| Revision as of 15:06, 25 January 2006 view source172 (talk | contribs)24,875 edits →{{article|Holodomor}}← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:15, 25 January 2006 view source Ultramarine (talk | contribs)33,507 edits →{{article|Holodomor}}Next edit → | ||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
| :::Perhaps use a sub-page to make edits to the current article to improve/NPOV it, and then refer that to the discussion page? Thanks/] 13:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | :::Perhaps use a sub-page to make edits to the current article to improve/NPOV it, and then refer that to the discussion page? Thanks/] 13:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Thanks for the suggestion. Still, while a sub-page is often helpful, I doubt that the idea will help in this case. (BTW, I might be one of the first users to begin the practice of using a sub-page or a temp-page to make proposed edits to an article-- back in days of the very long-running ] edit war with sockpuppets of the banned ] through much of 2003.) Sub-pages work when you have a small number of quarreling editors determined to work out an eventual compromise. They do not work too well when you are dealing with factions. ] is one of a long series of revert wars involving Ukrainian nationalists editors involved in ]. (I'm not a participant in that case. I'm a historian of American nationality, not one of the Russians that the Ukrainian nationalists usually like to battle. I'm caught in the middle of this dispute. It's very frustrating-- hence the request for help here.) With the page protected, the users seeking to establish some middle ground (such as Alex Bakharev and Dietwald) can't seem to get much attention from the users whose agreement is necessary to end the revert war. I expect that we will know if a compromise has been reached only when we can edit the article, hammer out a new version, and wait for a reaction that does not trigger the usual follow-the-leader reversions. ] | ] 15:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | ::::Thanks for the suggestion. Still, while a sub-page is often helpful, I doubt that the idea will help in this case. (BTW, I might be one of the first users to begin the practice of using a sub-page or a temp-page to make proposed edits to an article-- back in days of the very long-running ] edit war with sockpuppets of the banned ] through much of 2003.) Sub-pages work when you have a small number of quarreling editors determined to work out an eventual compromise. They do not work too well when you are dealing with factions. ] is one of a long series of revert wars involving Ukrainian nationalists editors involved in ]. (I'm not a participant in that case. I'm a historian of American nationality, not one of the Russians that the Ukrainian nationalists usually like to battle. I'm caught in the middle of this dispute. It's very frustrating-- hence the request for help here.) With the page protected, the users seeking to establish some middle ground (such as Alex Bakharev and Dietwald) can't seem to get much attention from the users whose agreement is necessary to end the revert war. I expect that we will know if a compromise has been reached only when we can edit the article, hammer out a new version, and wait for a reaction that does not trigger the usual follow-the-leader reversions. ] | ] 15:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Oppose. The intent is obviously to immediately start the reverts again. Regarding 172's oft repeated claim to a scholar, he edits anonymously and refuses to give any supporting evidence for being a historian. Nor is he a neutral, but always adds pro-communist argument. He is certainly a participant and has been warned for edit warring on this article. ] 15:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{article|Stephen Harper}}=== | ==={{article|Stephen Harper}}=== | ||
Revision as of 15:15, 25 January 2006
Purge server cache Shortcut- ]
This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be full protected, semi-protected or unprotected, including page-move protection.
If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and sign the request) at the TOP of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Also, make sure you specify whether you want the page to be full protected or semi protected. Before you do so, however, consult Misplaced Pages:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection. Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection is the policy that covers semi-protection of heavily vandalised pages.
Only consider protection as an option when it is necessary in order to resolve your problem, and when the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection.
Generally, full page protection is to stop edit warring or severe vandalism. Semi protection is only for vandalism. Full protection is also used on templates that are frequently used and not in need of frequent edits (this includes most editorial templates; see Misplaced Pages:High-risk templates).
After a page has been protected, it is listed on Misplaced Pages:Protected page with a short description indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. Admins do not revert back to previous versions of the page, except to get rid of vandalism.
{{Editprotected}} can be used to request edits to protected pages as an alternative to requests for page unprotection.
| This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.
If the entry is being used for edit-warring or content disputes or contains personal attacks or uncivil comments, or any other unrelated discussion, it will be removed from this page immediately. |
Here is the log page if users want to look up whether or not pages have been protected.
Administrators: When you have fullfilled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and, optionally, remove the request, leaving a note on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user(s) requesting protection might be good, as well.
Current requests for protection
- Please place new requests at the top. and use {{article|ARTICLE NAME}} when listing a page here, where ARTICLE NAME is the article or page you wish to be protected. If the page is not in main namespace, that use {{ln|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} instead.
My Chemical Romance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having a problem with a user (Deathrocker) who is repeatedly removing My Chemical Romance influences and calling me a vandal. The user has broken the 3 revert rule and has reverted it 7 times. Anything you could provide will be very appreciated. Thank you. Alex 101 03:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's already been full-protected pending the edit-war being sorted out. -Splash 04:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Stuyvesant High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The page is still being vandalized constantly by an anon user. Request semi-protection again.--Zxcvbnm 03:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is kind of at the annoyance threshold. But it gets a total of 5 edits on a busy day, and can get none at all; I don't think it needs protection at present. -Splash 04:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Ananda Marga (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(15 incidents since January 2nd)
This and the two pages below are being constantly - roughly daily - vandalized (delete text, insert spam links) by different IP addresses (anonymous postings), as can be seen by their history. Whoever is doing this is hitting all three pages almost every time - perhaps even an automated program?
These three pages are very low-volume posting pages, so semi-protection should be of minimal hinderance. IP blocking seems pointless. Thanks! John Broughton 19:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Once a day is easy enough to handle with a revert, no? -Splash 00:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- It would be easier if I were an administrator, and if the person/program doing the vandalism weren't deleting such a large amount of text.
- I'll pass along a suggestion to the two folks with talk pages (below) that if they want to protect their pages, they should post something here. Thanks for the note. John Broughton 04:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
User talk:Prozak (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(24 incidents since November 7th)
- Not going to protect a userspace page unless that user requests it. -Splash 00:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi, please; it's getting hammered by multiple anons. Cheers. !mAtt™ 19:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Semiprotected. It was already semiprotected against pagemoves only. --Syrthiss 19:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Claudius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection is needed for this article. Vandals hit the page by inserting sexually graphic image content.--Reynaldo 16:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Semi-protected. WOW...that is a lot of vandalism. Better left protected. I wish all FA's could were semied, like the main page is protected, so as not to have people's first Wiki experience to be a huge penis image...sigh. This will only last for a short while though, since that is not policy.Voice of All 17:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like Raul blocked a whole host of vandal socks, and unprotected. It seems to be working.Voice of All 17:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- You protected the FA? This would be.... -Splash 13:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like Raul blocked a whole host of vandal socks, and unprotected. It seems to be working.Voice of All 17:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Scott Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unfortunately I think this may still reuqire sprotection for a bit; there have been at least 6 or 7 sepereate users vandalsising this page since the protection was removed this morning. Robdurbar 14:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- This one is getting hit a bit harder, but by what appears to be only 1 or 2 users who are not earning themselves blocks. Ask admins to block first, and protect second; there's no reason to restrict all anons and all new editors for the misbehaviour of a few. -Splash 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I protected it. Over 20 vandalism edits since it was unprotected. Well over 20. --Woohookitty 04:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is this one persistent anon user who removes COA of Abkhasia and South Ossetia. S/he left me a message on my talk page here. His/her IP is always changing, so I suggest semiprotection till that person understands that all complaints about the list should go to the talk page of List of sovereign states. Renata 07:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Semiprotection applied. howcheng {chat} 07:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you please protect it again? And leave it there for like a week? That user is tireless and very persistent. I used me 2 reverts today already. Renata 15:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'll reprotect. Can't guarantee a week though, partially because if we give a time limit, vandals will often seize on that and just wait until the time limit has passed and then hit again. So we'll just say...a modest length of time. :) --Woohookitty 15:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- That anon figured out to register an account Pirveli (talk · contribs). It is going very slow, but very very persistently. Can something be done to solve this nonsense for good? Renata 05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would suggest a checkuser request to make sure it's the same person. If it is, you should then be able to get an admin to block it. --Woohookitty 12:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- That anon figured out to register an account Pirveli (talk · contribs). It is going very slow, but very very persistently. Can something be done to solve this nonsense for good? Renata 05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'll reprotect. Can't guarantee a week though, partially because if we give a time limit, vandals will often seize on that and just wait until the time limit has passed and then hit again. So we'll just say...a modest length of time. :) --Woohookitty 15:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you please protect it again? And leave it there for like a week? That user is tireless and very persistent. I used me 2 reverts today already. Renata 15:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Current requests for unprotection
- Please place new requests at the TOP and use {{article|ARTICLE NAME}} when listing a page here, where ARTICLE NAME is the article or page you wish to be unprotected. {{Editprotected}} can be used to request edits to protected pages as an alternative to requests for page unprotection. If the page is not in main namespace, that use {{ln|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} instead.
Holodomor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article was protected follwoing a long series of blind reversions mostly by a concert of Ukrainian nationalist POV warriors currently subject to arbitration at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK, usually without bothering to read the discussion. Following the page protection, Alex Bakharev proposed a compromise meant to end the revert war. The proposed compromise, however, has rececived little-to-no attention from the Ukrainian nationalists who likley feel that they have 'won' the revert war because of the version of the article that happened to get protected. Unprotecting this article is thus necessary to allow Alex Bakharev's proposed compromise to gain some momentum. 172 | Talk 12:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm really tired so I'll let someone else look at it, but my gut feeling is no. Unprotecting a page to promote one point of view is basically endorsing one side. To me anyway. --Woohookitty 12:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I was not asking for that. Frankly, the suggestion that I was is somewhat insulting. From three years of experience on Misplaced Pages, and having protected and unprotected many pages myself, I know better to ask to uprotect 'a page to promote one point of view and basically endorse one side' because I know better than all but probably a handful of users that it does not matter which version gets protected. There seems to be little correlation between which competing version happens to get protected and the version that eventually stabilizes once the edit wars subside. The point unprotection is to reinvigorate a stagnating talk page discussion by allowing a flurry of new edits. A quick look at Talk:Holodomor will confirm for anyone interested that the discussion page does need to be reinvigorated, especially is the effort to some sort of compromise and middle ground is to be successful. 172 | Talk 13:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps use a sub-page to make edits to the current article to improve/NPOV it, and then refer that to the discussion page? Thanks/wangi 13:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. Still, while a sub-page is often helpful, I doubt that the idea will help in this case. (BTW, I might be one of the first users to begin the practice of using a sub-page or a temp-page to make proposed edits to an article-- back in days of the very long-running New Imperialism edit war with sockpuppets of the banned User:Lir through much of 2003.) Sub-pages work when you have a small number of quarreling editors determined to work out an eventual compromise. They do not work too well when you are dealing with factions. Holodomor is one of a long series of revert wars involving Ukrainian nationalists editors involved in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK. (I'm not a participant in that case. I'm a historian of American nationality, not one of the Russians that the Ukrainian nationalists usually like to battle. I'm caught in the middle of this dispute. It's very frustrating-- hence the request for help here.) With the page protected, the users seeking to establish some middle ground (such as Alex Bakharev and Dietwald) can't seem to get much attention from the users whose agreement is necessary to end the revert war. I expect that we will know if a compromise has been reached only when we can edit the article, hammer out a new version, and wait for a reaction that does not trigger the usual follow-the-leader reversions. 172 | Talk 15:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. The intent is obviously to immediately start the reverts again. Regarding 172's oft repeated claim to a scholar, he edits anonymously and refuses to give any supporting evidence for being a historian. Nor is he a neutral, but always adds pro-communist argument. He is certainly a participant and has been warned for edit warring on this article. Ultramarine 15:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. Still, while a sub-page is often helpful, I doubt that the idea will help in this case. (BTW, I might be one of the first users to begin the practice of using a sub-page or a temp-page to make proposed edits to an article-- back in days of the very long-running New Imperialism edit war with sockpuppets of the banned User:Lir through much of 2003.) Sub-pages work when you have a small number of quarreling editors determined to work out an eventual compromise. They do not work too well when you are dealing with factions. Holodomor is one of a long series of revert wars involving Ukrainian nationalists editors involved in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK. (I'm not a participant in that case. I'm a historian of American nationality, not one of the Russians that the Ukrainian nationalists usually like to battle. I'm caught in the middle of this dispute. It's very frustrating-- hence the request for help here.) With the page protected, the users seeking to establish some middle ground (such as Alex Bakharev and Dietwald) can't seem to get much attention from the users whose agreement is necessary to end the revert war. I expect that we will know if a compromise has been reached only when we can edit the article, hammer out a new version, and wait for a reaction that does not trigger the usual follow-the-leader reversions. 172 | Talk 15:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps use a sub-page to make edits to the current article to improve/NPOV it, and then refer that to the discussion page? Thanks/wangi 13:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I was not asking for that. Frankly, the suggestion that I was is somewhat insulting. From three years of experience on Misplaced Pages, and having protected and unprotected many pages myself, I know better to ask to uprotect 'a page to promote one point of view and basically endorse one side' because I know better than all but probably a handful of users that it does not matter which version gets protected. There seems to be little correlation between which competing version happens to get protected and the version that eventually stabilizes once the edit wars subside. The point unprotection is to reinvigorate a stagnating talk page discussion by allowing a flurry of new edits. A quick look at Talk:Holodomor will confirm for anyone interested that the discussion page does need to be reinvigorated, especially is the effort to some sort of compromise and middle ground is to be successful. 172 | Talk 13:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Stephen Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Was not aware that pre-emptive page protection was a wikipedia policy. --Valve 19:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Template was added by User:Pakaran with the comment "This is out of control". Doesn't sound pre-emptive. Jkelly 19:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Splash unprotected it. We do not protect pages that are linked from the main page unless it is 10-15 minutes to clean up any residual vandalism. We really should put this in the intro to this page as we seem to go through this 2-3 times a week. --Woohookitty 19:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Huh, I just noticed this request. I actually already unprotected on the basis that we shouldn't generally protect articles linked from the main page, (more or less per User:Raul654/protection), although I realise this isn't a featured article. Basically, it doesn't say much for a wiki if the first page a user is linked to they cannot edit. -Splash 19:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)