Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:29, 9 January 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.

====Ohio State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Semi-Protection The football team won a big game just minutes ago. Only a few vandals so far, more sure to come. Same should go for associated pages about the team. John Reaves 05:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Horace Mann School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protection Excessive blatant vandalism from multiple anons, who have not given up after many, many reverts. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Nishkid64 03:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect. Edit war, anonymous IP continues to remove properly sourced portion of article, attempted to delete entire article. Itstotallytrue 22:17, 8 January 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.

Template:USRepSuccessionBox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotect, has never been vandalized and was being edited and improved by several users; pre-emptively full protected without any discussion or cause. --Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:55, 9 January 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.

Fulfilled/denied requests

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

Unprotect. The article is being "owned" by an administrator who is violating Misplaced Pages policy, perpetuating an article with incorrect data, throwing out perfectly usable reference material, and is ignoring requests for fairness by several users. The administrator "Nandesuka" is violating several writing guidelines and has censored all dicussion on the article by protecting the discussion page for almost 6 months without explanation. --63.67.43.146 14:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not unprotected (I think the user meant Online creation). -- tariqabjotu 21:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Unprotect. The article has been semi-protected for over a week, but there was never much IP vandalism to begin with and plenty of people have it watchlisted now after a BLP question was asked at WP:BLPN. It may come to the point where the article will need full protection to stop an edit war, but there's a good discussion going on on the talk page and I think it is best to let that continue - some of the issues have already been worked out and I'm the eternal optimist ;). --BigDT 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not unprotected -- tariqabjotu 21:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected Yes, full protection is clearly necessary here, due to the ongoing edit war. It's great good discussion has already begun, but that good discussion should not have edit-warring in the background. -- tariqabjotu 21:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Labour Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unprotect has been sprotected for over a month now. Like all articles it suffers from vandalism from time to time, but also many beneficial anon contributions. I see no pressing need for protection at this time. -- zzuuzz 14:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected -- tariqabjotu 20:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

unprotect. Disregards discussion page and freezes a biased pov. The same user that asked for protection is active in other pages, e.g., Azerbaijan, where he tries to insert paragraphs that makes the phenomenon of Azerbaijan as a marginal offshoot of Iran. The same trend in Kasravi page, not surprisingly. Discussion pages always overwhelmingly disagree with him. Thank you. Elnurso 02:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not unprotected -- tariqabjotu 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Unprotect Adem Somyürek. The article Adem Somyürek has been protected for over a month now. The reason is that the Australian Misplaced Pages users insist on writing the name as "Adem Somyurek" without the letter "ü" because of their superficial arguements that the letter does not exist in English and that he lives in Australia. Like all articles the name should be written in the correct version, in this case its Turkish spelling. This is not vandalism as they wish to believe but a correction and also a beneficial contribution. Please remove the protection. -- Saguamundi

Already unprotected. The article is currently only move-protected. If you would like to move the article, please file a move request because the article title and name has been controversial. -- tariqabjotu 21:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Full Protect Edit war between anon and registered user. Normally I would report the anon to WP:AIV, but the anon seems to have a point here, so I suggest full protection. Diez2 02:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am currently involved in the edit war, reverting vandalism and removing spam. I request semi-protection because that is the weakest level of protection that will prevent the vandal from re-vandalizing. I have removed spam from myredpages.com from NUMEROUS articles in the past few months. It keeps on reappearing and reappeared today on the Strip_club article. Therefore I removed it. Also, I removed links to stripclubmap.com which I also removed link from numerous articles today. An informative external link that is informative is OK by me. Someone adding the same links to numerous articles is clearly spam. That is why I've been going from article to article removing those spam links. They are generally links to prostitution websites that make money from advertising prostitutes. Prostitution sites are not related to strip clubs and do not belong in the article. Not to mention the commercial aspect: traffic means money from advertising. Monkeybreath 02:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The link being fought over is a violation of WP:EL. Any other attemps to re-insert the link will be considered spamming. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

24 (season 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full Protection - Requesting because of a edit war over a picture gained from an illegal download of an episode a week before it premired anywhere on earth. The picture clearly violates WP:C, however it will take too long to delete because "speedy deletion" doesn't apply, unfortunatly. I request that the picture, Image:Nuclear blast in 24.jpg, be removed and the article be fully protected until something can be done. dposse 22:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Declined The image has been deleted, so that should cool things down a bit. Put {{db}} tag on it next time (this was a decision after some discussion). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect. User:Omar_Jack, a confirmed sockpuppet(eer) of 18 accounts is currently on the verge of breaking the 3RR. Repeated deletions by various sockpuppet SPAs of sourced material. Carson 03:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. Carson is is totally out of line. Check this IP address. I and others have been responding to what can only be described as a irresponsible and libelous attempt to create a page dedicated to discrediting an individual testifying for the Crown in a criminal trial in the province of BC, Canada. Carson is not afraid to speak his or her mind regarding others and is poorly informed, but seeks to protect himself/herself from comment. --Omar Jack 03:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, from the information I've seen on WP:RFCU, you have been confirmed as a sockpuppet. Additionally, I have no opinion concerning this article, so I assure you that I'm not being biased, speaking my mind about others, or protect myself from comment. As far as I know, I am taking the appropriate steps to alleviate an edit war on this page. Carson 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Declined and defer to a better noticeboard such as WP:AN. Only a checkuser can determine IP's, and probably not in this case. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Omar Jack and the other sockpuppets who have persistently vandalized this page have also repeatedly and often viciously insulted other editors (long before I showed up, but much more since, including on the AFD), including allegations that yours truly is one of those charged in the case. They have also done repeatedly what Omar Jack has done here - tosses around the word "libellous" as an attempt to intimidate both other editors as well as Misplaced Pages itself (when in actuality the "libellous" information is nothing such, as it consists of information from police statements, court evidence and the media - all covered by privilege and therefore immune from defamation suits; while at the same time engaging in exactly that practice "themselves" throughout the history of the article and its talkpage and even its AFD (claiming, again, that I am one of those criminally charged). Omar Jack's mention of "libellous" in regard to non-libellous and publicly-available information is a legal threat and I was unfairly blocked for far less due to this whole messy affair. The paranoia that this page has been written/created to discredit him is nonsense; no one has had time to write a Davi Basi or Aneal Virk article, or even contribute much to the scandal's main article BC Legislature Raids (and all of us are busy with a host of other articles and WikiProjects, which despite this fracas we have managed to keep on contributing to; whereas Omar Jack's only business here, like the other socks, is as an interloper on the Bornmann-related pages only, including the BC Legislature Raids which has also been systematically vandalized by another crew of sockpuppets; apparently with the same one or two masters. The sockpuppet report has been confirmed - as confirmed by a checkuser - as you will find if you look up Erik Bornmann on the sockpuppet alert page (link in a sec). This is an urgent matter, as the continuing deterioration of the newly-rebuilt article by Omar Jack will progress until it is halted by an admin, somehow. I urge you to read the full documentation of the AFD and the sockpuppet and other related reports. This page needs protection of some kind and the sockpuppets need to be silenced. WP:COI and WP:AUTO may also be at play.Skookum1 04:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Sick-little-Wolfboy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protect Multiple vandalisms from IPs and new users. Vandalism is rapid (currently several per minute). Some pagemove vandalism now, and can't move back. --TeaDrinker 00:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Nishkid64 02:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

High School Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full Protection Edits by people who hate this movie have been made several times and everyone who reverts it (that are non-bots) are getting sick and tired. This is why Full protection is requested. In fact, why not make it so that the page can't be edited by anyone? It's getting out of control. There are at least 1 vandalism scenarios every day.

--AOL Alex 23:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. We don't fully protect pages for vandalism, usually. Nishkid64 02:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection. The page was unprotected on the 5th, and has since had over twenty anon vandal edits requiring reverts. This is not a random event, or a short-term blip; every time the page is left unprotected, it quickly becomes overrun with vandalism, seriously impacting efforts to maintain and improve the FA status. --Ckatz_spy 23:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Nishkid64 02:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect blatant vandalism by several different IP's and one new user. Sciurinæ 21:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Nishkid64 21:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect Repeated vandalism from multiple IPs. Diez2 18:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Nishkid64 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Turn 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full Protection Ongoing edit war between 2 registered users. Diez2 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. in regards to 89.172.53.11 (talk · contribs) -- tariqabjotu 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

2007 NFL Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protection for the duration of the draft. It is and will continue to be a prominent place for vandals due to the prominence of the draft in the NFL.--Thomas.macmillan 18:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would urge caution here. There were a lot of good contributions from IP users last year that helped to keep it updated. This article is one that has a good potential to attract new editors. --BigDT 18:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is tremendous vandalism here. Semi-Protect it now and when it is closer to the draft, unprotect it again. Its exhausting to keep it vandal-free.--Thomas.macmillan 19:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Declined There are plenty of IP users making good edits. -- tariqabjotu 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)