Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GrandfatherJoe (talk | contribs) at 16:14, 28 October 2005 (→‎Current requests for protection). 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, including page-move protection.

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 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.

Macedonians (ethnic group)

Could someone please protect the Macedonians (ethnic group) page. There is a frightful four-way edit-war going on there, but no one is using the talk page! I think that all parties could benefit from not being able to revert, but only to talk. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 16:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumihar

I request protecting the page Bhumihar as I find the page has been subject to persistent vandalism / pushing of POVs/ information without reference, and so on, I am requesting for protection of the page. I have placed a request on the talk page of the article that interested editors should discuss the contents there, for inclusion in the article. As an administrator, I am no protecting the page, as I have remained myself involved with this page as an editor. Thanks. --Bhadani 08:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob the Builder

Protected. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bektashi

  • I added a section named Humor & Legacy to the article. Another editor started deleting parts of my edit claiming they were offensive. I called for third party opinions, we received one opinion that supported my stance and the page remained unedited for about two weeks. Then, the same user divided the article to move the newly added section into new article, without providing any explanation for that. I tried to discuss openly in the talk page, but the user ignores my efforts to reach an aggrement, responds irrelevantly in only one sentence, offends me, and keeps reverting the article to the "censored" version. AldirmaGonul 03:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Support

And I clearly explained at the talk page why it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Simply, it does not fall under any of the Criteria for speedy deletion. Also, the template is still useful to some wikipedians (me myself included) and I see no reason to ban them from using it. Finally, it has been more than 4 months since the TfD process and most of the arguments against that template were already proved wrong, including the absurd hight bandwidth usage or the template discourages discussion idea. Halibutt 10:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, CSD criteria G4 ("A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy.") does apply. Of course, this is a moot point now that it's been protected with {{deletedpage}}. Carbonite | Talk 13:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Though when I asked for admin protection I rather thought of enforcing the rules of wikipedia and help in finding a compromise at the talk page, not enforcing what certain people find the right outcome. Halibutt 23:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Scotland

  • User:Mais_oui! keeps inserting a claim that the Bank of Scotland was a central bank for the Kingdom of Scotland. The claim was then removed with reference to the bank's own account of its history, which does not mention this. Other users have also argued against this claim, and cited other reliable sources against the central bank claim. Unfortunately, the user keeps adding the claim back, without providing any source to back his claim. It would be better to protect the page for the time being. This will stop the user adding in unreliable claims, without any source, and stop the ongoing edit war. Astrotrain 19:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic peace theory

Month-old edit war; 1RR doesn't seem to be helping. Saw this on RCP. Alphax τεχ 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Rockefeller

Article undergoing vandalism. Vandalism/non-vandalism-related-edit ratio approaching infinity. Please address. — Phil Welch 22:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Protected. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Soldier Investigation

Article the subject of ongoing RV war between several registered users and one Anon. Anon continues to RV to version containing copyvio material. TDC 19:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection might be a temporary solution to a revert war, but if there is copyvio material it should be detailed at WP:CP and resolved there. 209.86.2.114 20:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the article Discussion Page, it appears the the copyvio issues have already been resolved. The revert war appears to be over whether certain information is relative to the article. 209.86.2.114 20:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, protected, just figure stuff out dudes. Sasquatcht|c 22:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totse

Just look at the history, it's been massively vandalized the past couple of weeks. We need to end this madness, before the log of changes is bigger than the article itself..if this is not already the case. -- SoothingR 19:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Parks

Rosa Parks died today. The article about her is getting a lot of vandalism today. Maybe we could lock it for a couple of days till it blows over. FuelWagon 03:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. - Wikipedia:Protection policy →Raul654 03:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt Club Road (Ottawa)

Could someone please protect Hunt Club Road (Ottawa), a few users are engaging in an edit war and not discussing their edits. Thanks. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 01:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson Secondary School

could you lock to this version. Appears to have some students vandalizing it. Also, the image says "entrance to school", but is a picture of someone holding a rifle? FuelWagon 21:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update - on 25 Oct User:Robinsonfootballrules added Image:Peacehomies.jpg (a screenshot of being blocked from editing) to the article, with edit summary "updated out of date fact". Rd232 talk 23:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schnorrer (again)

I moved the page. The protected page is now at Schnorrer (Yiddish). The banned User:Wik vandalbot is now attacking the dab page left behind from the move. Apparently his Nazi hero with the "ö" can't in any way be associated with a jew word with the dots on the "o". Can somebody protect the dab page? This leaves both the nazi article and the yiddish term article open for editing. SchmuckyTheCat 19:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this one is worth fighting over. Schnörrer (which would be transliterated as Schnoerrer) doesn't seem that close to Schnorrer, anyway, and it's a bit far-fetched to me that someone wanting to know about Karl S would type in only his surname with no umlaut and no oe digraph. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Protected for now. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely someone doing research and posessing an English keyboard might not know the Alt+### codes for special characters? I don't see why it is so "far-fetched"...— ceejayoz talk .com File:Australia flag large.png 21:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war on what translates as 'culture war'

I'd like to request that my version of the article Kulturkampf be protected. When Space Cadet and Molobo recognised that they were both against the Gdansk/Danzig vote, and were both blocked for violating it, they must have thought "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" and Space Cadet meddled in my dispute with Molobo over the article Kulturkampf to scratch Molobo's back, by simply reverting me without an edit summary (although his edit count shows he's all but inexperienced) and gave me no other explanation. So I challenged the revert on the talk page several times ([1], [2], [3] and [4]) and each was followed by claims that it was "already explained everything to [me] over and over again many times", although he surely didn't read anything at all and nothing was explained on that topic and he refused to explain it and why should he? Why bother caring for the arguments and opinions of another when you can just play revert-warrior? I'd have 3 reverts and they'd have 6 reverts so no matter how incorrect they are, they could always succeed. (at least that's what I think they must have thought) Convinced that I was right in the case, I spent like two hours on writing a summary of the case with reasons and reverted the article back. Knowing they could revert more often, they simply reverted and of course didn't bother discussing. So to make them discuss, the only way I see is to protect my version of the page because they would see no need in discussing with their version is protected. NightBeAsT 00:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nightbeast your questions have been answered with several documented sources and scholary works on the talk page.Instead of dealing with those sources your only reaction was to say that they speak nothing of the issue, and constantly ignoring every source and document given.

--Molobo 12:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you dozens of times to point that "explanation" out. Where is it, huh? What was I ignoring which is connected to the case. Where is the explanation for deleting the dispute-tag? Where is the explanation for the signinificance, not its verifiability, for the Bismarck speech? Where is the explanation for why all the Polish-related links are to be dominant? Where is the explanation on why the category "Anti-Polonism" was re-added? Where is the explanation on why the German link on "Prussiasation" was to be taken? Use the talk page and discuss rather than hypocritically say "Oh, I explained it all", just as you did on talk:Anti-Polonism, where as a matter of fact, no one could find your "proof" on the talk page and for this reason it was ignored with your statements being deleted. I do not deny you flooded the page with sources, but they are connected to previous discussion and have got nothing to do with this case. If you think differently, point it out on the talk page please. NightBeAsT 12:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Where is it, huh? " They were several scholary works and documents presented to you, which you have ignored.

"Where is the explanation for the signinificance, not its verifiability, for the Bismarck speech? " In the link to the speech where the author of translation explains it.Also it is involved with other aspects of Kulturkampf. "Where is the explanation on why the category "Anti-Polonism" was re-added? " Several scholary works have been presented to you which speak of antipolish aspect of Kulturkampf. "Where is the explanation on why the German link on "Prussiasation" was to be taken?" It deals with Kulturkampf in the context of German policy towards Polish territories and people they gained. "and have got nothing to do with this case." Ekhem, all of them speak of Kulturkampf and its antipolish aspect.You are retreating to your position of ignoring all sources. --Molobo 13:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also please discuss the article on the talk page.This is not the page for it. --Molobo 13:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

template:bike-stub

I'd list this on VFU, but I don't need an undeletion, just an unprotection, and everyone would be all OMG VALID SFD PROCESS. I ask you - what the hell is wrong with a redirect to {{cycling-stub}}? --SPUI (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. Wikiacc (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA on Lightbringer

I'd like to request that Anti-Freemasonry be protected for the same length of time, and reasons, as Freemasonry.--SarekOfVulcan 06:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only 4 edits in the last 24 hours. I'd rather give it some more time before protection. Dmcdevit·t 06:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but note that one of those 4 took us back 4 days and 22 edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Freemasonry&diff=26240029&oldid=25817911 Thanks for reviewing this. --SarekOfVulcan 07:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Imageboard#External_links

Some vandals keep spamming their links into this section of the article. I tried to keep this matter at on the talk page but apparently they aren't interested in constructive dialogue (or any dialogue at all).--zerofoks 16:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spammers have been editing in their link again without discussing this on the talk page. Because of the 3 revert rule, I won't edit their link out again. I just hope that if admins protect the section that they will favor the version without their link. --zerofoks 18:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please protect this page soon. Ashibaka (tock) 19:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it happens again anywhere else or after protection, file it at meta:talk:spam blacklist. Dmcdevit·t 06:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Revolution

I request that this page be locked from editing until Nintendo announces more information. My latest revision contains every iota of information announced. Yet three or four anonymous users have made 10 to 20 edits each, consisting of either vandalism or adding their own speculation. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia is not a place for speculation of future products. As well, these "10-20 edits each" I mentioned tended to be within minutes of each other, needlessly using valuable space on the Wikipedia servers. --ZeromaruTC 15:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of it was vandalism. I warned 138.130.35.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 203.51.106.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Rd232 talk 21:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for unprotection

Please place new requests at the top.

Urdu

User Ragib, who was active in editting the Urdu language page has now reverted the page to his preferred version and then blocked it. May someone please unblock this page--JusticeLaw 20:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

Please unprotect the rajput page. I have tried my best to engage in a peaceful discussion but have not gotten any reference to support the edits done on my work by muslims and goethean.

-Shivraj Singh 203.101.53.247

I oppose unprotection. Talk:Rajput is nothing but a tribal hatefest between Indian Muslims and Hindus. I have been deleting their personal attacks from the page daily. It is highly probable that 203.101.53.247 (talk · contribs)/203.101.51.191 (talk · contribs)/203.101.54.165 (talk · contribs)/203.101.54.143 (talk · contribs)/203.101.50.154 (talk · contribs)/203.101.54.195 (talk · contribs) will vandalize the article with anti-Muslim slurs – as he did obsessively in the past 123

45 – if it is unprotected. I may attempt to pursue mediation. — goethean ॐ 14:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Goethean is a biased hindu hater. For last 5 days I have been patiently asking muslims and goethean to provide evidence for the edits they made on rajput wikipedia. They refuse to provide a single piece of evidence. There diatribe should be ignored and wiki admins should not let rajput history be hijacked by a few individuals who have some kind of political agenda in mind. What perplexes me is there refusal to provide documented evidence. Please visit the discussion page and look under the section "Talk Facts".

-Shivraj Singh 203.101.53.247

BookCrossing

Article protected by Jtdirl after edits were made by a banned user's IP address and sockpuppets led to multiple reverts by Jtdirl. The edits in question were revisions to statistics from the official BookCrossing website and not vandalism, which was indicated in the edit summaries. Please unprotect. --Andylkl (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support unprotection, I don't see any vandalism, looks to me like it was a bad protection from the beginning. Loom91 17:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support unprotection. There are edits that need to be made and the article is becoming further out of date. There is nothing controversial about any recent changes. --RunningFree 21:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Nettle

This page was locked by User:PMA following a single edit by me where I has also initiated a discussion on the Talk:Kerry_Nettle. The only reason given, as far as I can tell is an opinion that the previous state of the article is valid. There does not appear to be any circumstance that matches any of the guidelines listed at Wikipedia:Protection_policy and the lock seems highly capricious. --Wm 09:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note, procedure states that protected pages should be listed at Wikipedia:Protected_page with the reason, but this procedure has not been followed. If the page is to be protected, please list it here with the reason. --Wm 10:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected as no correct reason given; no apparent edit war. Tom- 14:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coleshill, Warwickshire

Protected by an admin, User:Karmafist who is involved in a dispute over content, after he reverted to his preferred version. That editor has also falsely accsued me of vandalism for editing another of his versions, dishnoestly claiming to have consensus, and, contrary to policy, blocked me from editing. Andy Mabbett 08:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this and it does look puzzling. I've gone to his talk page to ask him what's up. You may also wish to go to WP:ANI as the more administrators see this the better. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:29, 24 October 2005 (UlTC)

Aready there, thank you. Andy Mabbett 21:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be better explained at the article talk page. Andy Mabbett's currently got an RFC on him that may shed some more light on his behavior and why this page needs to remain protected until a true consensus edit (it seemed that there was one) can be found. Karmafist 21:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Because Wikipedia is coming into broader use by the public, more views are being shown on this topic and need to be allowed. This topic should be unprotected because it needs major revision to make it like most other people pages, where it is biographical, with these topics in this order: Life, Teachings, and then controversy and religious perspectives. Scifiintel 19:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC) As sensible discussion is taking place and consensus is being reached on the talk page, this page should be unprotected, esspecially since this is a topic of active research and needs to be edited. Loom91 08:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected by User:Ta bu shi da yu 25 Oct. Rd232 talk 16:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

This page should be unprotected. (silly trolling removed)

I removed this utterly pointless protection. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdanov Affair

It is difficult to tell who is creating the sockpuppets if the page is continually being protected. Part of the purpose of the temporary injunction is to see who respects it. Fred Bauder 22:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realized there was an arbitration. I'll unprotect it right away. We may want to do a sock check on those "new" users then, if possible. Dmcdevit·t 22:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
okay Fred, what's the point? isn't it pretty damn clear who it is changing the article to fit with his own self-image? why can't you please revert out the edits clearly made by the subject of the article who is definitively banned from editing anything at WP, particularly this article about himself, and then protect the article at least for some number of days. i heard that a week was the maximum. why not protect it for a week, unprotect for a few hours for "adjustments", review those adjustments for POV, remove the blatant POV, and then re-protect the article for another week? why can't that work? r b-j 02:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Military operations other than war

Jtdirl initially reverted this article after edits by User:139.168.157.152, which appeared to me to be merely grammatical corrections. He was reverted by User:203.51.31.159, but then proceeded to reverted and protected the page. I would have inquired further as to Jtdirl's motivations for all this on his talk page, but it appears to be protected as well. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 01:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it appears to have been explained (and protection removed) on the talk page, although I'm still not entirely clear on why a page protection (as opposed to just reverting and banning the IP) was warranted here. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 01:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both article and talk page are still protected, presumably so that jtirdl's personal attacks remain in place. This is a poor example for an admin to set, over a minor grammar correction that has since been superseded by some good edits from MC MasterChef. Problem seems to have disappeared, but both pages remain protected. --RunningFree 21:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jtirdl is not working as a good sysop should. There have been numerous (and to my eyes valid) complaints against his edits and subsequent protections. If he (intentionally or not) continues to abuse his privilages then his adminship should be revoked. 59.93.195.41 07:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=26715588"