Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sasquatch (talk | contribs) at 04:09, 4 September 2005 (→‎Request to protect [[Kanye West]]: +protected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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) 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 move the request to the old requests section at the bottom of the page.


Current requests

Please place new requests at the top.

Request to unprotect System of a Down

Aren't you guys ever gonna unprotect this page again?

Request to protect Kanye West

Persistant vandalism due to Kanye West's comments on NBC regarding George Bush and current news events.

Protected, though could the person who wrote this request sign his comments with 4 tildes (~~~~). Sasquatch讲看 04:09, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect Republic of Macedonia

Revert war. At least one user has broken the 3RR. Jonathunder 00:55, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Yes, this page should be protected. Maybe that will encourage participation in the talk page. Certain users insist on reverting to their own desired version of the page without arguing their reasons of preference, despite if a discussion on those very issues earlier in the talk page had already settled those issues. Colossus 01:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect List of people who have said that they are gods

This page lock seemes completely unnecessary and improper. It was locked almost an hour after the last edit, purposefully changed to a prior version by the admin who locked it, and the edit comment ([1]) seems to be bragging about the fact that he changed it before locking it. The article has a long history of controversy, but consensus had clearly been reached on the talk page. The only people removing the section in question are one person who sneaked the change in against consensus amongst other edits, someone who was blocked for edit warring and came back to continue it, and the admin who stepped in. When pages are protected we're supposed to discuss what to do to get past the conflict, but we already have extensively done so and there's nothing left to do except ignore troublemakers. DreamGuy 16:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I view the above comment as distorted, coupled with unfortunate insinuations. The portection stands. El_C 17:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could present what you consider to be the innacuracies instead of lashing out with full denial but no actual defense for your actions. You entered a controversy that had already died down, switched it to a non consensus version (apparently knowingly from your edit comment), and locked it yourself. That's simply not how things are supposed to be done. DreamGuy 17:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
You write in your edit summary: Respond to admin who changed it, locked it to his version, and refuses to discuss the situation. My version, you say? I never edited that article, nor do I have a strong opinion on whether Jesus does or does not belongs in it. As for your allegation regarding my refusal to discuss the protection, that is also false. I have, and will continue, to discuss it. But I will not lift the protection at this point. Sorry you find The Wrong Version disagreeable. El_C 17:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you are disagreeing with a word in the dit summary... perhaps I should have said "the version of a frequently banned peoblem user User:Gavin the Chosen instead of "his"... but you also said "the above comment is distorted" but gave no evidence to support this at all, and say you are willing to discuss it yet have avoided doing so. Once again, please explain why you took it upon yourself to enter an edit conflict that had cooled down to change it to the version put there by someone blocked for constant edit warring and not even trying to discuss his edits and then locking it so they large community of editors who have consistently been undoing that editor's change can not respond to it like normal? The controversy has already been extensively discussed on the talk page, there's nothing left there to talk about other than wondering why an admin would decide to make such an odd move. DreamGuy 17:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
That's a peculiar opinion considering that, since the protection, the ongoing discussion is progressing nicely. Further, there are two other editors in addition to Gabriel (Zappaz and Jossi) who support the removal of Jesus under the current title. El_C 17:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in the history suggesting that El_C has been engaged in editing this article. If he has been engaged in editing the article, then he shouldn't have protected it. If he has not been, then article editors should settle the dispute, reach consensus, then ask for unprotection. Don't complain about which version was protected; that's why the protection notice says clearly "Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version." The edit comment was snarky, but that's not a reason to unprotect the page.
Page protection is a "timeout" mechanism, not a judgement of right or wrong. If I'm reading things correctly, the difference between the two disputed versions is whether or not Jesus of Nazareth belongs on the list. Presumably the parties to the dispute are in agreement about the other individuals listed. Thus, the sysop protected a version of the article which has only the undisputed information, and omitted the item that is under dispute. That seems like a good call to me, particularly since the article does not claim to be a complete list.
I don't see any urgency about unprotecting the page. Any item like this is bound to be contentious. Most readers will already know something about Jesus so this is not one of the more informative items on the list. The discussion is better done on the talk page than in the context of an edit war. Wordsmith something that everyone can live with. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
El C was right to protect the page. A request was made, which the editor later said was ironic, but it looked genuine to me, and there was clearly a revert war going on. There's currently a good dicussion happening about whether a new page title is needed, and people are trying to reach a consensus, and when it's reached, they can formally request unprotection. The page will survive without Jesus for a bit. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:47, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I swear it was a joke. I know where this page is and how to ask to have pages protected. Witness when I asked to have a page protected during a real edit war. Given that Gabriel had used up his 3rr allocation for the day, the edit war had ended for 23 some odd hours at that point. Hipocrite 18:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to diffuse with humor what I percieved to be a tense situation, ala the last edit summary prior to my protection. I didn't mean to come across as snarky because I'm not quite sure what that word means! :) El_C 17:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zappaz put a template on the article suggesting that it was in a state of flux and that changes were being discussed on the talk page. While these discussions were happening he was not present whatsoever. He then came back, ignoring these discussions, and implemented his own point of view and called it NPOV, removing the template. I suggest the article, when unlocked, be reverted to its state as of yesterday before Zappaz came along, due to his contradictory behavior and the lack of discussion surrounding his edits. --Alterego 18:15, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I continue to see no bad faith on the lockers part, or a reason to unprotect the page at this point, but I insist again that someone fix the damn row-shades, which I painstakingly fixed after the last edit spree such that they are blue-white-blue-white. Hipocrite 18:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, I told you, it's always in the last place you look! Can another admin attend to that request, I can probably do it, but it will take me a while to figure out (I'm not very good at ... things, and a lot of them seem to be happening right now). El_C 19:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect County_Louth in the irelandinformationguide

The reason is to re-phrase the Irish etymology of the county name which could lead to confusion of name origin and current meaning. (cathalan, 31/8/'05)

[www.irelandinformationguide.com/County_Louth] ---

Wrong website. --cesarb 17:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old vprotects

Most if not all of the following articles should be unprotected:

  • Obesity - 5 days old on a major article
Unprotected, hopefully vandalism will die down now. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Appears to have already been unprotected. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Has already been unprotected. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

These were all protected due to vandalism. I did not check the user/user talk/Wikipedia pages on Category:Protected against vandalism, but many of them may need to be unprotected. Guanaco 22:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reprotection of Epistemology was not a mistake. I unprotected it and other pages since DotSix had an injunction forbidding him from editing them; however, he started using AOL IPs (and changing the IPs so fast blocking had almost no effect). He always targets the same pages, and I knew Epistemology would be next, so I preemptively protected it (and noted the fact on WP:PP, as usual). Keep protected for now. --cesarb 23:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Epistemology from the list. Guanaco 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misandry

There are POV edits being made by anonymous and one logged in user (presumably the same person) on the Misandry article and should be protected temporarily, as the edit history is being cluttered. Thanks Dysprosia 22:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Society of St. Pius X

The same reasons as on Tucker Max (below), except I don't know if the anon is a troll. The editor, well meaning as he may be, is in a mini-edit-war with me. He seems to be a Catholic and is re-writing some areas of the article as if he was writing the Bible.--Antonio Pee Pee Herman Martin 12:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Tucker Max

I'd like a protection placed on this page while pursuing solutions to a "low intensity" revert war. An anonymous user, 24.166.6.153, has been editing and reverting the article for POV reasons identical to that of blocked user Albus Dumbledore (blocked for trolling), specifically trying to include alleged, uncomfirmed sexual liasons between the article subject and a 17-year-old girl. I am attempting to edit the article for content supported by opinion in its previous votes for deletion, but consensus is not working, and good faith seems unlikely, as the probable user has already been blocked for apparent silliness.

Basically, I request a cooling off period while I pursue conclusive options.--Clapaucius* 20:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Broadbandreports

I'd like to ask for a revert of this article (to re-include the links that keep getting removed). The 24 hour 3 rv rule has been passed, and the article should be protected at the state it was before the edit war began. I have also asked for assistance from the AMA here in the hopes that a resolution can be reached. Until then, can the page prior to all the edits be protected temporarily? I have also commented on this here --Paul Laudanski 17:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correction- many different IPs and new wikipedians have reverted the information left there in a two day timespan. Can the original article prior to the edits be put back and protected for enforce a cool off period? --Paul Laudanski 23:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus was reached in the talk page, and when the changes were put back into the article, an anon IP reverted part of it. Can it be replaced and protected short term in order to achieve an RfC? One has been asked for and commented about near the bottom of the Talk:Broadbandreports. --Paul Laudanski 13:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Edit war on Urdu language

There may be some misbehavior here. It may require that the page be protected, or that some users be rebuked. A disinterested admin should probably look at the recent history. -- Beland 01:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect Template:Blank

People are having problems with the unicode, and I can't revert it to empty. --SPUI (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Request to protect Cindy Sheehan page

Please consider temporarily protecting the Cindy Sheehan page, which has become a battleground for an edit war between name-calling right-wingers and those who just want the facts. I tried to edit the obvious mud-slinging but couldn't. I tried to revert to an earlier edition but it is being edited so often that I couldn't choose. For those who look to Wikipedia for information, not mindless invective, please help.

Request to protect Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

This page is currently part of an edit war between A Link to the Past and some other users. Link disputes the quality of the article, saying that many parts are unneeded and the plot summary is too long. Others dispute the unnecessary parts, though the shortening of the plot summary is agreed upon. In any case, the users are revert warring. KramarDanIkabu 19:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been reverting for hours, and there is an attempt at gathering a consensus on the talk page of Revenge of the Sith. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect Continuity Irish Republican Army

There has been no activity on the talk page since 8 August, and this article needs to be refiled and cleaned up. -- Beland 02:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous user who caused the protection of this page is still actively vandalizing Tom Maguire (history) and Republican Sinn Féin (history). It seems they also vandalized Wikipedia:Protected page last night [2], apparently in the belief that removing the Continuity Irish Republican Army page from that list would unprotect it. So it looks like they intend to go back to their old hbits on the CIRA page as soon as it's unprotected. Demiurge 09:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blech. -- Beland 13:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple

on the following pages until Wikipedia makes a decision because of --Boothy443 deleting and changing contents all the time and overstepping his boundaries as a Admin and giving Wikipedia a bad name.

and

Thanks in advance, Sincerely, Scotty

Please take your problems to WP:AN/I. WP:RFPP is not the place to cite issues and problems with administrators. Furthermore, you are only allowed to ask to protect your own user page. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Kamma

Anonymous users are using very explicit language targeted against this community. Active edit war is being waged rendering the history page non-effective. I think this page needs active intervention and also protection as this is a very sensitive topic of social strata/caste in India. --Vyzasatya 01:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is managable, not very serious. Will archive tomorrow. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Freedom Institute

Very active edit war being waged (mostly by a number of anonymous IPs) with very little use of the talk page and next-to-no edit summaries (one is fond of using "back she goes" for reverts). I've warned a couple of them about some of the nastier behavior (blanking the talk page and removing dispute tags), but I think this calls for more active intervention. RadicalSubversiv E 18:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was an edit war, can not see one from the current state of history. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect: Prem Rawat

User banned for 24 hrs. for 3RR. Onging dispute with same editor, seemingly trying to impose a minority POV on the article. This editor has been recently the recipient of considerable criticism on other articles as well, due to alleged intents of advocacy. I request a page protection, so that we do not have to restart the revert war tomorrow and the spirits can be cooled-off for a while. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 22:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Old request... may archive in a day, doesn't look like the problem is there... anymore. If it is, then a new request should be made. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nu metal musical groups

An anon user is posting System of a Down to the list again. -- Mike Garcia | talk 19:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really understanding what the problem is... --AllyUnion (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the anon vs everyone else (it seems) edit war mentioned in RFP System of a Down, which has been protected by User:CesarB. Rich Farmbrough 23:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Old requests / Completed requests

  • Only old requests that have been actioned or rejected should be in this section.
  • If you want to disagree with an administrators decision to protect or not protect you make a brief comment here.
  • Other discussion should take place on the talk page of the article concerned or on user talk pages.
  • Any comments left here that do not meet the above guidelines may be summarily moved or deleted at the discretion of any administrator.
  • Requests that are in this section and have had no new comment in the last 3 days may be removed by any editor. Requests may be removed earlier at any administrator's discretion.

Request to unprotect Non-governmental_organization

It is not clear why the page is protected

Unprotected. From the protection logs:
--cesarb 16:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Request to protect Norman Finkelstein

Currently receiving consistent vandalism from two anonymous users: 209.89.88.75 and 142.179.180.203 neither of whom have made any other contributions to Wikipedia. Deadlock 23:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected it for now, it should be unprotected as soon as possible though, and if those two IP's consider vandalizing they should be blocked. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, but sadly 209.89.88.75 visited just before you protected it, so it's in the vandalised state now :-( Deadlock 23:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Archiving --AllyUnion (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopædia Dramatica

Repeated deletion of factual information (such as the registered name of the site's owner) from the article itself, as well as significant deletions on talk page. I've attempted to address the issues (both the deletions and the use of multiple userIDs by same person) on the article's talk page but to no avail. --carlb 05:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't a good case for page protection. It's only one persistent, and a few drive-by editors who are trying to push changes against several other people. If the "warring" editors are that strong about it, then it will go to 3rr or some form of dispute resolution. SchmuckyTheCat 15:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a matter of fact, the persistent user is well past 3RR, was reported as 3RR yesterday, and nobody did anything about it. There is no reason to keep the article from well-meaning editors because of the lack of enforcement of 3RR by the warring party. SchmuckyTheCat 15:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your both as bad as one another!! You never know (flips a coin) you might get lucky and it's protected on the version you like, can't we just kill them all (protect it) and let god (the admins or consensus) decide (over the image/information about the owner/whatever)? --ElvisThePrince 16:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I FOURTH this request. Some Wikipedians have been placing the picture of the owner of Encyclopædia Dramatica on the page, when she has specifically dislalowed her picture to be used on Wikipedia. From her website (bolding is mine, italics are mine):
The previous agreement on re-use of these images was for personal use, with a link required. At no point have I released these images into the public domain or in anyway relinquished my rights of ownership or my copyright of these images.
Due to the ambiguousness of the previous statement, I will make it more concise now: These images are not to be uploaded to any server for any reason at anytime. No one has permission to use these images for any purpose. Specifically, these images may not at anytime be uploaded to any open content server or re-liscensed. To go further, these images are specifically prohibited from being used on the website wikipedia.org or any other sites associated with wikipedia's owners, mirrors or affiliates.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at the contact info page. Keep in mind, however, that no one has permission to use these images for any purpose.
All rights reserved, copyright 2003.
See her website for more information, including a copy of the above text. Wikipedians keep placing her picture back on the Encyclopædia Dramatica after it has been removed. We should respect the wishes of the owner of the picture and not use it, otherwise, if we can't respect others, why should others respect us and use Wikipedia?--Azathar 01:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While you're at it, see the terms as they appeared at the time the image was placed in the article. "Feel free to take these pictures if you'd like. Please make sure to give a link back to my site when you do though." Someone has been playing fast and loose by editing the site after the fact. That same someone presumably has been the one creating multiple userIDs user:encydra, user:encydra2 and the like in order to repeatedly delete public-record information from the article as to who even owns the site. --carlb 03:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have died down. I don't think we need protection. Any other opinions? Dmcdevit·t 08:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Except that Depakote continues to place her picture up, even though others have commented that it is not relevant for the article, nor will he/she/it answer comments on why they feel that her picture (especially that one) needs to be up on the article to begin with. Perhaps a removal of the picture in question would be best, with a warning to everyone that a return of the image will result in something or other.--Azathar 14:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this shouldn't be the place to argue for any particular version, just simply protect it until consensus/admin/rfc is resolved.--ElvisThePrince 15:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of communism

Some editors are now without consensus removing the Two-version template which has as a purpose to prevent an edit war. The template has previously caused a valuable discussion which has improved both versions. However, the editors supporting the less critical version are now refusing further discussions (See for example, many new referenced facts about communism and democracy [3] and earlier talk discussions [4], [5], [6]). They are now deleting well-referenced facts without any attempt to explain why. They seem to be afraid to let others even see the the referenced facts and form their own opinion. Some of the same editors previously tried the same on Vladimir Lenin which caused it to be protected. That protection has now caused a good discussion on the talk page about the content and was thus necessary and valuable. This link [7] leads to a version of Criticisms of communism with the Two-version template included so that the two most recent versions can be compared. I therefore ask for page protection with the previously included Two-version template again included. Ultramarine 20:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page in question devolved into two versions: one being edited by everyone, including Ultramarine, and one being edited by only Ultramarine. All other editors were content to have Ultramarine's version remain the "B" version while we all improved the "A" (collaborative) version. Ultramarine repeatedly reverted to "his" version, claiming that the two-version tag gave him the right to the "A" version, and asserting in effect that consensus could not exist without his consent. All other editors found his version biassed in whole or in part. There were multiple calls for him to abandon "his" version and join in actively editing the collaborative version. After a few repeats, I proposed a poll to verify consensus: the vote was 3-to-1 to remove the two-version template and invite Ultramarine to actively edit the collaborative version. I implemented the consensus, sparking a quick revert war, landing us here. See the talk page. Robert A West 22:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, Ultramarine has threatened before to have this page protected, "using my version", if he didn't get his way; he also appears to have attempted a similar ploy on Vladimir Lenin — resulting in its present protection. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ultramarine#Copyright and threat of rules abuse for details. I am not convinced this page needs to be protected; I am certain this sort of gaming of policy should not be rewarded. Septentrionalis 22:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If they are accusing me of violating Wikipedia policy, then they should ask for arbitration, not simply delete without explanation. Regarding Vladimir Lenin, it was not my version that got protected, but simply a version that included the Two-version template, which is all I ask.
From Wikipedia:Consensus "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.".
The above editors now make no attempt to have a factual discussion but simply deletes embarrassing bur referenced facts. They are the one gaming the rules. I want to keep keep the Two-version template and referenced facts so that everyone can form the own opinion, and to continue the factual discussion so that one good version can be formed, and avoid an edit war. Ultramarine 09:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Talk:Criticisms of communism is 153K. Most of this has been spent discussing Ultramarine's proposed text and claims of fact. Every sentence he has suggested there has been discussed; most of them have been included. But he is right that this is not the forum for edit disputes Septentrionalis 13:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply false. Many of my referenced facts have not been included in their version and many have never been discussed. The discussion also shows many instances of factual inaccuracy and npov violations in their version which they refuse to correct. Ultramarine 15:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest that all involved parties read Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles. Articles are not owned. There cannot, either legally or in Wiki policy, be an "Ultramarine's version" and an "our versions" existing concurrently. All versions are collectively "owned" if they are owned at all. Therefore I would suggest that this page be protected, and either both versions be merged or one version deleted. There is no encyclopedic point to having two versions. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should find one factually correct version. See this for a discussion of differences and which version is factually correct [8]. Ultramarine 11:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'd be more interested in finding the least controversial version so I can protect the page and end this revert war until consensus is reached. Wikipedia is about neutrality, not truth or factual accuracy. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:Criticisms_of_communism#Poll_to_remove_2V_tag; in which all three other editors recognize a consensus to use the version which Ultramarine does not choose to edit. They do not regard it as "our version"; Ultramarine has been repeatedly invited to contribute to it, but he has not done so (except to add back the 2V tag there deprecated). (Details at the requests for comment and arbitration on Ultramarine.) Septentrionalis 16:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See below about RfA. Ultramarine 16:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at that debate, I would have to say that the involved parties could very much use a good read of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Most of these factual disputes could easily be resolved simply by shifting the microphone to the reference rather than Wikipedia. For example, if the statement "Technological progress in the Communist states was sometimes highly uneven" is contentious, then Wikipedia should say "XXX said _here_ that technological progress in the Communist states was sometimes highly uneven." The latter claim cannot be disputed whereas the former can. Thus, everyone can be happy. Present facts -- not interpretations. Both sides of the aisle seem to be guilty of original research in their interpretations of facts. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we move this to Talk:Criticisms of communism? I will need some time to phrase a reply anyway. Septentrionalis 16:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will repaste this comment there. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is an RfA about this [9]. You may want to add your interesting argument that "Wikipedia is about neutrality, not truth or factual accuracy." there. I have provided sources for my facts. Ultramarine 16:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid: Zero Mission

The factual accuracy of part of this article is under dispute. The information under dispute is whether or not the video game Zero Mission is a remake of the video game Metroid or a prequel to it. Dispute resolution is and has been underway on the Talk:Metroid:_Zero_Mission page. User:Andrevan, an administrator has made it clear that he will use his admin privileges to block me should I edit the article to show anything other than his own belief. He justifies this with the incorrect purpose of consensus. The consensus was not agreed upon or regarded from the beginning. Therefore it does not constitute an article change according to Wikipedia consensus policy. This article is under dispute and is already seeking mediation and arbitration methods to resolve the issue. The edits to the page make the article favor a theory that has substantial evidence against it, and ignores the Neutral Point of View method. I request that the page Metroid: Zero Mission be protected as a NPOV article until mediation or arbitration resolves the issue. Dai Grepher 00:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute notice on Earth, saying people think it's flat, so why should there be a dispute notice, saying one person thinks it's a remake? -- A Link to the Past 00:59, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
There is no dispute. Dai Grepher ignores consensus, which has been reached on the talk page. There's no need to protect the page for this stubborn editor. Andre (talk) 02:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Multiple request to protect Blood Line,Kitty Goddard and Ryan Moore

I found people requesting that my pages were delted, claming it was a student film. As the writer of the film, I can confirm that the movie is real and being made. It is not a student film. I was shocked and digusting at the accusations that because of my age, I wa snotbelived. SOme one accused me of starting several page sto promote a film I want to make. It is being made and it is not promotion. I am adding a geunie independent film and tweo confirmed cast members. Please, I request that people stop mocking my film and discontinue their requests for my pages to be taken down. I hope you make the right descion, because I am very upset at this unfairness.

I think you misunderstand what "protect" in this context is, protecting a page prevents normal users from editing it and is used to prevent edit/revert wars (where different editors argue over the "correct" version of a page) and vandalism (including blanking, i.e. deleting all the text from an article). Protecting or unprotecting a page is carried out by admins, this page is designed for people to request that an admin protects or unprotects a page. It should be noted that even whilst protected any admin can change a page, it only prevents the edits of "ordinary" users (i.e. like you and me). Given that the only edits to the pages apart from yours have been to add the {{vfd}} template to the pages to inform all those interested that someone has suggested that they may be deleted there is no need to protect them. Also if they are Voted for for deletion then be protected will not prevent this I'm afraid (as it's an admin that has to carry out the actualy deletion anyway).
--ElvisThePrince 12:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect Wayne Rooney

No protection notice on this one (once again), but I'm assuming it's to protect against what looks like pretty moderate levels of recurrent vandalism. Seems over-hasty IMO, and will protecting admins please rememeber the notices? Alai 20:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Katharine Hepburn

For some months now, an anon user from an ever-changing PacBell IP has been doing hit-and-run changes to the article. Primarily this has consisted of deleting properly sourced and verifiable material, and also inserting material without sourcing. Typically this has only happened once every couple of weeks, so I've simply reverted each time. Within the past few days, however, the anon actually popped up on the talk page to start talking -- which is great (except for a few incivility issues). We agreed on a few changes to the article. However, there were several items he wanted changed for which I requested a source, but none was given and he is no longer choosing to talk on the talk page (except to blank our earlier conversation and insert "Stop changing my corrections" [10]). He has continued making those changes (and also removing properly sourced and pertinent information -- most recent [11]), and the amount of reversions he's doing in the past few days (4-7 per day) has become untenable, particularly since he apparently sees no more need to justify his edits. I am requesting this block as a way to force the IP user to continue our discussion on the talk page, which I think could eventually result in a compromise we could both live with, instead of allowing him to force his unsourced additions and near-vandalizing deletions into the article with impugnity. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect Famous Monsters of Filmland

This topic is the target of ongoing edit and slander wars perpetuated by persons associated with former FM associate, Ackerman. Official government records verify that publisher Ferry is the trademark owner but these people take every opportunity to slander the publisher and libel the publication out of spite. Complaints have had to be made to other sources including Ebay, Amazon, and AOL. In the interests of preventing internet resources being used as personal vendetta vehicles the page should be protected. August 23, 2005

Er, please review WP:PPol. This is not what protection is for. Dmcdevit·t 06:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect American Israel Public Affairs Committee

It seems as though this page has been forgotten. Considering the ongoing event concerning this orginization (and the fact that the page has been protected for a while now), I think it's reasonable that the page should be unprotected. Cheers 172.147.95.156 05:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now unprotected by Jayjg. Dmcdevit·t 06:52, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect Eratosthenes

This page is the latest victim in an edit war between Rktect et al. (See Mile, already protected, the Myle VfD and others for further details.) I would prefer to see this version protected, because it's a more sober, less speculative version, but at the moment it's only a mild preference. Ken talk|contribs 01:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

All quiet now, come back if it starts up again. I'm now watching it. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Request to delete and protect Occult scurvy

This is a VfDed page of nonsense which keeps being recreated. --IByte 00:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I realise this isn't a voting page per VfD, but I was about to request this as well, until IByte beat me to it, if another voice helps. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The page author Sydney J Bush (talk · contribs) appears to have done the same to Cardioretinometry. (BTW, thanks, Tony.) --IByte 01:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted and protected both. --cesarb 02:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Ziabari

A mental sick person is flooding ziabari page with all time insulting, u-18 language and very bad pictures. 64.229.134.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) his website is [12]] and he as many virtual IPs and many usernames. Please do anything for me. he is not hestitaing to use any bad abusing language. visit his log of changing my page content to the worst possible language [[13]]

Vandal blocked by Changlc. ~~ N (t/c) 23:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Request to protect Hardy Boys

There is an on-going edit war with this (and related articles). Vandalism in Progress Hardy Boys link discussion. I suggest that Hardy Boys be protected (with the questionable link, IMHO) until the link spam and plagarism accusations have been resolved. Protection suggestion. There have been hundreds of edits/reverts to these pages in the last 72 hours. --PhilipO 21:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vprotected by flcelloguy. Dmcdevit·t 06:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect Aetherometry

An anonymous editor has been using multiple IPs to push his/her POV against established consensus on this article, often with abusive or borderline nonsensical edit summaries and sometimes no edit summary at all. Despite multiple messages left on his/her various talk pages urging them to communicate with other editors before making contentious edits, the behavior continues. I would protect the page myself, but because I have been involved in reverting the anon's edits, I did not want to give the impression of impropriety (although I have no vested interest in the article above and beyond a desire to keep it NPOV). -- Fernando Rizo T/C 20:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Established consensus"??? Read the discussion: there has hardly been any "established consensus" on this matter. I, for one, strongly disagree with the categorization of Aetherometry as "pseudoscience", and so have a number of other contributors to the discussion. Or do you use the word "consensus" to mean the opinion of people who agree with YOU? FrankZappo 17:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment is out of line. I don't have any opinion on aetherometry. My analysis of the established consensus is that most of the registered users on the talk page see aetherometry as psuedoscience; the majority of contrary opinion comes from anonymous users, who could all be one person with a dynamic IP for all anyone knows. Please keep your comments civil, coming out of the gate with an ad hominem as your 15th edit does not reflect well upon your character. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why, what's so special about the 15th edit? FrankZappo 16:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I dislike protection. But in this case, the article content isn't at issue, only the psuedoscience cat, which the anon persists in removing. So it whould be protected with the tag in. William M. Connolley 21:32:47, 2005-08-23 (UTC).

Oh yes. I wholeheartedly agree - though I actually LOVE protected vandalism. How can we possibly hope to smear Aetherometry with our Pseudoscience label if people keep coming in and taking it off? Lock it up so we can trash this page while silencing that pesky opposition, right Billy boy?. We'll make them swallow it's pure NPOV yet! Tried and true bureaucratic policy people: repeat the lie often enough and our wards are just bound to believe it. Rise to your noble duty brother and sister admins - the wikipedian power of censorship is OURS!

The categorization as pseudoscience is clearly POV. This point has been made repeatedly on the talk page. The Wikipedians involved are the only ones calling Aetherometry a pseudoscience -- they have no sources. I have clearly stated why I believe the subject to be a protoscience. Perhaps someone should mount a cogent defense of the pseudoscience label instead of AGAIN protecting the article.Pgio 01:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Category:pseudoscience is clearly defined:
This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics or the mainstream scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method. The term itself is contested by a number of different groups for a number of different reasons — see the main article for more information.
and the Aetherometry fits it — this debate is one piece of evidence for that conclusion. Note that the cat does not imply falsity; merely an accuracy dispute. Septentrionalis 02:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The debate is evidence? It's evidence that the people calling Aetherometry pseudoscience haven't read the material, and unfortunately it's evidence that you haven't either. Aetherometry as a body of work is rigorous in application of the scientific method -- read some papers and it's quite clear. The experiments involved are relatively simple and definitely repeatable, but the science is too new to have gathered much replication -- thus protoscience. The pseudoscience cat. most definitely implies falsity, as it removes the subject in question from even the consideration of the scientific community. That is clearly Mr. Connolley's intention in this, based on a demonstrated hostility to the notion that certain mainstream theories might even POSSIBLY be wrong. And still, no-one has defended the notion that Aetherometry is pseudoscience. This page does not need protection but rather proper attention to the details of the subject by those new to its ideas. Pgio 22:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Pure mainstream POV. Pseudo is Pseudo - ie, FAKE by any standard. Aetherometry IS supported by scientific principles and the scientific method. If any administrator would care to demonstrate factually that this is not a true statement, they should clearly and concretely do so using facts as their tools and not by hoping to bully others into swallowing their uninformed opinions through relentless plastering of idiotic disinformative labels - and by locking up a page when such bullying just doesn't work . A category of Protoscience would at least indicate this extraordinary body of work is serious science, though quite admittedly NOT mainstream. The pseudoscience label is not NPOV. It's highly POV, obnoxious, and deliberately misleading and should be removed. - permanently.

I've protected the article until things calm down. If the anon (who, I assume, left the above emotional rant, and who has been reverting, sometimes with insulting edit summaries) were using a static IP address, he'd be close to a block. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    • Good move Anon Mel, and how very NPOV of you. You lock the page to protect William Connolley's smear club's obnoxious vandalism of this entry - and you just happen to lock it down with William Connolley's smear disinformation of pseudoscience - when Aetherometry is not pseudoscience but protoscience.

I note, by the way, that William M. Connolley is well known for his pathologically abusive behaviour. See -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/William_M._Connolley_and_Cortonin#WMC.27s_revert_behavior

"Due to a long history of reverting, often without giving adequate explanation for the reverts, William M. Connolley is hereby prohibited for six months from reverting any article relating to climate change more than once per 24 hour period (vandalism excepted). Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate (see #Relative value of references). This includes but is not limited to all pages in Category:Climate change. Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations and administrators not directly involved in the dispute should act accordingly"

Exactly the same malignant behaviour William M. Connolley has exhibited on this entry with the assistance of his smear club and once again defended by Amin ANON Mel Etitis . What a disgrace.

Request to protect Rosemary Kennedy

Edit war, please rv to version with external link to http://fatboy.cc/Rosemary.htm and protect. This is an ongoing battle of reverts by a group of left wing POV pushers. Thank you 164.58.253.45 00:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected it on the current version, which is by User:Silverback. We're not allowed to choose which version to protect, unless it involves vandalism or a 3RR violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is odd. The fatboy anon posted this request in the wrong place originally, down below under "Old requests/completed requests". Upon being rebuffed, another fatboy anon reposts it here and is satisfied. Hmph. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, they posted it here and I moved it down after rejecting it, the notice at the top suggests doing this. --fvw* 00:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh. And then some puppy tries again five minutes later and gets lucky...I'm not sure that's a good system! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not ideal, on the other hand all admin actions go by the "bug an admin to do something and if that doesn't work, bug another one" mechanism, though admins can undo eachother if they really disagree. I don't think it's going to be a problem here though, considering the comment SV posted on the article's talk page. I suspect that if I'm not the only one who doesn't think protection is necessary she'll unprotect soon enough unless she has strong reasons not to. --fvw* 01:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
          • I protected because I saw the reverting, but I'm uneasy about the source of the request, so I've asked the other editors on the page to give their opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect Jean Charles de Menezes

Anon IP hopping user reverting away from the consensus on Jean Charles de Menezes please revert to my last version and protect. Jooler 00:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Wikipedia:Reference desk

I request this page to be protected, to avoid people from accidentally posting questions on this page, instead of on of its subpages. The page can still be edited inderectly through Template:RD header. --R.Koot 18:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now protected by neutrality. Dmcdevit·t 06:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect Kalarippayattu

Attempted to refile in the cleanup queue, but it's protected. The dispute that prompted protection seems to have died down. -- Beland 01:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. Dmcdevit·t 06:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect FilePile

This article is part of an edit war between Xed (with Xed sockpuppet MarioDinis) and several other editors interested in the article. Xed's editing now bordering on or is vandalism. The article has gone to RfD, and Xed has begun adding personal attacks against supposed members of the site in question, and its creator, along with much unverifiable information, which runs counter to consensus on discussion page. Xed has reverted the page seven times in the past 24 hours. Last version containing verifiable information was 2005-08-26 17:28:39. --tranquileye 18:10:14, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Protected (again). Dmcdevit·t 19:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Linkspamming at IP address

The owner of a site was blocked for spamming it into IP address, and now his (new contributing) "friends" have taken up the banner. This page was only unblocked recently for said linkspam problems and is on the most vandalised articdles page for persistent spamming problems, SqueakBox 12:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect System of a Down

This time (for the article), there are various anon users on AOL making threats with the same old sentence ("there's gonna be hell to pay") by changing alternative metal to nu metal, which is not the correct style. One of the users have refused to visit the talk page and continues to revert the article with that same behavior as well. Thanks for any help you may provide to stop the vandalism. -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Empty threats, apparently, since he/she/it has been saying this for several weeks now and hell has yet to be paid, unless you count the ongoing revert war as "hellish". It's possible this anon user got their hints about "acceptable" Wikipedia behavior from some of Mr. Garcia's earlier carryings-on, including edit wars on pages related to System of a Down, in which he sometimes hurled obscenities and made threats at others in attempts to get his own way. *Dan* 00:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I second the motion for page protection on System of a Down. There has already been discussion on the talk page on this matter and many parties in this edit war are refusing to compromise. Solarusdude 01:14, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Protected. --cesarb 16:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotected epistemology pages

A temporary injunction has been passed against DotSix, the reason these pages were protected.

DotSix, using any IP is prohibited from editing any Wikipedia page other than his talk page and the pages of this Arbitration case until a final decision is made in this case. [14]

Perhaps we could try unprotecting Epistemology, Knowledge, truth, true and Talk:truth? Banno 11:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected... Let's see what happens. --cesarb 15:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And as soon as they were unprotected, he started doing it all again. Sorry it didn't work. Protected again. --cesarb 16:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our dear friend has been silent for a few days: perhaps we could try unprotecting Epistemology, Knowledge, truth, true and Talk:truth again? Banno 22:20, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if someone could unprotect my user page, I would be thankful. Banno 22:24, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected all six pages. --cesarb 22:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Rosemary Kennedy

Edit war, please rv to version with external link to http://fatboy.cc/Rosemary.htm and protect. This is an ongoing battle of reverts by a group of left wing POV pushers. Thank you 24.147.97.230 23:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only one inserting the URL which seems to be considered inappropriate by everyone else, I don't think this needs protecting. You do need to stop reverting though, as you've violated the WP:3RR. Reason why you think the link is appropriate and improves the article on the talk page and get people to see your point of view instead. --fvw* 23:31, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think if you take the time to read the history you will find many others with my view on this. To say that I am the only one proves your bias or ignorance of this matter. Thank you. 24.147.97.230 23:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Hardy Boys

Someone with a lot of dynamic IPs to their disposal keeps removing some of the links. Has been going on for a while. --fvw* 22:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Protected. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Follow-Follow

page is continually being vandalised by anon ip addresses Jimbo79 15:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC) It has been edited over 50 times in 2 hours[reply]

Protected. --cesarb 20:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect ColdFusion

65.35.120.139 keeps on adding spam links, takes him/her/it around 24 hours to do so each time but he always comes back. Suggests page protection or permablock, I already reported the vandalism but nothing was done about it. Please intervene. Adidas 07:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect Virtual Magic Kingdom

This article is being reverted every few days by a new Wikipedia user who takes offense at other people editing his changes and who won't respond to requests to discuss. I asked for suggestions on how to handle this user, and someone immediately protected the article in an attempt to deal with the problem; but I don't think that's the right solution, because it's punishing people who want to make positive edits to the article and it's not going to change the behavior of the new user after the page is unprotected. Please unprotect this page, and I'll continue looking for ways to resolve the issue with the new user. - Brian Kendig 17:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just unprotected it. From the history checks I made this morning and now I don't see that PP is currently justified. Should the problem suddenly get 'out of control' however it will be reconsidered (although present history doesn't suggest that it has done so as yet at any time). --Vamp:Willow 17:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Otherkin - two requests

Protected. FreplySpang (talk) 15:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect Otherkin

This is the third day of a painful edit war (see history) involving whether and how clinical lycanthropy should be linked to. All sides seem to be claiming consensus (or at least correctness), and consensus does not seem to be clear. ~~ N (t/c) 14:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, though I think that there is likley consensus aside from one or two troublesome editors (one on each side) to Vashti's version. Hipocrite 14:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Otherkin

Extremely tiresome edit warring continues, with today's disagreement being whether or not there should be a See also to Clinical lycanthropy. Could someone please protect it to encourage people to discuss on the talk page and not in the edit history? Thanks. Vashti 15:07, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like there was a 3RR block today. We'll see if it starts up again tomorrow, but nothing for now. Dmcdevit·t 06:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect Bagrationi

All corrections (edits) of Isomorphic are writings of dilettante. Unfortunately, he ignored all data of very important Georgian sources of the history of the Bagrationi Royal Dynasty and data of important works of outstanding Georgian historians. I repeatedly wrote about this question on the discussion page of this article. Levzur September 4, 2005

Request to protect Republican Sinn Féin

Persistant vandalism. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. Sasquatch讲看 02:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect Tom Maguire

Persistant vandalism. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. Sasquatch讲看 01:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect Timeline of Islamic history 21st Century

Anonymous user 153.104.16.114 (talk • contribs • block) keeps removing relevant information from page. Deletions from this page are the user's only contributions. Has basically become an edit war. — Linnwood 06:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it over and I hardly consider that an edit war as 3RR hasn't even been violated yet... I propose you continue to use the article talk page and user talk pages to settle differences. Page protection is not nessacery at this moment, in my opinion. Sasquatch讲看 07:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
I went this route as I do not want to violate 3RR. I didn't realize that was a requirement for protection? — Linnwood 09:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3RR isn't a requirement... but I would hardly call it a edit war yet... protection is also a last resort, see m:Protected pages considered harmful. Again, this is just my opinion on the issue, I would suggest further talks and consensus building before anyone does something rash. Sasquatch讲看 01:42, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=22521886"