Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:04, 26 November 2005

[[:|WP:RFPP
WP:RFP]]

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. If the entry is being used for edit warring, it is liable to be removed from this page.

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

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.

Darod & Hawiye

Anonymous editor had posted unreferenced assertions regarding clan sizes, which I countered with cited references (in lieu of reliable numbers). Perhaps the more visible problem is the state in which the anon. editor leaves the articles, e.g. numerous grammatical errors,removing formatting & wiki links, etc. Neither CambridgeBayWeather nor myself have been able to engage the user via the articles' talk pages or the user's talk page. Posting here in hopes of avoiding 3RR, as the reverts occur more than once daily, and also I wasn't sure how else to proceed. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think you or CBW have, but the anon certainly has. I've blocked it for 24 hours, to avoid protection. Come back if it continues after the block expires. Dmcdevit·t 19:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elitism

Edit war between elitists and anti-elitists.Dark Lord Farley 04:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a total attack on elites, and I am elite, so this page is an attack on me. I agree on the protection of this page, to end the stupid edit war.Jake Remington 04:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Remington, the only edit warrior here, who kept on putting bad-faith speedy tags in teh article has been blocked for 3RR. I'm not going to protect for now. Dmcdevit·t 05:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Going to overrule dmcdevit, because since he wrote this, a bunch of impersonators of Jake came out. I'mGoing to protect for vandalism for at least a few hours. Here is the story on Jake and friends. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

A user is removing legitimate tags and deliberately destyling this article (eg changing a section title from Leader of the socialists to Leader of the Socialists, General election to General election. He is also breaking redirects, eg reverting [1] to [2]. Has been told of his style problems but refuses to conform to wikipedia style or listen to other editors, instead engaging in vicious attacks through sockpuppets while making absurd vandalsim claims. A protection to the page would allow this user to calm down, SqueakBox 14:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. Also, I think everybody involved could use a little cooling off. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template protection

This is a future request, please remove it if you think it's to early, or protection should not be. The request is that templates {{show1}}, {{if}}, {{booleq}}, {{boolnot}}, {{boolor}}, {{boolnor}}, {{boolne}}, {{boolnand}}, {{boolxor}}, {{boolnxor}}, {{booland}} are to be protected when consensus are given they are ready/correct. there is one edit perhaps in if to make it more userfriendy, and eventually to substitue the bool-ones to remove one abstractation layer. The reason is that those templates are used by a lot of templates, and if they where to be changed, a lot of wikipedia cache is going to be flushed. One that could be protected now is {tl|show1}. when they later are fully finish, there will be never a reason to change them (unless software upgrade changes something). But don't protect them yet, only until consesus are given that they are ready. --AzaToth ^talk 00:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'm uncomfortable with permanent protection, if there isn't some better reason than vandalism (like legal reasons). You're premise is, I think, flawed. Being a wiki, there is always reason to change them, whether it's just to fiddle with categories, whether someone thought of a better word, or whatever. Why don't you raise this question on the Village Pump, and if there is consensus for protection, come back here. Dmcdevit·t 06:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling

The Wikipedia user Chadbryant is vandalising numerous pages on Wikipedia for both users and entries. However, this request is in regards to rec.sport.pro-wrestling itself. Back in March, there was a heated edit war-turned dispute-turned administration-turned ignored-turned dispute again-turned neutrality dispute-turned... well you get the picture. A lot of this was in regards to Chadbryant attempting to put his own "spin" on the entry and adding information in which had absolutely no basis in fact and was completely regarded as a personal opinion. It eventually subsided after Theresa Knott asked rather-not-so-askingly for Chad to stop placing the information into the article as it was not only an opinion, but was causing numerous "edit wars" on the entry as well. However, it seems with the holidays upon us he has turned to Wikipedia as a crutch for his crushing lonliness and is now placing the information back onto the site. It started with a sockpuppet (StephenSignorelli) and when I attempted to place the information back out of the article, Chad placed it back in claiming that it was "vandalism" for it to be removed in the first place. This is completely untrue, of course, as you can see from its talk page where Theresa requested the fighting to end. So I guess what I'm saying is can you guys please protect the page, or, at the very least, ensure that Chadbryant does not continue what he was asked to stop back in March? Thanks bunches. -- RSPW Poster

I might add that I also left a note for him on his talk page wherein I reminded him that he had been requested on a previous occassion (or occassions, so it seems) to stop adding in the disputed information in question; however, it seems that he is deleting this note regarding the RSPW entry as soon as I place it into his talk page. While he has the right to do so as a Wikipedia user, I think this shows what sort of immature person you are dealing with here. -- RSPW Poster

There haven't been any edits to this article today. There does appear to be some edit warring, but nothing that makes me think this article needs protecting. Yet. Please try to work out your differences on the talk page instead of reverting. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both parites broke 3RR. I warned them and the reverts seemed to have stopped, so no blocks. Will keep an eye on it. Dmcdevit·t 05:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newmont Mining Corporation

Anonymous 69.4.4.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Jentry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continue to cut and paste subjectively biased material from the company's website into the article in html format. Requesting page projection for this version to stop vandalism. --Howrealisreal 21:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected, though I would be remiss if I didn't note that both sides here have violated 3RR over this. (However, it does appear that the other users are trying to insert obvious press release material.) Please try to work out these differences on the talk page. I suspect in part will require explaining Wikipedia's policies to these folks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iglesia ni Cristo

Anonymous IP sockpuppets of Emico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was banned by the arbitration committee until August 2006, has constantly been deleting cited information from the article. A revert war is in progress, and any discussion to Emico only results in personal attacks. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 18:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vprotected it. I would take the time to see if you can link the banned person with the IP addresses. That should help. But I can't keep it protected for real long given the controversial nature of the topic. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma cosmology

I have made a series of edits to a section of Plasma cosmology which I delineated rationale for on the talk page. Since then, I have received no comments related to my edits directly, but only reversion by User:Elerner and User:Reddi. I'm not sure what to do to avoid the previous edit war chaos that occurred on this page less than one month ago so I was wondering if a page protection request would be appropriate to force the editors to discuss exactly what they found wrong with my edits. Thanks, --Joshuaschroeder 19:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On my watchlist. I'm going to hold off a bit, no edits today yet. (Probably just everyone waiting for the 24 hours to wear off so they "get" another 3 reverts, or am I growing cynical?) Dmcdevit·t 09:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second law of thermodynamics

Someone with a variable IP is repeatedly vandalising this article. There is a list of IPs which have been used to vandalise the page at Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/IP_Severe#November_2005. Obviously banning all these is untenable and so I request that the page be protected, temporarily, until the vandal loses interest. Infinity0 16:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British Sea Power

A long time struggle between Pigsonthewing and just about everybody else. I'd protect, but i've become part of everybody else. Considering his behavior, this page will soon see the words "fallacious", "lie", "attack", "cease", or "unfounded" from him fairly soon. So for more information on the matter, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#Evidence presented by Karmafist#Andy's Tactic Regarding Edit Wars Karmafist 14:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. Dmcdevit·t 03:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

list of Serbs

Can someone please protect this page? A user is continuously reverting the established image at the top without given reason. Thank you. 72.144.150.156 00:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have warned both users and watchlisted. This may become more severe, but I'll wait and see for now. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I revert that image, because almost all active admins from sr: wiki vote for Image:Srbi.jpg. --Sasa Stefanovic 02:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is true... look at Talk:Serbs -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 02:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a good reason to edit war, reprehensible behavior. Just don't do it. I'm also pretty sure you'll be getting lots of opposition from putting sr's preferred version in intead of our own. Dmcdevit·t 03:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for unprotection

Please place new requests at the top.

Template:Ed

The reason for protection is long gone, also, I wanted to add a "|" to param 2 _→AzaToth 18:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prettytable

I don't see any reason to have this template protected anymore. _→AzaToth 13:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed status of Gibraltar

This article has been the target of a troll called Ecemaml. Instead of protecting the article, the Ecemaml troll should be blocked and the article released.--Gibraltarian 19:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the territory of the mediator involved (who is an admin). Go talk to Spangineer, and don't use this page to make personal attacks again. Dmcdevit·t 19:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before, I removed the request since it was rejected, but I'll leave it here. Hopefully people will stop using this for a content dispute. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit.....a statement of fact and a request for unprotection is NOT a personal attack. The Admin involved has made an incorrect decision in blocking the article, when the correct course of action would be to block the troll creating the dispute (Ecemaml), and allow the rest to continue.--Gibraltarian 20:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Berlet

This page was blocked 16 Nov i.a.w. this request [3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Second request. For the reasons given above, I'm renewing this request to unblock. -FRS 00:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Going to give it a couple of more days yet. Btw, a "second request" doesn't really help you since the admins who monitor this page take a look at it every day and decide what needs to be unprotected/protected. So we're looking at the page daily anyway. We'll unprotect it when we think it's ready to be unprotected. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've looked at it too. Thinking about unprotecting as it's been a while, but the history makes me wary. I just proposed a temp injunction for the arb case [4] that would allow uprotection if it goes through. Dmcdevit·t 23:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 :This is the territory of the mediator involved (who is an admin). Go talk to Spangineer, and don't use this page to make personal attacks again. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 19:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 ::Before, I removed the request since it was rejected, but I'll leave it here. Hopefully people will stop using this for a content dispute. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 20:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
+:Dmcdevit.....a statement of fact and a request for unprotection is NOT a personal attack. The Admin involved has made an incorrect decision in blocking the article, when the correct course of action would be to block the troll creating the dispute (Ecemaml), and allow the rest to continue.--[[User:Gibraltarian|Gibraltarian]] 20:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 ===[[Chip Berlet]]===