Misplaced Pages

:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:23, 20 April 2005 view sourceFlamekeeper (talk | contribs)297 edits Pope Pius XII /Centre Party Germany~~~~← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:25, 17 January 2025 view source Cyberbot I (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors1,722,226 edits Clerking main page and moving requests to appropriate subpages.Tag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{adminbacklog}}<!-- Do not hide or modify this, a bot named "Cyberbot I" will manage it automatically.--><noinclude><!-- Please put protection templates *inside* the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{Short description|Wikimedia noticeboard for requesting protection of pages}}{{/Header}}{{Floating link|class=sysop-show|Administrator instructions|Administrator instructions}}{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|1=vandalism|action=edit|small=yes|expiry=}}}}<!-- Put interwikis at the Wikidata entry and categories in /Header instead of this page -->
{{Shortcut|] or ]}}
__FORCETOC__</noinclude><!-- Do not hide or modify this, a bot named "Cyberbot I" will manage it automatically-->
This page is for requesting that a page or image be '''protected''' or '''unprotected'''.
<!-- DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE. The formatting is enforced by Cyberbot. To make changes, please contact Cyberpower678. -->


<!-- Please copy the following example code to add a new entry at the bottom of the correct subpage:
If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and the date) below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Before you do so, however, consult ] for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection.
=== ] ===
* {{pagelinks|Example}} ~~~~
-->


== Current ] in protection level ==
After a page has been protected, it is listed on ] with a short description of ten words or fewer indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should taked place on the Talk page of the article. This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Button protect}}{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Increase}}
<!-- DO NOT PUT NEW REQUESTS HERE. GO TO THE SUBPAGE ABOVE -->


== Current ] in protection level ==
When submitting a request for page unprotection, you may want to consider the reason given for protection at ] (or lack thereof).
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Button unprotect}}{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Decrease}}
<!-- DO NOT PUT NEW REQUESTS HERE. GO TO THE SUBPAGE ABOVE -->


== Current ] to a protected page ==
Please remove requests once they have been fulfilled or withdrawn.
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Button edit}}{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Edit}}
<!-- DO NOT PUT NEW REQUESTS HERE. GO TO THE SUBPAGE ABOVE -->


== Current requests == == Handled requests ==
''A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at ].''
:''Please place new requests '''at the top.'''''
<!-- Please only edit below this line. -->

===]===
Request for page protection on this page following repeated POV anon vandalism. reverted currently, I flagged a dispute (within article), put dispute into the discussion , locked the page incorrectly myself and now seek protection . I refer you to the linked page for the ] which deals with the substance and references to the same issue .

===]===
Has been locked without reference to this site, probably for the same reasons people temporarily locked ]. This page needs to be kept open to keep up to date (our reputation is built on that), and to utiklise the energy out there that wants to edit. --] 22:41, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
In my request to my talk page request it is now unlocked. But there were admins locking the page to users while editing themselves in clear violation of Misplaced Pages policy on page protection. Some admin might care to take a look, --] 22:57, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

:Unlocking. ] 23:04, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

This page is repeatedly getting hit with reversions to a very biased version of the article. The reverts are always done by anonymous user(s). There seems to be no way to talk to this person(s) in the discussion page. --] 17:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)




===]===

This page is suffering from a daily edit war between a registered and anonymous user that has taken place over many weeks. Encouraging editors of this article to use the talk page to sort out this dispute may be helpful. ] 18:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== Old polls in Misplaced Pages namespace ===
Okay, I have a rather strange request... many pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace are obsolete, outdated or simply a straw poll that has closed a long time ago. It happens somewhat frequently that (particularly new) users see such a page, assume it's currently relevant, and for instance add their comments or votes - under the false understanding that they're making a useful contribution that will be noticed.

So would it be a suggestion to protect these pages? Any Misplaced Pages namespace page that is inactive and kept for reference or historical reasons (e.g. those tagged with ]) should arguably remain in its present state, and re-opening the discussion (if needed) should be done on a new page. Just like most bulletin boards have policies against 'thread necromancy' or 'bumping' a year-old thread to the forum top by responding to it.

]]] 11:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

:In a similar vein, what about articles that are entirely complete in themselves? I recommend locking ] because the only edits it is getting right now are vandalism. If someone wants to tweak paragraphs or add comments, it is easier to lock the page from vandals and update the article based on talk page discussion, then to leave the article unlocked and open to some proper edits but mainly vandal edits. What we should have is a locking policy and template that describes the article as entirely complete and further edits should not be necessary, but discussed on the talk page first.--] 14:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

::I'm sorry, do none of these pages have edit histories? Do timestamps in signatures not work? Just note the date that the poll or discussion closed and move everything said after that date to a more relevant place. I've seen requests like this before, and I still don't understand the desire to have certain pages remain just the way they are, now and forever. Obviously that's necessary for pages which have serious legal weight&mdash;things like ] and the various disclaimer pages. Why is it necessary for old polls and discussions? This isn't a bulletin board, it's a wiki. Pages aren't supposed to be locked without some pressing need. ]
::To Will2k: I suggest reading some of the articles listed in ] before declaring that article "complete". &#8212;]]] 15:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::Excellent point, but that particular song and article has a special nature to it that makes it a target of vandalism.--] 18:33, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

===]===

We've got an endless revert war going on surrounding Camilla Parker-Bowles and whether she is "the Princess Charles." It's added, it's removed, it's added, it's removed, it's added, it's removed, and the nimrods over there even removed my attempt as a third-party at mediating a hold. I'm going to try to mediate the hold again, but am not optimistic. I think that the page needs at least temporary protection to encourage the disputing parties to come to a resolution. &mdash; <sup>(] | ])</sup> 16:00, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

:Um, so where do we find out if the request will be granted, and how quickly is it acted upon? &mdash; <sup>(] | ])</sup> 22:43, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

::I'm protecting the page. --] ] 03:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::Thanks. &mdash; <sup>(] | ])</sup> 12:11, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

===]===
This was a name of what is now the Independence Party of Minnesota, but also of a splinter group that formed when the 2000 election was happening. It deserves its own article. ] continually reverts edits to merge the pages, even after i requested he stop. PLEASE PROTECT ] | ] 20:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===]===

This page is a common target of vandalism (2 reverts needed already today) and I cannot see the advantage to keeping it unprotected. It would make life far easier if it were protected, and would not make things miserable for anyone (the page shouldn't be modified anyway). '']&nbsp;(<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup><sub><font class="plainlinks"></sub>)'' 20:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
: Marked with Vprotected. --] ] 03:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===] ===
This page is being continuously reverted, changed and otherwise abused by 3 (and perhaps now 4) IP addresses. There have been 3 non-anonymous users (including myself) that have tried to revert, discuss and explain what is required. We have POV'd the article, and it doesn't seem to be making any difference. Details in the discussion page and on the Vandalism in Progress page. ] 21:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===] & ]===
Both pages are under various attacks from various sockpuppetts, recomond that a ban of several hours if not days be implemented untill sockpuppetry is down and a dialog can be furthred between responcible editors in resolving the POV dispute. --] | ] 03:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===
This page was reverted by an admin to remove a direct quote with a summary and then protected - this seems unreasonable to me. Can someone unprotect the page. ]
:Context: An anonymous user reverted the article to his preferred version 13 times, against the vocal opposition of several other users, and declared an intent to dodge 3RR blocks. I, previously uninvolved, exercised my option to protect the version preferred by those more closely complying with the 3RR, as allowed by the protection policy. &#8212;]]] 04:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:: Am I to understand that a group of people can force a specific POV just because the organize and obey a rule? We should look at the edit - a full quote from someone versus a summary of it - both of similar length (paragraph changes from 2 to 3 lines on my screen with the full quote) - it seem so self evident that the facts are more clearly presented in a direct quote than a summary. How does this system work for disputations like this?? ] 04:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::There is obviously a dispute here. You can help resolve this by spending the time talking to other people on the talk page. If there are 11 reverts in short order then it seems clear that there is some sort of dispute that should be resolved. ]] 22:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{user|Symes}} is clearly the anon user who made the repeated edits in multiple 3RR violations. He is, frankly, not being honest about the nature of his edits, which ncluded as an introduction to the text: "Kerry admitted to having committed war crimes by saying:" ] (] 22:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're insistence that I am the anon user at John Kerry is False and demeaning - I have asked ] to verify this to you - I've been told that he can somehow - However, I respectfully request that you retract and apologize this accusation.
::Granted I have been coached through IM by someone whom more experienced on wikipedia than I am for some of my problems last night - but I can not believe how quickly I was attacked. Is this what wikipedia does to someone who is fairly new - just attack when the point of view is different - I spent hours reading about all your "''high ideals''" which I now see are just wasted because there has been no ]. (cc'ed to your user page) ] 02:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

#It seemed clear (and I'll wait to see some evidence to the contrary before I retract that) that you were the anon. He made a string of edits to an article from which this account has been absent; as soon as the page is protected, you appeared on the protection page to defend him. There's the evidence; what is the counter-evidence?
#You forfeited any assumption of good faith when you misdescribed what had been going on (another indication that you are the anon, incidentally). ] (] 09:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::I still can't believe that you have yet again accused me of being the anon - PROVE IT - I am editing from a static IP through Brighthouse. In the mean time I am going to take Hawstom's advice -] 01:08-----------------------------4827543632391
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="wpTextbox1"

{{Shortcut|] or ]}}
This page is for requesting that a page or image be '''protected''' or '''unprotected'''.

If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and the date) below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Before you do so, however, consult ] for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection.

After a page has been protected, it is listed on ] with a short description of ten words or fewer indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should taked place on the Talk page of the article. This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.

When submitting a request for page unprotection, you may want to consider the reason given for protection at ] (or lack thereof).

Please remove requests once they have been fulfilled or withdrawn.

== Current requests ==
:''Please place new requests '''at the top.'''''
<!-- Please only edit below this line. -->;


=== ] ===

This page is repeatedly getting hit with reversions to a very biased version of the article. The reverts are always done by anonymous user(s). There seems to be no way to talk to this person(s) in the discussion page. --] 17:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)




===]===

This page is suffering from a daily edit war between a registered and anonymous user that has taken place over many weeks. Encouraging editors of this article to use the talk page to sort out this dispute may be helpful. ] 18:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== Old polls in Misplaced Pages namespace ===
Okay, I have a rather strange request... many pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace are obsolete, outdated or simply a straw poll that has closed a long time ago. It happens somewhat frequently that (particularly new) users see such a page, assume it's currently relevant, and for instance add their comments or votes - under the false understanding that they're making a useful contribution that will be noticed.

So would it be a suggestion to protect these pages? Any Misplaced Pages namespace page that is inactive and kept for reference or historical reasons (e.g. those tagged with ]) should arguably remain in its present state, and re-opening the discussion (if needed) should be done on a new page. Just like most bulletin boards have policies against 'thread necromancy' or 'bumping' a year-old thread to the forum top by responding to it.

]]] 11:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

:In a similar vein, what about articles that are entirely complete in themselves? I recommend locking ] because the only edits it is getting right now are vandalism. If someone wants to tweak paragraphs or add comments, it is easier to lock the page from vandals and update the article based on talk page discussion, then to leave the article unlocked and open to some proper edits but mainly vandal edits. What we should have is a locking policy and template that describes the article as entirely complete and further edits should not be necessary, but discussed on the talk page first.--] 14:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

::I'm sorry, do none of these pages have edit histories? Do timestamps in signatures not work? Just note the date that the poll or discussion closed and move everything said after that date to a more relevant place. I've seen requests like this before, and I still don't understand the desire to have certain pages remain just the way they are, now and forever. Obviously that's necessary for pages which have serious legal weight&mdash;things like ] and the various disclaimer pages. Why is it necessary for old polls and discussions? This isn't a bulletin board, it's a wiki. Pages aren't supposed to be locked without some pressing need. ]
::To Will2k: I suggest reading some of the articles listed in ] before declaring that article "complete". &#8212;]]] 15:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===]===

We've got an endless revert war going on surrounding Camilla Parker-Bowles and whether she is "the Princess Charles." It's added, it's removed, it's added, it's removed, it's added, it's removed, and the nimrods over there even removed my attempt as a third-party at mediating a hold. I'm going to try to mediate the hold again, but am not optimistic. I think that the page needs at least temporary protection to encourage the disputing parties to come to a resolution. &mdash; <sup>(] | ])</sup> 16:00, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

:Um, so where do we find out if the request will be granted, and how quickly is it acted upon? &mdash; <sup>(] | ])</sup> 22:43, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

::I'm protecting the page. --] ] 03:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::Thanks. &mdash; <sup>(] | ])</sup> 12:11, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

===]===
This was a name of what is now the Independence Party of Minnesota, but also of a splinter group that formed when the 2000 election was happening. It deserves its own article. ] continually reverts edits to merge the pages, even after i requested he stop. PLEASE PROTECT ] | ] 20:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===]===

This page is a common target of vandalism (2 reverts needed already today) and I cannot see the advantage to keeping it unprotected. It would make life far easier if it were protected, and would not make things miserable for anyone (the page shouldn't be modified anyway). '']&nbsp;(<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup><sub><font class="plainlinks"></sub>)'' 20:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
: Marked with Vprotected. --] ] 03:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===] ===
This page is being continuously reverted, changed and otherwise abused by 3 (and perhaps now 4) IP addresses. There have been 3 non-anonymous users (including myself) that have tried to revert, discuss and explain what is required. We have POV'd the article, and it doesn't seem to be making any difference. Details in the discussion page and on the Vandalism in Progress page. ] 21:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===] & ]===
Both pages are under various attacks from various sockpuppetts, recomond that a ban of several hours if not days be implemented untill sockpuppetry is down and a dialog can be furthred between responcible editors in resolving the POV dispute. --] | ] 03:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===
This page was reverted by an admin to remove a direct quote with a summary and then protected - this seems unreasonable to me. Can someone unprotect the page. ]
:Context: An anonymous user reverted the article to his preferred version 13 times, against the vocal opposition of several other users, and declared an intent to dodge 3RR blocks. I, previously uninvolved, exercised my option to protect the version preferred by those more closely complying with the 3RR, as allowed by the protection policy. &#8212;]]] 04:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:: Am I to understand that a group of people can force a specific POV just because the organize and obey a rule? We should look at the edit - a full quote from someone versus a summary of it - both of similar length (paragraph changes from 2 to 3 lines on my screen with the full quote) - it seem so self evident that the facts are more clearly presented in a direct quote than a summary. How does this system work for disputations like this?? ] 04:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::There is obviously a dispute here. You can help resolve this by spending the time talking to other people on the talk page. If there are 11 reverts in short order then it seems clear that there is some sort of dispute that should be resolved. ]] 22:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{user|Symes}} is clearly the anon user who made the repeated edits in multiple 3RR violations. He is, frankly, not being honest about the nature of his edits, which ncluded as an introduction to the text: "Kerry admitted to having committed war crimes by saying:" ] (] 22:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're insistence that I am the anon user at John Kerry is False and demeaning - I have asked ] to verify this to you - I've been told that he can somehow - However, I respectfully request that you retract and apologize this accusation.
::Granted I have been coached through IM by someone whom more experienced on wikipedia than I am for some of my problems last night - but I can not believe how quickly I was attacked. Is this what wikipedia does to someone who is fairly new - just attack when the point of view is different - I spent hours reading about all your "''high ideals''" which I now see are just wasted because there has been no ]. (cc'ed to your user page) ] 02:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

#It seemed clear (and I'll wait to see some evidence to the contrary before I retract that) that you were the anon. He made a string of edits to an article from which this account has been absent; as soon as the page is protected, you appeared on the protection page to defend him. There's the evidence; what is the counter-evidence?
#You forfeited any assumption of good faith when you misdescribed what had been going on (another indication that you are the anon, incidentally). ] (] 09:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::I still can't believe that you have yet again accused me of being the anon - PROVE IT - I am editing from a static IP through Brighthouse. In the mean time I am going to take Hawstom's advice -] 01:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is totally unreasonable - what misdescription? - an admin reverted the change and the protected the page. ] 10:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===] and ]===
The policy dispute, partly over the usage of "]" as according to ], is currently nominated for arbitration. And these two lists are not the only lists of destinations grouping domestic and international destinations in different sections. ] is in attempt to conform these two lists to the same format of the other lists he created or edited. &mdash; ]] 21:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
:This is not a policy dispute, since the term "Mainland China" dosent appear. The only other list classifying them by domestic and international is the Varig page, and not the Lufthansa one he pointed out. So "some" actually refers to one, or at most two, out of all other lists. Instantnood, when moving the destination lists out of the two airliness pages, also changes their presentation to the "domestic/international" format without notice. Finally, I was not the one singularly dictating the format of these pages. They were actually based on existing formats across multiple pages which had more or less kept to similar formats until now.--] 21:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===Nepali Misplaced Pages Logo===
Someone is trying to use non-Nepali script on the logo.
] 02:30, Apr 12, 2005 (NST)




===]===
This page is beeing vandalised by several different useres, which have been listed in VIP but yet to have been blocked, the vandalism is mainly to promote their groupe on the site was well as general vandalism. --] | ] 02:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===]===

The believers of this philosophy keep removing any reference to criticism about it. In particular they remove the link to and that their founder, Eli Siegel, . 23:30, 6 Apr 2005 (CST)

:Are you sure you've got the right link? The history of that page shows only four revisions in total, three from early 2005 and only one from today. ] 04:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Ah, I see a more extensive history at ] - looks like an anon cut-and-pasted the article back to ] after a move was done. But still, all of the edits over there are from January and February, and I see little evidence of an ongoing conflict. ] 04:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:: The page is currently under attantion of people who put the "cult" text on the page. They have no other edit history. ] 21:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:The first writer (the one who requested page protection) is Michael Bluejay, webmaster of michaelbluejay.com. I believe I am the "anon" Bryan Derksen refers to because I moved the entry back to the correct designation, ], with both words capitalized properly (as needed for a proper noun). I have just registered in Misplaced Pages formally. ] 17:06, 13 April 2005 (UTC)

===]===

] is removing a letter by Jewish luminaries denouncing Revisionist Zionism for unencyclopedic reasons. ] 20:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===]===

User LibraryLion requests this page be temporarily be protected from further editing to resolve an editing conflict between myself and ]. A good portion of factual and specific information I've added, cited from a world respected magazine, is being deleted without justification. The only reason it seems be being deleted is because it "offends" someone. I have restored other information from others, but I do not know of its validity. In not one statement I wrote is an opinion. There seems to be no common ground here, so arbitration may be needed. April 6, 2005

There is no reason whatsoever to protect the page; <s>LibraryLion just wants to protect his version.<s/>

I reverted his material. There has been no edit war. He then reverted my edits 4 days later. i reverted again and he immediately came here shouting about page protection and arbitration. An OTT reaction or what? Or perhasps an attempt to intimidate me into not engaging with this article.

This article has an NPOV sticker on it because someoneelse considered the edits of LibraryLion and friends to be very POV (violence obsessed). A lot of the removed info is anecdotes, some is incorrect. Silsor has also been editing. RickK previously mentioned the POV. This article is problematic, and still with it's POV notice, but there are no grounds on which to protect this article. He is under the impression that because something appeared in Newsweek it gives an automatic right for this material to appear in here as well. Why LibraryLion mentions arbitration is beyond me. I find it bizarre, <s>but typical of the attacking nature of this character<s/>.

Arbitration for merciless editing. I don't think so, --] 14:11, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

: Leaving it on my watchlist for now. Please tone down your attacks on LibraryLion. If things get bad I may intervene, but clearly the article is being reasonably heavily edited so I don't want to heed LibraryLion's request.

: Do you think he could be persuaded to use "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" ? --]|] 14:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LibraryLion started attacking me first at ], --] 14:51, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

] dumped on my User page today re Mara Salvatrucha, --] 23:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

===], ]===
Unqualified, undiscussed, and non-consensus-based reverts by one anonymous user, 66.x.x.x/69.x.x.x (he changes IP's to hide his trail). Probable self-promotion. Adds references to "Matrixism" (references were already present, but edited for fact and POV reasons in ], but s/he reverts back to unreverted state) ] 06:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Note: ] is also breaking the three-revert rule in this "edit war" by restoring his own version of the page, discussed but non-consensus-based, as he insists that his POV is correct and will not accept alternatives to his own edits. ] 14:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::That's a damn lie and you're a mighty coward for saying that behind the shield of an anonymous nickname. I considered the anonymous reversions to be vandalism (and my reversions thereof to be under the "simple vandalism" exception to 3RR), although if others have a different interpretation of the policy I can accept that. The position I took in the editing dispute was a COMPROMISE between deleting the reference entirely and letting it stay unedited. Instead, I edited it to fit factual and NPOV standards. It looks like the consensus now is to delete that reference when the page is finally unprotected (and since ] has been both unprotected and unvandalized for quite the while, it appears our vandal has given up). ] 00:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:S/he doesn't change IPs to hide the trail, s/he changes IPs because of dialup. Both you and the anonymous editor are currently blocked for 24 hours by ], so there's no need for protection at present. ] 15:41, Apr 6, 2

Latest revision as of 03:25, 17 January 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.
Wikimedia noticeboard for requesting protection of pages "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,
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.

    Skip to requests for protection
    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
    this header: view • edit


    Archiving icon
    Archives

    2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025



    Current requests for increase in protection level

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level Request protection Shortcuts

    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.


    Kassia Sule

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 22:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Nepalese royal massacre

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long-term persistent vandalism by IP editors. Apocheir (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Jesse Winker

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent in Additional of unsourced or poorly sourced content. — 64.18.11.5 (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Josh Shapiro

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. 54rt678 (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    EuroLeague

    Reason: High level of IP vandalism Betoota44 (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    History of South Africa

    Reason: Persistent vandalism from IP Users. Kurogaga (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    EJ Johnson

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by I.P editors. Flat Out (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    List of programs broadcast by UniMás

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent disruptive editing and addition of unsourced content increased by IP users. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Lake Tritonis

    Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Skitash (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Editor is disrupting article with POV and modern politics. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Serial Mom

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – An ip address mislabeling the film as a 'slasher' even though no reliable film sources label it as such. (note: this is my first time using Twinkle). Clammodest (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk:Donald Trump

    Even shorter TLDR - temporary semiprotection Talkpage spam (mostly IPs) repeatedly making edit requests/new discussions about Trump's new picture. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Longer reason: See Talk:Donald Trump § Duplicate edit requests/discussions for the discussion I opened on this issue. Long story short, ever since Trump's "official" inaugural photo was released, there has been a plethora of users attempting to get it replaced/added on many pages - the most prevalent being his page, for obvious reasons. The issue is that there is no evidence whatsoever this image is a free image, and there is actually evidence that the image is non-free (either copyrighted, or barred by a NC restriction). See, for example, the current deletion request on Commons. For historical reference, this also happened in 2017 - Trump "hijacked" a private photographer's image (including posting it on whitehouse.gov claiming it was public domain after his inauguration) without their permission, and the photographer confirmed to VRT/OTRS on Commons (confirmed by multiple VRT members in that discussion in 2017) that they never permitted such. It seems likely that the same is happening here, as a user on Commons has claimed that they spoke to the photographer who wants a NC restriction on this image.

    Sorry for the length of this request, but TLDR: there's tons of talk page spam (edit requests or otherwise) from mostly IP editors trying to get this almost-certainly-copyrighted image replaced in his page. I know talkpages are rarely protected, but I'm requesting temporary (maybe a week, to cover the inauguration itself) semiprotection of the talkpage to see if it may help. Any alternative ideas are welcome on the talkpage itself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    As one of those dealing with the problem firsthand, I'm mixed. In my view, the copyright issue isn't really relevant here; that's just background. Rather, it's the recent onslaught of drive-bys who (1) are misusing the edit request facility because they are too fucking lazy to read the information put in front of them during the edit request path (a continuous problem not unique to this situation), and (2) for some unfathomable reason assume they are the first to think of proposing the new image, so don't bother to look for an existing discussion before edit-requesting. (At the Trump article and other well-attended articles, the edit request facility is always far more trouble than it's worth—probably 95%+ of edit requests at Trump are "not done", and the other 5%− could just as easily use the normal "New section" path—but that's a different discussion.) Ultimately, I think the question is how much useful contribution is the ATP getting recently from IPs and brand-new accounts, and I think the answer is not a lot. I guess I'd lean toward supporting temp semi. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Prinsesa ng City Jail

    Reason: The page protection for the article just expired few hours ago, and it appears the sockpuppeteer behind two recently blocked accounts, is restoring their unreferenced edits once again. Hotwiki (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Darrin Bell

    Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Repeated WP:SUSPECT violations following his recent arrest: . Badbluebus (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Q Link Wireless

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Aqurs1 (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Matthew Miller (spokesperson)

    Semi-protection: Continued BLP violations/vandalism after previous protection expired. – Recoil16 (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Censorship of TikTok

    Reason: High level of IP vandalism Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Current requests for reduction in protection level

    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Shortcuts

    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.

    Shortcuts

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    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 Shortcut

    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.
    Further information: Misplaced Pages:Edit requests


    Gaza genocide

    Add “by June 30, 2024” to the sentence: The Lancet has estimated 70,000 deaths due to traumatic injuries. Seahumidity (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    Joe Biden

    In paragraph 4 is this assertion: "In private, White House staffers and Biden's family took measures to conceal and compensate for apparent declines in his acuity." There is no source cited for this consequential claim. The "apparent decline" of mental acuity in Biden, a lifetime stutterer, is a topic of contention. Rnperry (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

     Done Removed. We must source EVERYTHING, especially in BLPs. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 05:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    What? Nothing is directly sourced in the entire lead for that article, it generally follows the practice of citations in body, not lead, from MOS:LEADCITE. There is however, an entire section in that article that backs up that point. Does the OP think that:
    A tight-knit group of select staffers and Biden's family emerged during his presidency that insulated him from others. Biden's staff routinely adapted his schedule and activities to accommodate his needs as he aged and conceal signs of declining cognitive ability. White House staffers took on unusually strong roles as gatekeepers for Biden, limiting meetings with cabinet secretaries, lawmakers, and other officials, and restricting the information made available to him. Events Biden attended were tightly scripted and limited.
    was because he had a stutter? There are multiple sources backing it up, from the NYT, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Axios. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Israel-Hamas War

    I would like to request that... (the status section for the front page should be labeled as “ceasefire” until the ceasefire ends. This is in accordance with the recently-reached agreement.) . LordOfWalruses (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Handled requests

    A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Archive.

    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions Add topic