Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

This page is for requesting that a page or image be 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. Before you do so, however, consult Wikipedia:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection.

Only consider protection as an option that is necessary in order to resolve your problem and that the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection. Sometimes the problem will go away after a week or so.

After a page has been protected, it is listed on Wikipedia:Protected page with a short description indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take 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 Wikipedia:Protected page (or lack thereof).

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.

SgForums

This page has been vandalised at least 12 times over the past 24 hours. One of the vandals has been coming to the article for 2 days at about this time (09:00 UTC) and replacing article with nonsense. Please protect this page for 1 to 2 days. --Kimchi.sg | Talk 09:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Moldovan language

I temporarily vandal-protected this page , but since I contributed to the page, I have no right for permanent protection, therefore I am asking someone to do it. mikka (t) 20:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well he lies again. He is actually the vandal. He deletes parts of test without any explanation. This can be easly checked if someone looks at the history of page.

He makes controversial, bias edits.

There are many users who don't agree with his approach. Among them are, sorry for cite them: Ronline, Bogdangiusca,Anittas , Dacodava, EvilAlex, Dpotop,Bonaparte, Alexander_007, Duca, Mihaitza who had to revert many of his controversial and bias edits. In case of protection for blocking against vandalism, we have nothing against it, but it should be protect our version of the page not Mikka's bias page.

Protecting. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well it should be unprotected again. He still makes BIAS edits and does not take into account any of our arguments. Instead he continues to be some kind of supporter of a "RUSSIAN REVISIONISM". He does not accept that they are identical. Even if for a short period of time it was recognized Romanian language as official language. Maybe he can tell us how quickly can be changed a language into another one completely different only in 4 (FOUR) years!

Well he cann't prove this, can he?

That's why because is the same as the Flemish(linguistics)([[1]]),and only for political reasons it was changed the name.

#1 Sign your posts. #2, this is not the place for content discussions. Thank you. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson

Some guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed this request made yesterday, SqueakBox 16:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat depressing revert war going on over whether the article should be NPOV tagged, and with both editors already up to 3R. Maybe a week of protection would allow editors to get to the nitty, gritty real issues behind this dispute. I am part of the deeper dispute but not of this particular battle, SqueakBox 19:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Still going on. Thanks to the vandalstic intentions of Some guy this request was removed and so the edit war continues, though nobody has yet broken the 3RR rule, SqueakBox 16:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair again and again and again and ...

With all due respect to Tony Sidaway and others who say that the last thing to do to a page under constant vandalism attack, why not protect the article for a while, unprotect it for a short period of time allowing for legitimate edits (and more vandalism from the subject of the article), clean out the vandalism and POV edits, and reprotect it for another period of time? The reasons given (or not given) for leaving the article (which currently needs little legit modification) unprotected do not make sense. This is wasting many person's time. Can you please consider protecting the article for longer than 2 days (why not a week?), unprotecting it for a couple of hours (or a day, if you want) when the article will for sure be vandalized, then, in one effort, a NPOV admin can clean out the vandalism, leave in the edits from legit editors (not banned by ArbCom) and reprotect the article for this period of time again. We might not need more than a few cycles of this before the vandal finally gives up, but the status quo is that multiple WP admins and editors have to stand vigel at all times watching this damn thing (either that or let this banned vandal write his own vanity page). r b-j 15:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks like we had a slew of people blocked today. I'm going to protect the page for at least a day or two. Rbj might be right. We might have to do this a few times. Otherwise, it's too much of a drain on everyone. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Douglas S. Freeman High School

Students from three competing schools vandalizing each other's pages from multiple IP's. See Mills E. Godwin High School, Deep Run High School. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected, all. -Mysekurity 04:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Mills E. Godwin High School

Students from three competing schools vandalizing each other's pages from multiple IP's. See Douglas S. Freeman High School, Deep Run High School. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected, all. -Mysekurity 04:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Deep Run High School

Students from three competing schools vandalizing each other's pages from multiple IP's. See Douglas S. Freeman High School, Mills E. Godwin High School. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected, all. -Mysekurity 04:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thumbshots

Page is the subject of an edit war, where multiple IPs are fighting over which site is advertised as the origin of "thumbshots". Check history to see the number of edits in the last few weeks over this extremely stupid subject. The edit war has also spread to thumbnails and screenshots in lesser extent.

This request was previously posted by another user and then removed by User:212.205.76.134 without explanation.Some guy 22:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a great vandalism war. Just looks like some minor edit warring. If it gets worse, let us know. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

The page will undoubtedly be a continued source of biased, nationalistic edits, just like one I had to remove a moment ago. In its current form, the page is objective and respects the current naming dispute, and is of course useful for someone wanting fair information on the country, and shouldn't become an extension of an ongoing argument.Gorast 06:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The page is already protected against moves. I don't see a huge edit war over the last few days. Going to hold off for now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course as soon as I posted this, it got bad again. I will protect it for at least a couple of days. I'm seeing way too much of "the truth" and "troll" in the edit summaries. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming

Persistent edit warring and POV pushing involving several editors. Mediation appears to be ineffective. Arbitration has been requested, however, the request for arbitration appears to have incensed some editors to push their POV even more. I think a page lock would cool things off until arbcom can accept or reject the request for arbitration. FuelWagon 05:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected. Will unprotect once things cool off. -Mysekurity 05:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Phish

Persistent reversion of page by one user plus probable sockpuppets, to a previous version, despite consensus for need for cleanup. Tearlach 01:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected, and I've left a message on the IP user's talk page to come discuss the changes he's seeking. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Lex Luger

Persistent, juvenile vandalism from several anonymous editors. McPhail 19:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Company

The {{Infobox Company}} template is used in more than 1,120 articles. The current template, layout and variables, should be considered stable given the lack of revolutionary activity. In order to prevent costly tampering of one of the most popular and widely used templates in Wikipedia, I recommend the template be permanently locked — at least, until a consensus is reached for administration of significant changes to the template. The version of the template that should be protected is this version Thank you. Adraeus 16:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please reach an agreement with the other editor, and stop edit warring. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a legitimate request for protecting a highly stable and incredibly popular template. Stop making stupid comments. Adraeus 19:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, please don't label edits as "vandalism" when they are not. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Unapproved edits that negatively affect more than 1,120 articles are vandalism regardless of intent. Adraeus 19:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair (again)

Sorry, folks, but he (Igor Bogdanov, one of the subjects of the article) continues to repeatedly vandalize the article. This time he is spoofing WP admins like G-man or Snowspinner (and earlier Fred Bauder). Again, why not protect the article for a while, unprotect it for a short period of time allowing for legitimate edits (and more vandalism from the subject of the article), clean out the vandalism and POV edits, and reprotect it for another period of time? Protecting this article from the tenatious and repeated vandalism of Igor Bogdanov is very costly in hours of time of the admins and legitimate editors of Wikipedia. I realize that WP likes to keep the articles in an editiable state, but we first need to ride this out, so that the subject of the article (who is clearly a narcissist and doesn't like to read unflattering facts about himself, and is also banned from WP) might evenutally go away. r b-j 19:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

OK done, it should probably be left protected for a week this time. G-Man 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with a week-long vandalism protection - vprotects should never be that long. Phil Sandifer 23:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen the edit history?. These guys dont give up. G-Man 01:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If they don't give up then protection is inappropriate. Use reversion instead, to enable editing to proceed. I've unprotected as it's already been protected for about two days. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Tony, repectfully, it takes too much time. There need be very little legit edits on the content, at least for the time being. But the effort needed, just to keep the content of the article intact is tremendous. i have put a proposal on both the arbitration workshop and on the talk page to protect this for the maximum time (a week, i am told) unprotect it for some number of hours during which the article will no doubt be vandalized, but it may have some legit edits also, then clean out the vandalism and reprotect for another week. if some non-admin, but legit editor, has some burning change they think should be made, they can put it in the talk page and an admin can deal with it. it's far less effort spent on the dumb article than is spent on it now. r b-j 23:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Bagrationi

Assorted edit wars between Georgian nationalists and anyone else who wanders by. Recent features include repeated removal of the dispute tag, despite the fact that there's rather clearly a dispute. The problem is unlikely to go away given that one participant declared "I WILL REMOVE DISPUTE TAGS". Isomorphic 05:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Not going to do anything for now. If this goes back to where it was, let us know. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's back to where it is. I will protect it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Democracy & Nature

May I ask why my latest intervention on this page has suddenly disappeared? I am reverting it.

As many readers may be confused by now I will summarise the facts. The dispute started when a user under the pseudonym Paul Cardan began adding entire sections to the D&N entry, which was uploaded by the webmaster of the journal that succeeded D&N. After members of the Editorial Board (EB) attempted to restore the original form of the page, (because they thought that some at least of the additions were clearly distorting the history of the journal), Paul Cardan requested protection of his right to vandalise the page and strangely enough his request was almost immediately satisfied. When later on the page was unlocked by the administrators, and members of the EB restored a compromise version which took on board several suggestions made by P.C. but discarded the obviously distorting sections which granted a privileged treatment to two members of the EB, P.C. immediately restored his own version. At that stage, we requested protection, which strangely enough was never granted, despite the fact that, in lengthy exchanges in the discussion page of the journal, the EB provided many reasons explaining the obvious distortion of the facts by P.C. However, when the matter seemed settled and for almost a week there was no significant change to the D&N page that we restored (apart from some editorial improvements undertaken by users, among whom an administrator), suddenly today, and as soon as P.C. came back and began restoring his own distorted version of the D&N page, the same administrator seemed to change his mind and began blatantly siding with him, restoring the disputed parts --without even bothering to give an explanation but blatantly ignoring the historical and reasons of principle that the EB offered to explain why this was a clear distortion of the facts. Instead, we have been urged to use the arbitration procedure! May I ask why P.C. was not urged to do the same when he began changing our page but instead he was immediately granted protection whereas the EB were simply given the crude choice either to accept a distorted view of their own journal’s history or request arbitration? Is this not a clear application of double standards?

As member of the EB I am authorised by the other members to request the withdrawal of the entire D&N page, in case Wikipedia are not prepared to protect it from an obvious distortion of the facts. The disputed matter is obviously a historical issue of political nature and all that an encyclopaedia can do on such issues is to provide a consensus view of the facts. This is what we tried to do by simply listing all members of the International Advisory Board with no distinctions made at all among them. Clearly, the view about two members of the IAB which is provided by the P.C, far from being such a consensus view, is a politically biased view and no arbitrator or mediator can decide on this, unless is an expert on the field and is also ‘politically objective’—a contradiction in terms! Furthermore, as it was clearly shown in the discussion page of the journal, [2] the user who keeps vandalising our page and on top of it has the nerve to ask not to be ‘censored’, far from being an unbiased user, has clear personal motives to distort the journal’s history and we have no intention to cooperate in such a distortion. (Member of the Editorial Board)

I've copied a very longwinded justification of one side of the content dispute from her to Talk:Democracy & Nature as it doesn't really seem to belong here. I hope the disputants will come back when they've made up their minds what they want. On the face of it there doesn't seem to be a good reason to protect the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear administrators, I notice that since November 11th the D&N page has remained virtually unchanged with some minor improvements for which the administrators and other users should be thanked. The essence of the dispute was concentrated, at the end, on whether two members of the IAB (Bookchin and Castoriadis) should have special treatment with separate paragraphs dedicated to them, as opposed to the simple mentioning of the names of the rest. It seemed clear to everybody that both for reasons of principle (it is not right to discriminate in favour of two members just because a biased user thinks so) and for reasons of historical accuracy aptly exposed by the founder of the journal at:

[2]

there should simply be a list of names of all the IAB members. However, the biased user with the pseudonym Paul Cardan reappeared today and returned the disputed paragraphs. I therefore think that unless the administrators can produce a satisfactory explanation as to why the historical reasons and reasons of principle mentioned should be ignored, the page should be protected in the form it was finalised by SarekOfVulcan 15:59, 15 November 2005 User: Teo

Current requests for unprotection

Please place new requests at the top.

Disputed status of Gibraltar

This page should be unprotected. Ecemaml is a troll whose sole objective was to get the page blocked. He should not be allowed to get away with this. Block HIM, but let the rest of us get on with it.--Gibraltarian 15:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Rashad Khalifa

[3] This page is being protected by probable Sunni individuals to promote tabloid style allegations against an American reformer of Islam (who was assasinated by Sunni terrorists. --User:H.yahya

The requester blanked referenced information several times, which led to the regrettable protection. See Talk:Rashad Khalifa. Thanks. --Ragib 09:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The reference is only to a third party scan of a hearsay allegation published in a tabloid. There is absolutely no reference to actual court documents and no reference to the final court judgement on the issue, making it biased. The reference URL of the "Scan" in question itself belongs to "www.answering-christianity.com", a famous site promoted by Sunni Muslims and are openly anti-Rashad. The victim of the allegation, Rashad Khalifa, is also not alive and obviously cannot defend this defamation case. See Talk:Rashad Khalifa. Regards --User:H.yahya

Moldovan language

Let the page free of MONOPOL of Mikka!

This page was blocked 18 Nov i.a.w. this request [4] and there is a User Mikka who constantly deletes part of the text. This may be as well called vandalism. I suggest that if the user has an issue he must start an RfC not to block the page. It's better to block the user than the page. He constantly makes bias edits even if a lot of user told him to stop. Anyway his bias and controversial issues must be stopped. There are many users who don't agree with his approach. Among them are, sorry for cite them: Ronline, Bogdangiusca,Anittas , Dacodava, EvilAlex, Dpotop,Bonaparte, Alexander_007, Duca, Mihaitza who had to revert many of his controversial and bias edits. In case of protection for blocking against vandalism, we have nothing against it, but it should be protect our version of the page not Mikka's bias page.

In the Moldovan issue it is recognized officially by all the international organizations (ONU, EU, OSCE, Council of Europe...), States: USA, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Romania,...., Universities, Academia,... that is identical with romanian. If you change the name this doesn't bring anything new. The substance is the same. Here we proved that is identical despite the name.

Well it should be unprotected again. He still makes BIAS edits and does not take into account any of our arguments. Instead he continues to be some kind of supporter of a "RUSSIAN REVISIONISM". He does not accept that they are identical. Even if for a short period of time it was recognized Romanian language as official language. Maybe he can tell us how quickly can be changed a language into another one completely different only in 4 (FOUR) years!

Well he cann't prove this, can he?

That's why because is the same as the Flemish(linguistics)([[5]]),and only for political reasons it was changed the name.

Chip Berlet

This page was blocked 16 Nov i.a.w. this request [6] and there is a pending request for arbitration related to user conduct concerning this page. I suggest that if user conduct is an issue, it's better to block the user than the page. Anyway, the registered users will presumably be on good behavior through the pendancy of the request for arbitration.--FRS 21:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Not yet. I'm going to give it a few days yet. Passions are still too high for my liking. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Should Wikipedia's highest-profile article be protected? The vandalism isn't THAT big of a deal. Does Wikipedia stand for nothing? Matt Yeager 23:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Excuse, me but why should every other article except this one be allowed protection. You hypocritical left-wingers make no sense.. you'd be up in arms if it was your precious John Kerry's article... or abortion rights for lesbians...

Unprotected. But as a matter of historical fact I think you'll find if you check that this article is seldom protected, although it is one of the most heavily vandalised. It's an article that attracts a lot of vandalism, but it's also on many watchlists. See m:Protected pages considered harmful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)