Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:02, 19 April 2008

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 2025

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.

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

protect - high risk, currently only on semi. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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

temporary semi-protection , Consistant vandalism and other errors put onto page by multiple IPs. Recommend SHORT protection..crassic! 23:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety 23:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection This article was fully protected two days ago, and William Conneley, an Admin who has been deeply involved in the edit war on the page, unprotected the page, in violation of[REDACTED] rules. The article is still up for deletion, and I think it should stay in a stable state until the AfD is completed. Inclusionist (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably not needed. No revert war currently. A relative polite and constructive discussion on the talk page at the moment. Should be encouraged.Ultramarine (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please fully protect the article, the previous protection which was just instituted took place during an admin abusing their tools. I think with some time of not editing the users on the page can settle and begin to discuss the issues fully. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't like protecting articles that are up for AFD because people may want to improve the articles in the hope of saving them. Not going to rule on this one, just suggesting that it's not a good idea. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined Articles are routinely edited while at AfD, in fact they are often edited during an AfD in response to points raised in the deletion discussion. To protect this article because it is at AfD would be outside of policy and would require an exceptional reason to do so. Moreover, the participants in both the editing of the article and the AfD seem to be perfectly well aware of the volatile nature of this article. CIreland (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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

semi-protection, In the past month there's been about 60 instances of vandalism (mostly by IPs) and only 2-3 real edits (all by registered users). Page is already rather detailed (though lacking in references).

Semi-protected for 10 days. CIreland (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

semi-protection , IPs all day continue to add personal opinions about Adamle and Orginial Research; protect for a while as most information is coming from unreliable dirtsheet/blog websites..~SRS~ 22:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 10 days. CIreland (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A&R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. High level of vandalism, see "Examples of notable A&R people". 84.175.217.160 (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Nabla (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

temporary full protection Vandalism, racist vandalism. see change log..Reid0084 (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Warn the user for if the continue to vandalize and if they do not stop report to WP:AIV. Tiptoety 21:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Lulzwut (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

indefinite full protection User talk of blocked user, User vandalizing at the talk page. .SMS 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Already protected. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

International Sahaja Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection. I suggest two weeks, due to unproductive edit warring between two users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected Two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

temporary full protection Vandalism, repetitive vandalism by unregistered user.Eli+ 19:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

permanent semi-protect lots of consistent vandalism from un-registered users. Few, if any, edits by un-registered users has been valuable and considering the current news coverage of Zimbabwe I would like the page semi-protected permanently. Temporary has been tried before but fails once it is removed. Mangwanani (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Additionally, there is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

full move-protect. Move war. Húsönd 18:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Move protected for a week. Acalamari 19:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Move protected It was for 2 days, by Acalamari changed it to a week. Dont really mind. Tiptoety 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that would have been the result of us protecting the page at the same time. I'll change it back to two days if you like. Acalamari 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

temp semi-protect: Too many vandals hitting the page, please look into it. Dwilso 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Húsönd 18:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Seems to be a frequent target of vandals (see history) .Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of three days. Tiptoety 18:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Billy Mitchell (gamer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

indefinite semi protection Vandalism, Moderate but consistent vandalism. Living subject seems to be an above-average target of libel. .Tan | 39 18:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one week. Tiptoety 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 in film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protection The reason can be found on the talk page. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined, The vandalism over the last 24 hours all came from one IP, and I see many constructive edits from IP editors. Reporting vandals to WP:AIV would work better in this situation. - auburnpilot talk 18:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Well, it isn't always easy to know whether or not it's appropriate to report stuff to WP:RPP. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

indefinite semi-protection: This article was fully-protected for about a year due to repeated copyvio vandalism by what I assume is one single very determined individual using sockpuppets. Each of the sockpuppets usually only vandalises once before a new username is created. The article was unprotected a couple of weeks ago to allow normal editing, but the same vandal seems to have returned already. Semi-protection might do the trick though. DWaterson (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

CommentMaybe a range block with account creation diabled might work better. Dusti 18:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I unprotected the page a while back due to a request in the section below as it had been protected for a long time with the protecting admin on indefinite leave. Full protection has/will severely inhibit contributions to the article and I would personally like to avoid it. Semi-protection as suggested is a better idea, but may just cause the user to create sleeper accounts and wait for them to be autoconfirmed. A checkuser and Dustihowe's suggestion might help. For the moment I have given the user a fresh warning and watchlisted the page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was tempted to request a checkuser but I thought it would probably be rejected due to lack of substantiated evidence. However, looking back through the history at the various sockpuppet accounts, I notice that User:Ferry real who readded the copyvio material back on 2 July 2007 is now marked as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Tile join/Genesis Vandal; the vandalism doesn't seem to fit the usual MO though. Could one of you admins progress this matter however you feel fit as I'm getting tired of reverting this page so often. Cheers, DWaterson (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2008 (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.

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

unprotection , the infobox dispute has been resolved; the MLS infobox template is used.Johnny Au (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Seljuk Turks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page was protected back in 2005, apparently due to 1 IP-vandalism. Sumerophile (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 06:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFA (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Administrator User:John Reaves protected the RFA page stating that there is "no need for new users to edit this". Has been questioned about this, yet has refused to budge. Our protection policy states that "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users.". It appears to be a clear violation of this policy, and there is a discussion on ANI. Can this page be unprotected, its completely unwarranted. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 12:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

 Declined There's no reason for new editors to edit this page. The only time they do is when they vandalise, or waste everyone's time with snow rfas. Majorly (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is being discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:RFA#Protection, any consensus formed from this discussion can be implemented when it is complete. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2008 (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.

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

While the article is protected an admin reverted an edit. There is a discussion on the talk page and editors want a chance to review the references and text before the section goes in the article. An admin should not revert while the article is protected. QuackGuru (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see this previous thread on ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined Discussion should continue at AN/I, not here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Unprotection An edit I made to the Bill Ayers page was removed. The original edit I made is below. The information was completely objective and supported by credible news sources. I believe it was removed for political reasons.

Ties to Barak Obama

Ayers has had a longstanding relationship with Senator Barak Obama. He has donated money to Obama's political campaign and served with him on the nine-member board of the Woods Fund. They also lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles there.

It was removed by a user. The following is our conversation.

Ayers' Connection to Obama

Clearly, Ayers and Obama have a relationship even if it is not personal in nature. There is a political relationship. I have added this information as I was shocked to see it not included in this article. Having a relationship with someone does not necessarily mean that you hold the same views on all issues. However, given that Obama is now a public official running for the Presidency, information such as this is important. My post does not insinuate anything other than a modest relationship and is supported by facts from articles from Bloomberg News and the Washington Post. Comments are always welcome. If you would like to read the articles click on the links below.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=adgAs9YOxRSc

   The Washington Post article says the opposite of what you are claiming, that there is no connection, only a Republican attack on Obama: "the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one"..."This whole connection is a stretch." The Bloomberg article is the same. It does not describe any relationship between Ayers and Obama, but rather speculates that Obama "might face Republican criticism." It's preposterous to say that a $200 donation to a Senate campaign is relevant. The question of whether Obama's service on that board is relevant to a description of the charity has been raised and discussed, and can be discussed further, but there is no credible source to say that having served together on the same Board creates a relationship. This is a serious BLP violation, and I have again removed this content per BLP policy. If any administrator considers this a 3RR violation despite BLP policy please say so and you or I can revert and we'll take this to AN/I. I suggest the page be protected given the POV pushing and edit warring on the subject. Wikidemo (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your contention that the article says the "opposite" of what "I" am saying. First of all, I am not saying anything, I am letting the news accounts speak for themselves. While it is true that the Washington Post article speculates about how Republicans will use this connection in the campaign, that is only half of the article. The article clearly states, and I will quote verbatim,

"Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles."

The magnitude of their connection may still be something that has not been determined but to state that their is no connection is simply false. In my original edit, I did not include any POV at all. Please refrain from omitting information that is relevant and documented in the press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.7.46 (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined. The page appears to have been semi-protected due to vandalism and associated BLP concerns--issues about individual edits should be worked out on the talk page of the article rather than here. --jonny-mt 07:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fulfilled/denied requests

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

semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Emersonlee2 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined, For the same reason I declined it below. Please do not make multiple requests for the same article. - auburnpilot talk 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism has resumed since removal of protection.Anastrophe (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined, There's only been one vandalous edit from one IP since protection expired (and that was nearly 6 hours ago). I'd suggest giving the article a chance, and if vandalism reaches the same level it did previously, re-request protection. - auburnpilot talk 18:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Lots of vandalism recently on this page..Cream (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - auburnpilot talk 18:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

full-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Emersonlee2 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor notice: Only activity is User:Emersonlee2 and thus doesn't need protection. --Cream (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - auburnpilot talk 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Article has been attacked by a number of IP editors making vandal/nonsense edits.Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

At least 6 IP have contributed to the vandalism and I'm unsure at this point what the "right" version is of the article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected I believe I found a clean version from the 15th, and I've added the article to my watchlist. - auburnpilot talk 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:206.248.197.90 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Vandalism banned user.CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Already done. by NawlinWiki - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Edit war with apparent use of anonymous IPs and newly created sock-puppets..Lklundin (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Hersfold 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Extended semi-protection: vandalism from a large range of IPs for over two months, with increasing frequency (now a daily event). Hrafn_Stalk 13:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Seems another bunch of heavy vandalism has appeared, temp doesn't seem to do much but stave it off for a few months before being vandalised again once prot is removed.treelo _talk 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 4 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Permanent semi-protection is contemplated only for articles with long-term, endemic, incessant vandalism. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Thompson (attorney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: Page is constantly vandalized and a new wave of IP vandals has come in. Strongsauce (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally protect on that level of vandalism, but since it's a BLP, Semi-protected. In order to avoid removing the move-protection, I haven't set an expiry date, but would encourage an admin to unprotect in a week or so. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection , I suggest 4 days'-worth for unsourced information constantly being added by IPs..—TreasuryTag—t—c 09:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined - it seems to have quietened down. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Who.do.I.love? (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

temporary full protection User talk of blocked user, This blocked user is abusing the {{helpme}} template in a (futile) attempt to get attention so that someone will review their unblock request. In the past hour I have seen no fewer than five templates come up, none of which was a valid request for help..Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 12:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected.--PhilKnight (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Malegapuru William Makgoba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. Periodic alterations aimed at hiding controversies in order (I assume) to show Professor Makgoba only in a good light.Loyola (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Zedla (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. single perpetrator – Zedla (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, A load of vandalism over the past few days - just not acceptable..h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 01:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussing with admin who just unprotected it. Dont want to wheel war :) Tiptoety 02:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 08:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It were me that unprotected it. Why? There are plenty of editors who have the page watchlisted. The vandalism is generally silliness rather than nastiness or attacks on real people, and most times it gets reverted on the spot. While it is true that acts of vandalism are not acceptable - we have warning messages and blocks to deal with those - that's not a reason for semi-protection in itself. I don't see the history here being "heavy and persistent vandalism" that Misplaced Pages:Protection policy talks about. If you're convinced by the rationales on Misplaced Pages:Rough guide to semi-protection, then yes, there would be a case to semi-protect the page, but I don't find the arguments there at all convincing. The level of vandalism, and its nature, seem to fall far short of that needed to justify semi-protecting a moderately visible article. YMMV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

temporary full protection Vandalism, A user is continuing to vandalize this page for reasons known only to him. He has now vandalized it with two registered accounts and two different IP addresses. Since blocks aren't stopping him, at least page protection will stop his vandalizing here. Collectonian (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. It seems all the offending users/IPs have been blocked. Of course if the disruption continues with multiple IPs/users, feel free to request again. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)