the lock untill our mediation case starts, that case has been approved and is awaiting a mediator to be assigned, please keep it locked untill then. <font color="FF3399">]</font> 18:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:That's rather a big assumpiton that a request for re-protection is agreed by the various stakeholders in the discussion. Once again two misrepresentations of the facts. Anyway, this is not the place for that particular discussion. At present I disagree with the need for page protection. I'm content to wait for a mediator to appear and don't feel the need for any cease-fire, if that's what it is, to be enforced.] 18:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Tony's choice to unprotect was right. It'd been protected a good while, and it's not completely fair to pass responsibility for a would-be edit war off on to the slowness of the Mediators: it's entirely the fault of the warriors themselves. If you're both aware that edit warring is bad and working it out peacefully is good, then why not just try to do so? If the other party can't help but revert, resist the temptation to do it back — be the better editor. I'm not sure that the references to "group" are quite precise, since it does appear to be a two-user issue. I'm not going to reprotect it. I imagine Tony, or others, will hand out short blocks if either side resumes edit warring. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

== Current requests for unprotection==
''If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, consider simply adding <nowiki>{{Editprotected}}</nowiki> to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page.''
<!-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Please only edit below this line.
New requests at the top.
Add ===={{La|THE ARTICLE'S NAME}}==== as the request title
(or Lt, Lw, Lu, Lc, Li for Template:, Misplaced Pages:, User:,
etc.).


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -->
===={{Lt|R from title without diacritics}}====
Again, I ask that this be unprotected. It's never been the subject of an edit war. Another person has recently asked (on the talk page) that the usage desciption be updated to match other related templates. AFAICT, this is the only protected "R from" template. --] 12:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:It's protected per ] but it's used only by 2244 articles (see ]). All such templates are found at ]. <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">]</font><font style="color:#325596">]</font></sub> 12:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

===={{La|Bill of attainder}}====
One paragraph began with some silly metaphors to emphasize that the "bill of attainder clause" has proliferated to many constitutions of the World. Such "bill of attainder clauses" are now axiomatic as a fundamentally good idea. The beginning of the one paragraph was found to be redudant with other parts of the text and has been deleted. Please unprotect. -- ] 08:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

===={{La|Croatia}}====
The article was protected because of a minor issue (which can be seen in ]). Similar issues pop up every month, it's no big deal. Since it's an important article, protection is doing more harm than good. Please unprotect it. --] 07:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)



===={{La|Will McWhinney}}====
This was protected weeks ago, in mid-February. I unprotected yesterday but it was immediately placed into semiprotect by {{admin|SlimVirgin}}, who had made the original protection.

I unprotected, explaining why I was doing this: "There is no vandalism. In fact there have been no edits at all on the article for several weeks. There is therefore no reason to protect in any way."

SlimVirgin has reprotected it yet again and, bizarrely, she is complaining to me!

Albeit the article has been used for harassment in the past, it is being closely watched by at least two administrators and this is a wiki. I see no reason to continue with semiprotection just because there ''may'' be someone out there waiting to say something nasty.

Obviously comments by other administrators would be welcome here. I'm absolutely boggled by this. --] 13:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

:I placed a note on ] asking that anyone who wanted to unprotect contact me first, and I left a note on your talk page asking you to e-mail me about it, so instead of being "boggled," why don't you simply do that? The article has been used for a particular type of harassment (indeed, was created in the first place as part of a campaign of harassment), and I'm not prepared to go into detail about it on the website. I complained to you because you undid my admin actions twice without discussion. Leaving a note here instead of simply e-mailing for more information makes it look as though you're simply out to cause trouble. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 13:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

::Tony, how about you start by toning down the exclamations (points & otherwise). Please work on facilitating a dispassionate dialogue. ] 14:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think SlimVirgin could tell me anything in email that I don't already know. There were some attacks. But those attacks were weeks ago and there has been no ongoing vandalism. This should be a routine unprotection. Which brings us to my use of the word "boggled". --] 14:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

:Perhpas it should be a routine unprotection, but it is courteous to assume the realm of possibility, Tony. ] 14:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

::The point is, Tony, that it's good to respect an admin's request that s/he be contacted before protection is lifted. Perhaps you could explain why that basic courtesy is absent. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 14:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There are obviously deleted edits that "regular users" like myself cannot see. Regardless, I see no reason why the article in question should have been protected or semi-protected. If this is a foundation or Wales level problem, one of the foundation-connected adminstrators or Wales will need to use god-king powers to protect the article. ] - ] 15:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin doesn't seem able to discuss this publicly, so I shall render what I know (although for obvious reasons I'll have to omit some detail on content).

{{vandal|Maslow}}, a suspected sock of {{vandal|Jonah_Ayers}}, created the article on 26 December last. Superficially a bio, it was interpreted as harassment by a Misplaced Pages admin. There were sporadic attempts, by ] and an IP that he uses, to reinsert the problematic information in a modified form that referred to the subject's son, and from 21 January to 17 February the article was frequently deleted and selective revisions undeleted in order to purge the information from the history.

The article was protected by SlimVirgin on 21 January, who switched it to semiprotect on 24th. Splash unprotected on 29th, saying:
* "interface says this is not protected, and this looks like an editorial problem, so don't semi (plus there were no anons or new users even editing it!)"

A few hours later, {{vandal|Dimes_for_eyes}}, another suspected Ayers sock, inserted a modified version of the information that still referred to the subject's son.

Shortly aftewards, SlimVirgin semiprotected it again, stating (correctly)
* "user is inserting irrelevant personal details as part of a campaign of harassment"

On 16 February, Splash unprotected again, saying:
* "no grounds for protection at present; article is not behaving as protected anyway"

There was a bit more edit warring, and then on 18th SlimVirgin fully protected. It remained in that state until today when, observing that it was one of our oldest remaining temporary protections and there was no discussion on the talk page, I did a routine unprotection. After six hours and no edits, SlimVirgin semiprotected. As there had been no vandalism I unprotected. SlimVirgin reasserted semiprotection. I came to ].

The subject is probably encyclopedic, there are at least two administrators watching very closely, and the attempts at harassment are easily identified and stopped. There's no reason not to keep this article open for editing by all ''until'' fresh attempts are made to abuse it. If we don't try it, we'll never know. --] 18:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:My personal opinion is that preventing personal information about an editor from being revealed is more important than the idea that "this is a wiki, let it be edited." Obviously there's a discussion to be had about at what point it's appropriate to unprotect (when's long enough to reasonably assume he's gone away?), but I don't think it's been quite enough time for the moment. Of course it would've been courteous to have this discussion with the protecting administrator beforehand, but anyway. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A question: Is this person notable enough to warrant an article in Misplaced Pages? We could place the article in AfD and see if there is consensus for deletion. That may resolve the the harassment issue once and for all. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 01:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

:The subject may be notable enough. There were several column inches spilled about a dispute the subject McWhinney (not the alleged editor) about the "Krone" leadership development school, following the ideas of ] that McWhinney later split over, fairly acrimonously according to news articles. See March 23 and April 10, 1987 '']''. Seven references altogether in newspapers, latest one in 1996. {{unsigned|Calwatch}}

:I see. Thanks for the info. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 03:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::I'd prefer to see the page deleted as a long-term solution, but it might not get through an AfD without explaining the issues we can't explain. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
:::'''Support''', page should be judged on what is available, and it does not give me the idea he is notable enough for wikipedia. --] 05:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

: We haven't seen this fellow vandalize the article in nearly three weeks, so what evidence do we have to justify semiprotection? --] 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::As soon as it was unprotected before, on two occasions that I recall, he started up again almost immediately, which suggests he's a regular editor with the page on his watchlist. What's more interesting is why you're so keen to remove semi-protection from an article almost no one has shown any interest in editing. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

: BUt this time he ''didn't'' start up again. You took six hours to get around to semiprotecting--by which time any presumption that there was a high likelihood of vandalism must have been looking a little thin.

: Why do I want to unprotect this article? Because I can see no good reason to continue to protect it after three weeks. If it is vandalized again, that will be a different matter. We cannot know whether it is still a vandalism target without unprotecting it. That is why we unprotect articles that have been vandalized in the past--usually, I might add, after only three or four days, not as many weeks. --] 04:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::But others do see a good reason, so why won't you accept that? Why must you always be right? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeated and insistent unprotecting of the article is fruitless and serves no purpose. This is not a high traffic article. There's no reason why in shouldn't be protected, at least until those there presently with personal axes to grind lose interest and wander off. ] 05:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

: Hmmm, this seems a little back-to-front to me. We need a reaseon to semiprotect, or keep semiprotected, not a reason to unprotect. I'll request once again that semiprotection be raised in a week's time--even the ] article gets a weekly unprotection. This one has had just six hours in three weeks. --] 05:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::There is no comparison with ]. This page is about as low traffic as they come. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::That's a particularly poor analogy, since there is no valid reason whatsoever to unprotect ] on a weekly basis, and doing so basically constitutes ongoing passive-aggressive sabotage of an official policy, the moral equivalent of nominating ] for AfD on a weekly basis on the grounds that "maybe this time it'll be different". Since no one particularly cares to play wheel-warring games of chicken with you at the GWB article, you're now trying to claim that as some kind of baseline norm applicable to other articles. -- ] 06:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::: Could you explain why you think that there is no valid reason to regularly unprotect ]? You lost me at about that point. If you are at all familiar with the case, you will be aware that overall edits are 10-20 times lower than they were three months ago, while the proportion of vandalism-related edits has risen again and is now comparable with the proportion that pertained prior to the introduction of semiprotection. --] 06:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I think Curps' point may be that you've taken it upon yourself to insert yourself into the ] situation, as you have here, armed with an extremist principle that protection and even semi-protection is always a bad thing, regardless of circumstances. You're entitled to that view, but you have no right to go around imposing it on other admins, because we're entitled to our views too. Yet you persistently look for pages to wheel war over, and end up feeling you're right to do so only because, most of the time, people can't be bothered to argue with you. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::::Without further clarification those statements aren't meaningful. If the article is semi-protected some or much of the time, it's hardly surprising that overall edits are down. This is hardly a bad thing, it's likely a sign that semi-protection is working. Yet the statement that the number of edits is down is very often seen to be cited as grounds for un-sprotecting. What percentage of the time is it sprotected now, and what percentage of the time was it sprotected then? And a mere count of edits is not meaningful in itself: you can have multiple consecutive vandal edits with a single revert, etc, or multiple valid "word-processor" style edits. For a relatively mature article the background editing rate is modest; in its unprotected state the edits are dominated by vandalism and reverts of vandalism, so essentially half the edits are vandalism and the other half are reverting vandalism (counting multiple edits as one, as described above). Are you really claiming that when the article is in an sprotected state, half the edits are aged sleeper registered-account vandals? -- ] 06:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::::: You correctly recognise that it's a complex situation. The answer to your questions on figures is obvious--I'm comparing it to the state of affairs that existed before semiprotection was available. On this particular article vandalism reverts are approximately one-for-one with vandalism--it's watched that closely. Vandalism rates have climbed while editing rates plummeted . It is nearly always semiprotected.

::::::I'm not sure what your chart is measuring, but it seems that "Percent" (whatever that is) averaged around 30% before sprotection (this is clearer if you push the start date back a few weeks) and it now averages around 15% (with a spike to 25% in the past week only, which is likely not statistically significant due to lower statistics overall for that week and the preceding week). So if revert percentage is a measure of vandalism rate, your own figures seem to suggest this is down by at least half since sprotection was introduced. -- ] 07:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::::: I don't think my view of protection is at all extremist. It is to be used where necessary, no more and no less. Semiprotection in particular is to be applied in response to the threat of vandalism (and never as a prophylactic against the mere possibility of vandalism). The regular unprotects of the ] article have been challenged twice but both times enjoyed overwhelming consensus. This is the way we do things on Misplaced Pages. --] 07:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::The problem is that it's ''you'' who decides when it's "necessary," and you won't allow people to disagree with you. Editors who go trawling through the encyclopedia on missions, as you do, always end up causing problems, whether it's mass unprotection or changing British to American spelling. As for the "overwhelming consensus" you say unprotection of ] attracts, take the point that most of the time most people simply can't be bothered to challenge you. And please stop saying that "this is how ''we'' do things." We are telling you that it is ''not'' how everyone does things. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::Where was this "overwhelming consensus" expressed? I don't recall seeing it or participating in it. The last overwhelming consensus I recall was the one that made semi-protection an official policy. I'm also not sure how "predictable, unrelenting vandalism over many months and years" suddenly becomes the "mere possibility of vandalism". -- ] 07:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I will propose AFD based on the merits and not based on the back story of the editor who may or may not share the same name whom I may or may not know, just as a shot. ] 05:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

: The back story will come out. For this kind of deletion, I suggest that an office action of some kind would be preferable. The article, besides, would have no real hope of being deleted on AfD. Its subject is a published author. --] 05:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::Oh, now we're allowed to be discreet, are we? Bit late for that, Tony. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the article's subject would like it deleted and there's no other articles that link to it, I see no reason go through a perfunctory AFD, it should just be immediately deleted. ] 07:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

:I would certainly support that. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No objection here. The subject should probably take it to Jimbo, and he can authorize that. --] 08:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. ] 17:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

== Current requests for edits to a protected page==
''Please demonstrate a good reason for an edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit ''and'' continued protection. You may also add <nowiki>{{Editprotected}}</nowiki> to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change of some kind made, but note that most of these should simply wait for unprotection.''

Latest revision as of 19:15, 24 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 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.


    Lyal S. Sunga

    Reason: Introduction of misleading and inaccurate information on a persistent basis by one user "Jlanansh" who insists on changes to the biography of Lyal S. Sunga, despite the fact that the page has been up for years and has been edited and backed up by authoritative sources without previous difficulty. This is a case of vandalism. 101.56.25.252 (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Question: Have you attempted to communicate with the editor? I see no template or discussion about this in pagetalk or usertalk. BusterD (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    User:Jlanansh seems to have started a talk thread entitled COI, and had one dismissive reply (from the ip requester here) which didn't engage on the (unsourced) accusation. If I'm reading correctly, Jlanansh hasn't edited the page since they posted the talk thread. BusterD (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. BusterD (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Pocoyo

    Reason: Too much vandalism in page; Adding in fake networks, airdates, and episode titles. Kiff Chatterly (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Teja Sajja

    Reason: IP ADDRESS Wantedly targeting DOB of Teja Sajja. Despite multiple undo attempts repeated vandalism continues. Hakuna matatya (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Battle of Pipli Sahib

    Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Paramandyr (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    User(s) blocked: 2a02:c7c:6601:d000::/64 (talk · contribs). Block extended and promoted from partial to site-wide. Favonian (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Battle of Jamrud

    Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Paramandyr (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    User(s) blocked: 2a02:c7c:6601:d000::/64 (talk · contribs). Block extended and promoted from partial to site-wide. Favonian (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Urartian people

    Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement – Covered by WP:GS/AA ECP restrictions, per Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Question_about_Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Armenia_and_Azerbaijan. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:20, 25 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

    Lil Dicky

    Reason: Lil Dicky was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? 174.93.89.27 (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Pinging @Materialscientist --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 19:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ahecht, Materialscientist has disabled pings according to their talk page. 174.93.89.27, please ask the protecting administrator on their talk page before making a request for unprotection here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2024 (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


    Israel–Hamas war

    Change 16,000 civilians (May 2024) to 16,000 civilians (May 2024)

    Source 42 has these numbers and source 43 doesn't Alderman pained dios finnish (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    Handled requests

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