Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Freepedia

Shortcut:
WP:RFPP or WP:RFP

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

If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and 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.

Contents

Current requests for protection

Please place new requests at the top.

Chimera

DreamGuy persistently removes items from this page. He has, despite repeated requests, discussed only one of these on the talk page, and that explanation is out-of-date, or false. Rather than report this as vandalism, perhaps protection will get him to explain himself. Septentrionalis 23:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Walker

Please consider protecting the article Anthony Walker which is being repeatedly being replaced with irrelevant "news stories" that appear to have a strong racist motive. The vandal, operating from many IP addresses in the 80.1.17x.xx range, has been reported to Vandalism in progress. Please ensure his latest vandalisation is not the one protected! (Yes, I know, it's always the wrong version protected, but nevertheless!). Thanks. Redvers ★ Hello ★ Doings 20:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Bob the Builder

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

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)
    • Nothing since Oct. 26. Watchlisted but not protected. Dmcdevit·t 00:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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

John D. Rockefeller

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


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

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)

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)
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)
Ack, protected, just figure stuff out dudes. Sasquatcht|c 22:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

Protected for a short period. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
Unprotected as no correct reason given; no apparent edit war. Tom- 14:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Retrieved from "http://en.freepedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection.html"


Views
Personal tools
Similar Links