Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Purge server cache

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

This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be full protected, semi-protected or unprotected, including page-move protection.

If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and sign the request) at the TOP of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Also, make sure you specify whether you want the page to be full protected or semi protected. Before you do so, however, consult Wikipedia:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection. Wikipedia:Semi-protection is the policy that covers semi-protection of heavily vandalised pages.

Only consider protection as an option when it is necessary in order to resolve your problem, and when the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection.

Generally, full page protection is to stop edit warring or severe vandalism. Semi protection is only for vandalism. Full protection is also used on templates that are frequently used and not in need of frequent edits (this includes most editorial templates; see Wikipedia:High-risk templates).

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. Admins do not revert back to previous versions of the page, except to get rid of vandalism.

{{Editprotected}} can be used to request edits to protected pages as an alternative to requests for page unprotection.

This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.

If the entry is being used for edit-warring or content disputes or contains personal attacks or uncivil comments, or any other unrelated discussion, it will be removed from this page immediately.

Here is the log page if users want to look up whether or not pages have been protected.

Administrators: When you have fullfilled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and, optionally, remove the request, leaving a note on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user(s) requesting protection might be good, as well.

Current requests for protection

Please place new requests at the top. and use {{article|ARTICLE NAME}} when listing a page here, where ARTICLE NAME is the article or page you wish to be protected. If the page is not in main namespace, then use {{ln|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} instead. If the page in question is a talk page, use {{lnt|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} (or {{lat|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} if the page in question is an article).

Adriaen van der Donck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Currently on the mainpage and there's been some rather concerted and persistent attacks replacing it with explicit photographs. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Raul654/protection.--Sean Black (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second protecting it. — Ŭalabio‽ 04:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safe sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full Protection for a little while would proabbly be wise, I think this case can pretty much speak for itself--152.163.100.134 03:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but since I've been involved in the editing, I'll let someone else make that call.--Sar e kOfVulcan 03:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to get out of control. Protected on whichever was the current version when I pressed the button. Deploy your collaborative editing skills on the talk page, please. -Splash^talk 03:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condoleezza Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please unprotect. Asdfv 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not protected. Someone just added the tag; tsk tsk. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Frist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page needs to be protected now! Lots of vandalism, makes me sick. --Mb1000 22:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not much vandalism here. A few edits a day isn't that much, relatively speaking. Certainly not more than normal editors monitoring the page can't handle. Just revert. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Liberation Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anon user keeps changing a word to be POV regardless of discussion on the talk page. The user has been blocked before, but just re-appears as a different IP address. Semi-protection would be advantageous. --Localzuk ^(talk) 22:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't enough for semi-protection.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britches (monkey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Same as the above item. Same user, same changes. Semi-protection would be advantageous. --Localzuk ^(talk) 22:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's pretty ridiculous that he keeps changing one word over and over. However still not enough for protection. I have blocked him for a 3rr though. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persistent attempts of vandalism by IP users. Semi-protection. Hermeneus (user/talk) 20:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not much vandalism today, but the level of vandalism over the previous two days is pretty severe. Sprotected for a while. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Soldier Investigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article and contributors currently the subject of a RfArb which will shortly close (within the next few days), with both offending parties bieng banned from editing the article for one year. One of the offending parties is using the remaining time to remove a disputed tag from the article. Please protect until the RfArb has closed and keep disputed tag in place. DTC 15:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all contributors to that article are the subject of arbitration. Protecting the article would prohibit non-offending parties from editing, and the Arbitors have already opposed that option. 3RR hasn't been violated, and discussions appear to be ensuing on the Discussion page, so protection is unwarranted. 165.247.222.111 17:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All current active contributors are subject to the RfArb, and this would be a temporary protection, which was not what ArbCom was talking about. DTC 18:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let the half dozen Arbitors do their job on this article arbitration, and quit trying to do end-runs around them to get unwarranted protections applied. 165.247.214.194 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to cram in your last minute edits, when it is all but a metaphysical certainty that you will be barred from editing the article for the next year. DTC 20:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you both for five hours for violating 3RR while edit warring with one another. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please semi-protect this article from new and anonymous users. People keep removing an image, which has been agreed upon by consensus on the talk page that it should stay. Thank you. EuroSong 14:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't oppose semi-protection (or full protection) since the current edit war is awful, but the situation on the talk page is not so peaceful either. There's some Muslims who would like the image gone but who seem willing to leave it alone as long as it's not in their face (e.g. moved to the bottom of the article, where people can still view it, with a note at the top saying where to find it) but who repeatedly remove it when it's at the top of the page. And there are some very militant folks on the other side who insist on having it at the top of the article, loud and proud, refusing any move toward compromise, and in some cases posting some pretty disgusting religious slurs. I would have expected the religious types to be the stubborn ones but in fact it's the "enlightened" side that seems unwilling to accomodate anything or anybody, apparently for political reasons rather than encyclopedic ones. Phr 15:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, that this article gets vandalised permanently. Only if this vandalism is stopped you can discuss freely what's supposed to happen with the image. I think it is clear that people don't want to give in to vandalists and because of that oppose any change of the position and size of the image, since that could be seen as an appeasement towards the vandals. I think we all agree that vandalism is not acceptable and therefore we should not tolerate it. --Schutzundtrutz 16:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, the article has not been vandalised at all, if we go by what WP:Vandalism says vandalism is, not by your own ad-hoc personal definition. It has been in an edit war, and some of the edits are badly POV (plus 3RR and various other things), but your ignoring the policy page that gives wikipedia's definition of vandalism and substituting your own definition is itself POV. 71.141.251.153 23:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens I *have* semi-protected it just now (though before reading this). There is a discussion on the talk page re the protect. William M. Connolley 16:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

We do not protect pages linked from the main page except to clean up vandalism. I'm tired of saying this seemingly every day. I don't care how bad it is. We just don't do it because the main page is our "welcome mat" to new people first seeing the site. We say "anyone can edit" but then immediately tell them "sorry not this article". And I'm not making this up. It's clear in the protection policy:

"Important Note: When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself.".

And again, this is a long standing policy. It's not new. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Byrne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page needs semi protection, there's an anon who keeps inserting quotations of questionable encyclopedic value, which I've removed or adapted into the text, given WP:NOT a list of quotes. [1] [2] [3] I've suggested placing them at WikiQuote instead. [4] Steve block talk 14:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this really needs protecting at this point. There seem to be plenty of people involved with the article to revert if needed, and there is discussion ongoing on the talk page. Post here again if a serious edit war breaks out. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colony5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deleted, restored during WP:DRV. Currently has {{tempundelete}}. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 13:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Steve block talk 14:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Male bikini-wearing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deleted, needs restoration. A genuine article. Currently has {{deletedpage}}. --Muillern 12:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently protected against editing to prevent the article from being recreated, I'm not sure why you have posted this here. Mike _{(T C)}

12:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is currently under discussion at WP:DRV. howch e ng {chat} 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. As soon as it is decided to restore it, we'll unprotect it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would ignore this per bad faith nomination of Muillern. _→AzaToth 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Welsh F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deleted, restored during WP:DRV. Currently has {{tempundelete}}. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor: Panama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Many edits from non-logged in users who refuse to heed comments left both in reversion messages, discussions on the talk page, and comments left in source are both ignored and removed/vandalized. This is IMHO a prefect candidate for Semi-protection since all the logged-in users seem to at least be working in good faith. That all said, i'm not entirely versed in applying for protection, so if i'm wrong and this is not a candidate please say so. I just think that it would make the lives of the editors much easier and free us up to do work on the article instead of constantly fighting against vandals. AdamJacobMuller 01:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's annoying that the anon user won't talk, but thi sis at its heart a content dispute over what links to include. Protected; hopefully this will encourage the anon to come discuss the issue. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 06:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the problem here is that this is NOT a single anonymous user, this is a large number of anonymous users that come in from Survivor boards and other places around the internet. Full page protection is NOT appropriate in this case. The only users who are not actively participating in the discussion about the disputes are anonymous non-logged in users. This is why I requested semi-protection. Also, as the premiere of the new season is starting tommorow, having the page protected on what is going to be a rapidly-changing article in the next few days and weeks is a serious problem. There is no reason that this article needs full protection. AdamJacobMuller 16:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AdamJacobMuller. I recommend semi-protection so that the article can be updated when the show premiers in less than 36 hours; those willing to use the talk page can do so to create a fair and enforcable policy. --Maxamegalon2000 16:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't semiprotect preemptively, and anons have as much right to contribute to Wikipedia as anyone else. Semiprotection is only used for vandalism, and so far this doesn't quite qualify. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you don't feel it warrants semi-protection then remove the protection entirely. It absolutely does not require full protection, as you can see from the discussion on the articles talk page there is a consnsus on this issue. and, as I said, this is a somewhat time-critical issue as the premiere of the show is in about 24 hours and having the article locked during that period is going to be a considerable detriment. AdamJacobMuller 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, glad you have a strong consensus. Things done to contravene that consensus, in the absence of discussion, can just be reverted. I'll lift the protection now. Thanks · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hebron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page are being vandalized every single day. Check the history. New user all the time, but does the same edit. A human 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough for protection. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-rptection, do you think? This is repeated anon vandalism. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

10:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've sprotected, it is recurring vandalism by multiple ips - it doesn't seem terribly heavy, but it does seem consistent and long running. Feel free to reverse if you disagree, but consider that the anon(s) may find another hobby if this is sprotected for a day or two. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newschool Skiing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article being hammered repeatedly by many anon users. No Guru 01:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful how you revert. Anons are not all vandals. This edit by you is not so hot. It's certainly getting vandalized, but it's more than I can do at the moment to work out the current vandal-rate. Looks like some group somewhere has been directed to the article, but that by itself doesn't mean we should lock 'em all out. -Splash^talk 01:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to find the last reasonable version. I looked carefully at very many edits and decided the the version that existed on January 27th was the best option. I may have been mistaken. No Guru 01:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through all the edits again and i can't find a better version than the one you diffed above. Feel free to revert to whatever version you feel is better. Happy editing. No Guru 01:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War of 1812 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sustained vandalism over the past day or two from multiple anon IPs. Please semi-protect, despite my earlier suggestion on the talk page that it wasn't necessary...--Sar e kOfVulcan 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The principal IP in question is now blocked. Block first, protect last. If it's a vandalism issue, take it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism first — why restrict all anons and all new editors for one monkey's misbehaviour? -Splash^talk 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that it primarily came from one IP, but there were two others also vandalizing today. I semiprotected it. I won't squeal if you lift it, but it seemed prudent from this end. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well, ok. I blocked another IP just now. We should try lifting this earlier than the expiry of the blocks if (and only if) there is no sign of evasion on the blocks. It doesn't seem necessary to use blocks and protection simultaneously. -Splash^talk 23:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, probably not. I'll be here another hour -- if it's quiet, I'll take it off before I leave for the SOTU speechifying. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, BTW. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 06:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism from multiple IPs is continuing.--Sar e kOfVulcan 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A anonymous editor is vandalizing the infobox after a previous warning. Please semi-protect for the time being. Robert McClenon 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, there really isn't enough vandalism to warrant semiprotection (it's only for heavily vandalized pages). But, I see this IP has been warned with a block warning; next time it vandalizes, let me know and I'll block it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin has blocked the anon for 24 hours. Thank you. Robert McClenon 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Haven for trolls, vandals, and what-nots, constant source of debate/controversy/revert-waring, could really use a good long bit of protection, give everyone a nice long cooling off period--205.188.116.9 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Revert warring on a community page? This is a very strange request. I'm inclined to say, "No, just tell them all to go edit articles instead", in any case.--Sean Black (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be much good as a reference desk if we protected it! -Splash^talk 17:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lolicon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ongoing, unresolvable edit war for nearly 3 months now. Some editors are by this time simply ignoring the Talk page, so I think it needs to be protected. Ashibaka tock 15:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persistent minor vandal has used small bucketload of IP addresses to change the definition repeatedly (15 times) against consensus over the last 3 days, followed by attacks on those reverting (bunch of now blocked IP addresses). Semi-protection seems like a more effective solution until whoever it is calms down. I just wish it were a more important article than something this trivial being abused like this. -- Georgewilliamherbert 05:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's annoying; worse because the IP is dynamic. But doesn't really rise to the level of warranting semiprotection. Just revert this person. I've added the article to my watchlist and will help. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to 19 changes now, with 3 more IPs in 2 netblocks. They're branching out and hitting other pages like List of islands of Canada, List of islands of Denmark. I'm beginning to think that leaving Porridge as a Honeypot makes sense... they always seem to want to hit that page, and that leads to the other ones they're vandalizing... User:Curps is blocking them, but he/she has to sleep sometimes. Georgewilliamherbert 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After re-evaluating this page's history, I've applied semiprotection. Hopefully they'll get tired of it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disputes over header and occasional vandalism. Temporary protection sought until dispute is resolved. -- Simonides 04:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a minor dispute about the phrasing of a sentence, which doesn't rise to the level needing protection. If by "header" you mean the commented out stuff at the top, then I'm not going to protect over an HTML comment! The vandalism is just run-of-the-mill stuff. -Splash^talk 16:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damadola airstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have consensus and a single IP user continues to revert edits back to a non-neutral POV and out of data information in order to continue his POV. Damadola Airstrike was protected at one time and was stable for 2 days. The IP edit reverter has returned. Please protect this page and stop these edits. Tbeatty 03:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked anon for WP:3RR violation, instead. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ongoing edit/revert war, mostly resulting from people trying to insert commentary into a disambiguation page or change the name of the Republic of Macedonia to various POV alternatives. -- ChrisO 22:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be ongoing for roughly two months... done. Ashibaka tock 02:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Invasion of Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New organization of page to make the page succint and conform to Wiki guidelines. User 84.59.88.9 continually reverts and edits changes despite request to discuss changes and problems with new version in discussion board. Thanks. pookster11 21:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not protected. It's been unprotected, it's just got the template up there. Please actually protect it please? It's already being vandalized.

That's right. Editing is NOT blocked. 212.29.136.29 10:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? The protection log shows it protected. Maybe it's only semi-protected against anon edits? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

10:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jossi just forgot to set the protection level. Here's the log:

   * 08:57, 1 February 2006 Howcheng protected 2003 Invasion of Iraq (edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
   * 20:10, 30 January 2006 Jossi unprotected 2003 Invasion of Iraq (Editwarring)
   * 12:15, 2 May 2005 Tony Sidaway unprotected 2003 Invasion of Iraq (Sorry wrong article protected)
   * 00:12, 2 May 2005 Violetriga protected 2003 Invasion of Iraq (Protecting from moves while naming discussion is ongoing)
   * 09:46, 4 February 2005 Silsor unprotected 2003 Invasion of Iraq (requested on WP:RFPP)
   * 12:33, 28 January 2005 Quadell protected 2003 Invasion of Iraq (Edit war)

howch e ng {chat} 16:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, did anyone remember to make sure all vandalism was removed before protecting? It'd be a bit embarassing if it were protected and something blatantly wrong was there like "The iraq war was penis" or something. Swatjester 17:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was protected right after your last revert edit, so I assumed that all vandalism had been taken care of. howch e ng {chat} 18:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for unprotection

George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hey can we unblock the George W. Bush site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.34.225 (talk • contribs)

Considering that this IP's edit immediately following his request to have this page unprotected was to add "IT SUCKS!!!!!" over and over again to Al Qaeda [5], I'm going to say no. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All part of the war on terror Kate. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depleted uranium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page has been under protection while up for mediation. the princpals in the dispute have come to an interm agreement to split the topic as the disputed section had grown to the point where it warranted it's own entry. This new topic has been created and the editing there is uncontenious. The orginal article now needs to be released. The agreement can be found on the talkpage. --DV8 2XL 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. howch e ng {chat} 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Mesopotamian mythology (edit | template | history | links | watch | logs)

This page was protected by an admin involved in a dispute to lock the page at a censored version that he supports due to complaints from an editor who had posted that there it made her look stupid. An admin involved in controversies should not be locking pages, and there's no reason to lock a discussion page in the first place, as where are we supposed to discuss that template, which needs major changes and a way to discuss them. DreamGuy 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is Phil Welch's puppy, involved with the Elonka affair. I won't wheel war with another administrator, particularly when I'm not familiar with the particulars of this situation. In other words, that's a no from me. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so, the fact that he is involved, doing it with no policy behind him, etc... doesn't help? If you won't do anything about this abuse, who do you recommend? By the way, he just pulled the exact same stunt on Talk:Eenasul Fateh, switching to his version and protecting. DreamGuy 00:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that there's currently a rather extensive dialogue going on on one of the administrators' noticeboards, I'm not sure where else you could hope to attract more attention from administrators. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement in the dispute is after an unprejudiced examination of the issue. I did not know who Elonka and DreamGuy were before this, and I can't claim to know them well now. The protected page is currently located at Template talk:Mesopotamian mythology/Archive, so the protection does not interfere with current discussion on the template. As for Talk:Eenasul Fateh, that's a talk page to a non-existent article (but contains just enough deletion discussion to not be a CSD) so protection is harmless there too. My plan is to unprotect as soon as it appears that DreamGuy will not continue his revert war. I have summarized my actions on AN/I and invite any further discussion of this issue to tale place there. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"My involvement in the dispute is after an unprejudiced examination of the issue." = absolute and total nonsense. You were chomping at the bit to remove anything and everything before you ever saw any of it. You never had approval from people on AN/I and you are just making things up as you go along. This is not how things are supposed to be done, and you are a disgrace to this encyclopedia. DreamGuy 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Main articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have protected these as high-risk templates (because they are right at the top of a rather large number of pages, and there's generally no reason to modify them; thus making them a plausible vandal vector, per Wikipedia:High-risk templates). User:Netoholic disagrees, stating that these templates are not used frequently enough to qualify. User:Adrian Buehlmann reminds us that Special:Whatlinkshere has a bug and gives only an incomplete list, thus the templates may be more used than they appear. Thus, a third opinion is requested on whether these should be protected. >Radiant< 11:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect - This is silly. Templates that are "high-risk" are only protected when they have thousands of links. These have only a few hundred. Since Template:Main articles (edit · talk · links · history · watch) was just recently turned from a redirect into an active alternative template, there is no way any "bug" would result in inaccurate link data. Radiant! has been harrassing me, both overtly and subtlely, and this is just another example of impeding my work for flaky justification. -- Netoholic @ 18:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered helpful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This used to be an argument against Wikipedia:Avoid meta-templates (then an official policy), and was protected as being a violation of WP:POINT. Now, debate over the current status of meta-templates seems to be well confined to the appropriate talk page, so continued protection shouldn't be necessary. (Regardless of whether this is unprotected or not, someone should change the page to redirect to Wikipedia:Meta-templates to fix a bad double-redirect—that's really the main reason I'm bringing it up here in the first place.) Apologies if this is posted to the wrong place; I wasn't sure if there's a better place for Wikipedia-namespace unprotection requests. — Jeff | (talk) | 10:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naked short selling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After some good discussion on the talk page and elsewhere, I think we have this conflict more or less sorted out, and a version which is agreeable to all parties at Naked short selling/Workshop. Is there any way that the unprotecting admin (if you approve this request, of course) could also merge the pages such that the histories merged as well? (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a note beneath yours on the talk page checking that all parties are ok with this. Don't want to upset a delicate apple cart. Yes, the histories can be merged. -Splash^talk 06:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now unprotected and merged. -Splash^talk 22:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for protected edits

See Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests.