Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:32, 26 April 2012

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

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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.

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

Semi-protection: High level of IP and new user vandalism. Page is a B-class article under ArbCom. Over the last month and a half, large amount of non-constructive edits and vandalism from over a dozen unique IPs and new users. With the exception of two minor IP edits, all have required reverting. Seems to have become more common over the last week, with a possibility of sock-puppetry. Not sure on advisable time frame. Homunculus (duihua) 20:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Perry the Platypus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. JDDJS (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP edits over the name change to Odisha (recent official name). Need semi-protection for indefinite period to prevent such non-constructive edits. Amartyabag 18:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Web hosting service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – too much link spam... mabdul 18:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Army Geospatial Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: Army Geospatial Center staff continues finding edits to the page that starts editing wars. There seems to be no resolution because the page continues to get reverted back by two users. I have made my statements on their talk pages about the changes they keep making on the Army Geospatial Center page. I would like to request semi-protection to ensure that the information being added to the page does not send users to mis-informed/opinionated information and also keeps the integrity of the agency. Army Geospatial Center is working to improve the page by supplying proper information to wiki users but it seems that we are in a road block due to two wiki users constantly changing information/adding verification tags. AGC-webmaster (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined None of the editors involved are IPs or non-confirmed, so semi-protection would not have any effect on the current dispute. Full protection would prevent the dispute, but is too much at this stage. I suggest you discuss the issue with the other editors involved on the talk page, rather than request page protection. I will also warn you that, should you continue to revert their edits (especially on a page which you have a conflict of interest over, you may be blocked for edit warring or disruptive editing. ItsZippy 19:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – This dispute has three users reverting and disagreeing with others. Minima© (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined - I've left messages/warnings for all the involved editors and it appears they have agreed to cease and move their efforts to the talk page. No need for protection when we can just block those who continue to chose to be disruptive. Tiptoety 17:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection: if not higher. This page was protected recently but no sooner was it lifted than the very same old non-constructive editing returned, , , and this undo. This is a footballer who apparently made a dive - nothing no other footballer has done - but in this subject's case, it just attracts apologetic attempts at humour and I fear if the page be open for anonymous users and new accounts, this will continue. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined for now. It's been a couple days since the protection expired but I can't see from the (few) edits since then that it needs protection again. Ks0stm 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection: Persistent IP SPA vandalism, picked up by 2nd IP, adding POV biased material. Tvoz/talk 16:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ks0stm 17:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent spats of IP vandalism. DPH1110 (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ks0stm 17:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Willdude123 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism. Willdude123|Ƹ21ɘbublliW (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined – User talk pages are not protected except in response to severe or continued vandalism. Jac16888 16:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

East Perth, Western Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Nonsense being added by IP users. Hack (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. If the IP comes back then we can look into protection. Ks0stm 16:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP-vandalism.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – alternative spelling of salted autobio Shihabudheen Moothedath. Scopecreep (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Creation protected indefinitely. Ks0stm 16:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Trouble Man (T.I. album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection: Continuous addition of unsourced material by numerous IPs, requesting protection until more information is released about the album. SE KinG. _Talk. 06:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of six weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I will be more than happy to unprotect the page before then if more information is released. Ks0stm 16:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection - Persistent vandalism by IPs over course of 6 years causing removal of original content during reverts by other editors. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. (Emphasis on the "recent" part.) Ks0stm 17:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection - Persistent vandalism by IPs over course of 6 years causing removal of original content during reverts by other editors. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. (Emphasis on the "recent" part.) Ks0stm 17:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Kıtalar Arası Derbi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1886kusagi (talk • contribs)

Question: Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm somewhat confused as to what's going on here as well. (Note: I'll ping the original requester to see if they can provide more information.) Ks0stm 17:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Bihar Pradesh Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Persistent vandalism of page– Addition of unsourced picture of some individual claiming to be a 'senior leader' with his supporters & attempted vandalism.Poorly worded and deliberate revertion of genuine information to promote self individuals.In India, only current Constitutional Office Holders are relevant(or the first Office Holders like the first PM, CM, Deputy CM etc.); The IP Address 121.245.34.160 is promoting a deceased former office Holder's Son who is little and seldom known and has never ever held any public/legislative office ever. His picture has been forcefully added time and again while it is quite obvious that it is a bonafide case of overplaying and exalting a common person to an unworthy stature.Even after repeatedly intimated by multiple users,added picture from various IP addresses while deleted other's names on private preference.

KUVM-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continued vandalism by IP sock of banned user, resuming just after previous semi-protection ended. Gridlock Joe (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It took 10 days after protection expired for there to be an edit and there have been none in two days. Ks0stm 18:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club (season 9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection or semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Junebea1 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2012 (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.

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

Every edit I have made has listed refrences. EdJonston and others simply want to make the article a biased entry by never allowing anything that critizes Mr. Winer, in their views. I don't see how anything that comes from a major blog and lists refrences is vandalism..--Irelan12(talk)

Since I imposed the semiprotection I won't take action on this. But the editor has previously been blocked for abuse of multiple accounts, per WP:Suspected sock puppets/Nirelan. See also the discussions of Nirelan in Talk:Dave Winer/Archive 2. Since he has a registered account which is not currently blocked I cannot grasp the purpose of this request unless he wants to resume adding criticism to Dave Winer's article using his IP socks. Or perhaps it's a misunderstanding of how protection works. Here is one of the IP edits in the last two days which triggered the edit filter as 'possible vandalism or BLP issue.' EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

EdJohnston (talk) dosen't seem to understand the meaning of vandalism. He can't respond to the comment regarding the fact that everything I have posted has been cited. Further, I do not have multiple accounts. I had one that was blocked simply because people who personally know Dave Winer are allowed to edit the article. In my defense, all of the changes they were unhappy with are currently featured on in the article. For example, the page used to claim that Mr. Winer invented rss. It now says he contributed to it. Protecting a page is meant to keep people from destroying information or posting untrue information. This process is not intened to prevent people from posting TRUE and REFERENCED information. If EdJohnston (talk) finds the imformation insulting to the person the article is about he can't simply say its vandalism. I still would like to hear what makes information on Gawker unuseable in the article when Gawker is apparently considered noteworthy enough to have a Wiki. Irelan12(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

The contributors to the Winer article know the person and purposefully put untrue statements in the article. For example, it lists Dave Winer as the creator of Editthispage.com when the reference linked to for that portion of the article states that Userland Software made the site. (Link From Winer Article) Please unprotect this article so I can remove the parts that are not true, as long as I give refernces. --Irelan12 (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

This page does not need to be protected. It's only about car class'cation.

(Non-administrator comment) Umm. That article doesn't exist. Are you requesting for the title to be de-salted? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 15:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined, A page with that title never existed. Feel free to make a new request with the correct spelling. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Current requests for 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

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

Semi-protection Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ks0stm 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Creation protection: An article originally created earlier this month by User:Harshultak (talk, contribs), consisting entirely of copyrighted material. The article has been CS'd four times, on 13, 15, 17, and 26 April. The creating user has been temporarily banned, but in order to ward off sockpuppetry and other unfortunate events, I suggest we salt it for a significant period of time. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Creation protected indefinitely. Ks0stm 15:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tot12 (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ks0stm 15:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of vandalism today, please protect this page so i can fix it please. Just 1 day. Simeondahl (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not needed, the vandalism IP has ben banned, and i have fixed it. --Simeondahl (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Help for Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – from an IP-hopping editor who has been disrupting the article since 7 March. Barret (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rami R 10:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG/Run (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite full protection: I was looking at CluebotNG's user page and I noticed the emergency shutoff page was completely unprotected. This could allow any IP or new user to turn off the bot to increase the prevalence of vandalism on the site. I think this is an action that should be limited to admins to prevent a possible attack. This is a huge flaw in the system. I know that protections are not generally for prevention, but this is very important. And protection could be very neccesary. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 19:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: It's restricted to autoconfirmed users. Calabe1992 19:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply to comment: That's still a bit of a vulnerability. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 19:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but since it was protected it hasn't been edited. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being a bit paranoid here, but does anyone other than an admin have any business touching one of our most vital bot's shutoff switch? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 19:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Hghyux. Not sure why non-admins would need access to this page. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

See this link. The protection of the page was discussed several times before, but the sole purpose of the page is a soft-stop for the bot for non-admins. I'm not really sure what purpose it serves though - it only seems usfull in case there are no admins around to block cluebot otherwise. Excirial 19:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So we explicitly created a page where normal users can just go shut off the bot when they want? I think that's bloody rediculous! Nobody other than admins should be making judgement calls on whether a bot is malfunctioning. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 19:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Request? So is the page going to be protected or should I send it to AfD for discussion, or do we just leave it be and wait for a smart vandal to disable it? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined As was noted at MFD, lots of people watch it, and the bot operator wants it to be at the current level of protection. I can't think of a situation in which we protected a userspace page against the will of the good-faith user. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I very strongly agree. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 12:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Administrative backlog