This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aitias (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 1 June 2009 (→{{lut|DougsTech}}: thank you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:34, 1 June 2009 by Aitias (talk | contribs) (→{{lut|DougsTech}}: thank you)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "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.
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.
Clique Girlz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection vandalism, The article just came off of a 3 day protection today, and the vandalism immediately returned, longer protection seems necessary. Frehley 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Marcus Epstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection - BLP violation. Per agreement at WP:BLPN#Marcus Epstein, the reports of the subject's arrest have not appeared in reliable sources and should not be included in the article. I request that the addition be reverted and that the article be semi-protected for several days. Will Beback talk 22:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Derry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, IP's removing content/vandalising. Bidgee (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Operation Rescue (Kansas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection of Operation Rescue (Kansas), due to vandalism likely in association with the recent murder of George Tiller (the main target of OR's activities). Multiple recent instances of IP vandalism. 21:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Icestorm815 • Talk 21:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
User talk:DougsTech (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
Indefinite cascading full protection user talk of blocked user, With this edit, DougsTech has proved that he is only interested in using his talkpage as a SOAPBOX for promulgating a version of history that is not congruent with reality. This is inappropriate on many levels. Please protect his talkpage indefinitely; should he wish to contest his block at any time he can email Arbcom and knows it. roux 20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Declined Editors are generally free to delete material from their talk pages and this is not an example of a deletion that is not permitted. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm well aware that editors are allowed to do so. It's the soapboxing, specifically soapboxing from a community-banned user, that is the problem. //roux 21:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- WP:ANI is more appropriate for that discussion because whether or not this behavior is acceptable requires a consensus. (See also the instructions above.) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm well aware that editors are allowed to do so. It's the soapboxing, specifically soapboxing from a community-banned user, that is the problem. //roux 21:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
MediaWiki talk:Print.css (edit | message | history | links | watch | logs), MediaWiki talk:Handheld.css (edit | message | history | links | watch | logs) and MediaWiki talk:Sysop.css (edit | message | history | links | watch | logs)
Permanent full protection, redirects to MediaWiki talk:Common.css, to "help centralise discussions and keep..." Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. No vandalism has occurred on these pages since their existence. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it's articles that are rarely protected preemptively (per WP:PP). Plenty of precedent exists for protecting redirects or templates in this manner. Just saying. Tan | 39 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- The precedent for permanent protection, as far as I know, only relates to articles that could cause widespread damage if they were to be vandalized, such as templates that are transcluded on large numbers of pages. We can't risk vandalism to {{fact}} for example, since it's transcluded on thousands of pages; but this is a talk page redirect. Why can't we simply revert, block, ignore if it's vandalized? --Ryan Delaney 20:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I actually don't see an issue with this request. It is in attempts to keep discussion relating to the pages centralized on a talk page that is actually watched. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it's articles that are rarely protected preemptively (per WP:PP). Plenty of precedent exists for protecting redirects or templates in this manner. Just saying. Tan | 39 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Current requests for unprotection
ShortcutsBefore 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.
User talk:DougsTech (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
Protection not within the meaning of the policy. No consensus for the protection on WP:AN/I (yet). — Aitias // discussion 22:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: Protecting admin informed about this request: . — Aitias // discussion 22:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Declined. If you disagree with this action, this is not the venue to reverse it. The protection did not happen in a vacuum; it was part of the package and an extension of the block against DT. Tan | 39 23:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please explain/clarify this “did not happen in a vacuum; it was part of the package and an extension of the block against DT”. I don't understand. Thanks in advance! — Aitias // discussion 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. What I meant is that this protection wasn't done unrelated to anything else; it was a continuation of megabytes of discussion that culminated in a de facto community ban and indef block of Dougstech. At the top of this page is the comment, "Note that this is not a venue for continuing an argument from elsewhere." If you are concerned that this action was wrongly performed, I would comment at any of the many, many related ANI threads. Tan | 39 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. :) I've done so. — Aitias // discussion 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. What I meant is that this protection wasn't done unrelated to anything else; it was a continuation of megabytes of discussion that culminated in a de facto community ban and indef block of Dougstech. At the top of this page is the comment, "Note that this is not a venue for continuing an argument from elsewhere." If you are concerned that this action was wrongly performed, I would comment at any of the many, many related ANI threads. Tan | 39 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please explain/clarify this “did not happen in a vacuum; it was part of the package and an extension of the block against DT”. I don't understand. Thanks in advance! — Aitias // discussion 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Second Sino-Japanese war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article's vandalism is dealt with, but the article is fully protected. I think it should be changed to semiprotected, as full protection is harming the ability of editors to work on the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: Please ask the protecting admin Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) first. SoWhy 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Declined, no consensus on talk page. Protecting admin still involved and monitoring situation. Current protection set to expire in two days. Tan | 39 17:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
ShortcutIdeally, 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
Metal Gear Solid: Rising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Heavy vandalism due to recent annoucement. Fin©™ 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
User(s) blocked. IP 84.13.128.243 has been blocked. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Alex Trebek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Repeated Vandalism. Rmzadeh ► 17:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for three days. Tan | 39 17:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Template:LGBTProject (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
semi-protection high-visiblity template, Please change this from full protected to semi protected; established users should be able to edit it, including the project members. Many of us have the template on our watchlist and can deal with minimal vandalism by any registered accounts. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Done Tan | 39 17:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Andy Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Request for Semi Protection - Murray has reached the Quarter Finals of the French Open which betters his previous best result, and IPs repeatedly try and change the best results section even though they have been repeatedly told that this is only updated at the end of a tournament. When 1 out of every 3 edits is reverting one of these IP addresses, it makes it hard to get any decent work done to the article. There are clear warnings including the hidden messages all around the section, yet they persist in this annoying editing. The tournament ends on the 7th of June, so it would be good to have semi-protection until then. Thanks. Alan16 15:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for one week. Tan | 39 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Air France Flight 447 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Request for Semi Protection. This article is a current event and has attracted a high number of anonymous editors. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Declined, The majority of the users aren't vandalizing the article. There is no reason to pre-emptively protect the article. If actual and excessive vandalism starts becoming a problem, feel free to add another request. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Request for Semi Protection. We've had a spate of vandalism recently on this article recently, some of it politicised, all of it coming from new and unregistered editors. Myself and other members of WikiProject Eurovision have been trying to revert as much as possible, especially given that Eurovision Song Contest is a FA. See the page's revision history.
Recent vandalism:
YeshuaDavid (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for one week. Is the new trend of posting a list of vandalism sanctioned by the community? I've been off-wiki for some time. I would guess it is not - please refrain from posting lists of vandalism here unless requested to do so. Thanks! Tan | 39 16:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
George Tiller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Request for Semi Protection. Article being vandalized by non-registered users. --Dems on the move (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would help if I listed all the vandalism in the last three hours:
- 03:10, 1 June 2009 by 71.32.68.144
- 02:10, 1 June 2009 by 75.111.18.143
- 01:36, 1 June 2009 by 76.114.93.68
- 00:15, 1 June 2009 by 70.26.2.115
- 00:14, 1 June 2009 by 173.88.141.146
- 23:59, 31 May 2009 by 24.193.137.20 (blanking is a form of vandalism -- the next edit was a revert)
- 23:55, 31 May 2009 by 67.82.50.101 (including foul language in the edit summary)
- If 7 cases of vandalism in 3 hours is insufficient, I don't know what is. Dems on the move (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Already protected. --Ryan Delaney 11:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure? It seems to have been semi-protected for only 5 days. Dems on the move (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Already protected. (For bot). five days is an appropriate response to this; it's the first time it's had to be protected. Tan | 39 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure? It seems to have been semi-protected for only 5 days. Dems on the move (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Orlando Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary Semi-protection vandalism Various IP Addresses have been attacking the article ever since the team won the conference championship not even 30 minutes ago. Tampabay721 (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Some of the edits, okay several of the edits, seem to be constructive too... --Ryan Delaney 03:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just thought I'd take a shot. I know it's likely to get worse within the next two weeks for the Finals. This is the only drawback to having a successful team in the playoffs, haha. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well I'm leaving this here for now. It might get worse in the future and I think we should keep an eye on it. --Ryan Delaney
- Just thought I'd take a shot. I know it's likely to get worse within the next two weeks for the Finals. This is the only drawback to having a successful team in the playoffs, haha. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Ryan Delaney 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Pontiac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary full protection vandalism Various users and IP addresses keep vandalizing the page due to the announced phase-out of Pontiac and GM officially filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy today. I'd like to see this page locked for the forseeable future until it has died down to permit editing again. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- User(s) blocked. The user and socks have been blocked. Also constructive IP edits. GedUK 20:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
General Motors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary Semi-protection Major current event going on right now, which could lead to vandalism. Also has some recent edits from IP addresses. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. There's also been more constructive than vandalism edits from IPs today alone. GedUK 20:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)