Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:48, 14 April 2007

Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.

Shortcuts WP:RFPP WP:RFP WP:RPP 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 table of contents requests to raise protection lower protection requested edits (purge) 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

Archives

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

Current requests for protection

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.

WWE No Mercy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full-protection - three way edit warring. McPhail 01:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected due to revert warring. It's official, WP:LAMEst edit war I have ever seen...over a hyphen. - auburnpilot talk 01:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Revival Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. Anonymous users continue to add links to invalid sites and force Extreme POV. As well user:Natgoo is pushing a very bias POV in his attempt to attack and discredit this group. We want balance, but right now there is a battle that Natgoo continues to push. Revival42 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)revival42

Declined Sprotection is not to be used for edit wars. Also, I have absolutely no guarantee that it isn't you that's POV pushing, so I can't take your word for it. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Louis Riel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. Steady torrent of vandalism by both anonymous IPs and registered users. This has been going on for at least a few weeks. --Birdman1 21:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Henry Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection Soem frequent vansalism over the past few days by multiple anon IPs.--JForget 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. two main anon vandals have been blocked. Otherwise article reasonably quiet with one or two anon editors even reverting vandalism - Alison 20:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full Protection. Active revert war, some 3RR violations. Needs more discussion, less reverting.-Will Beback · † · 19:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. edit warring - Alison 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indefinite Semi-Protection Every time this page is unprotected, little punk kids swarm the page to put their name up. This is the third time I've requested protection for this page. Bkissin 19:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - sorry. There just isn't - Alison 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sacco and Vanzetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full Protection. Every edit on this page is a revert, and it happens every day. It is either stupid kids, or those with political motives. Bkissin 19:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. There are even a few anons reverting vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 19:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Miss Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. Much vandalism by anonymous IPs, with reverts by one dedicated user.BaldPete 19:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 20:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

William M. Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection . Continued violation of Biographies of Living Persons policies by editors with personal views on climate change. Repeated re-entry of portions in direct violation of Reliable Sources and NPOV policies. Two editors with extreme POV leapfrog the re-entry, without real discussion and in total disregard of Biography policy. This page needs review by a Biography administrator (see Discussion page), cleaned up of violations, then locked up to prevent vandalism by POV-centric editors.KipHansen 18:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. - auburnpilot talk 20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Williamsburg Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. Heavy vandalism from a dynamic IP address. Hut 8.5 18:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. A block really could have done the trick, but I'm not a fan of range blocks. - auburnpilot talk 20:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. Lots of vandalism to this page by IP users, and registered users. It's very hard to adequately work on and improve the article when vandalism just doesn't stop. Happyme22 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 20:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

International Services Trade Information Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. Meatpuppet and sockpuppet disruption spurred by AfD. Makes any actual improvement of the article next to impossible. Siobhan Hansa 16:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - article is out of control right now. Being bold and fully protecting. This has already been reported to WP:AN (or ANI) and just needs to stop right now - Alison 20:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

• WP:RFUP
• WP:RFPU

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.

Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

unprotection I think that's enough protection for now. I have to go to sleep now. Leave me some messages, okay? Future54 05:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined - sock of blocked user abusing RFPP again, stop being silly, and anyway this one could do with a day or two more shut down. Moreschi 08:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:RJWH (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Redundant user talk page belonging to unused account I once used. It contains text which is, frankly, misleading as to my intentions on Misplaced Pages - it needs to be mfd'd. --Vox Humana 8' 14:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined pending outcome of userpage MFD. John Reaves (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

• WP:RFED

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.

Claudette Colbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Add tag to the categories. Svsvtkag 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fix spelling to the beginning of Comedy in Stardom section: Claudette was not enthused → Claudette did not enthuse Svsvtkag 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Add "Oscars" co-host to the succession box of Fimography section. 29th Academy Awards: (Succeeded by) Celeste Holm Svsvtkag 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fulfilled/denied requests

Trebuchet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. Vandalism by high school physics classes,by both registered and IP users. binderhead 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. - two of the vandals have now been indef blocked for inappropriate usernames - Alison 18:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Attack sites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

full protection Ongoing issues regarding whether this proposed policy will be rejected or accepted. Please protect for a few days while issues are discussed on the talk page.--MONGO 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Per policy should be protected in 'proposed' state. Ultra minority (two editors) keep ramming in rejected against procedure and with bias. - Denny 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about the minority of editors comment but do agree that it should be protected as a proposal and not as a rejected proposal, and that protection for up to 1 week (but no more) with an automatic unlock at the end of that time would be good at this point, SqueakBox 17:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be more than acceptable...and a good idea.--MONGO 17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Great idea, Squeak. - Denny 17:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - intensive edit warring ongoing over a long period of time - Alison 17:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fairy tale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection - Continious vandalism to the page in the last couple of hours...--Cometstyles 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined per WP:NOPRO - it's on the mainpage. Will ensure it's move protected, though - Alison 16:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, the featured article of the day is not semi-protected, except in extreme cases of vandalism. Although I disagree with this "general rule", and a recent analysis has shown that most anonymous edits to featured articles of the day are vandalism, I thought you should be aware of the consensus. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'd not seen that study before. Thing is, "Anyone can edit" is a very strong directive and I think semi-protecting the featured article, while not forbidden, should be evaluated far more stringently that other articles. What the study you quoted doesn't take into account is that the 5 or 6 good anon edits can result in new regular contributors who otherwise may have been lost to us. Featured Articles have been protected (Yuri Gagarin was on Tuesday) but generally only after being debated on WP:AN. Needless to say, WP:NOPRO is not policy - Alison 17:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Great Depression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect dozens of attacks per day, ongoing long term, by a multitude of vandals. In the last 24 hours no anonymous editor has contributed positively. —EncMstr 16:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected – Steel 17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ganja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No discussion on talk for 10 days. Grandmaster 11:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected – Steel 17:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Neopets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quartreryukami posted on the article's talk page, requesting the article be semi-protected, with reason "lots of vandalism". I quickly checked the article history, which suggests the article is indeed receiving "lots of vandalism". On behalf of Quartrerkuyami, I am requesting semi-protection. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Michaelas 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Straw polls (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection Myself and another editor (User:Radiant!) have been engaging in edit warring on this page. The best thing to do at this point would be to engage page protection while we seek mediation about the page. (→Netscott) 14:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Full protection granted by Kafziel. - auburnpilot talk 15:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Noodle (Gorillaz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protection. Once again, nonsense and uncited fan speculation is being added. It may possibly be the same user as before, however, he/she is using multiple IPs. (see history) D4S 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 15:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protection. Heavy Vandalism by IP addresess and new members, and it doesn't seem like stopping so I believe the page should be Semi-Protected. Davnel03 13:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full-protection. The vandalism has too out of hand to be dealt with by semi-protection. FictionH 13:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify upgrading protection at this time. - auburnpilot talk 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Walter Dean Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please Semi protect this article. He is a popular young adult writer, but I've had to revert over fifty IP vandals who type in nonsense. Czolgolz 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 15:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I do. I'm the only one who does. This has happened about once a week since I created the article over a year ago. Keep in mind this is an article frequently accessed by middle school students. Will it do them any good to find a bunch of profanity instead of the article? Czolgolz

Sandbox (computer security) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indefinite semi-protect (and for other Sandbox (whatever) articles as well). These pages are frequently either mistaken for the WP:SANDBOX or are pretended to be mistaken for such by intentional vandals. This will be a forever-and-ever problem. The vandalism/test level isn't super-high, but it is regular, predictable in perpetuity, and just plain annoying. I'd call this a special case. — SMcCandlish ツ 10:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined Vandalism is very rare — 4 reverts this month — and is unlikely to become "heavy and continued" in the nearby future. Michaelas 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fairy tale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect 15 plus reverts per day. A lot of vandalism. - Ctbolt 08:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

FAs on the Main Page are usually not protected. Moreschi 08:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined. Misplaced Pages:Main Page featured article protection. Michaelas 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Brock Lesnar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It has been locked long enough without enough indication that it really has been any sorth of vandalism. Atleast reduce it to semi. Chad

Hi Verdict. Can't even wait for the bots to remove the discussion from fulfilled/denied requests below yet? -- Oakster  Talk  13:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You act really weird bro. My full name is Chad Nelson and you need to stop acting so weird dude. Chad

Declined, banned vandals are not permitted to request that pages be unprotected. --Yamla 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Negima!? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect Been the subject of lots of IP vandalism as of late. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Alison 07:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)