Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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, 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.

Contents 1 Current requests for protection 1.1 Talk:Anus 1.2 Conspiracy theory 1.3 Thumbshot 1.4 Democracy & Nature 1.5 User:Antoshi 1.6 Mario Kart DS 1.7 Democracy & Nature 1.8 Adi Shankara 1.9 Haldane's Dilemma 1.10 Ravnica 1.11 Gothic metal 1.12 WMVY 1.13 Miss World 1.14 scripture2-channel 1.15 Rajput 1.16 Democracy & Nature 1.17 John Kerry 1.18 Nintendo GameCube 1.19 Star Wars 2 Current requests for unprotection 2.1 Democratic peace theory and Criticisms of communism 2.2 User_talk:203.173.8.12 2.3 LUElinks 2.4 The Rocket Summer 2.5 Sealand 2.6 Republika Srpska

Current requests for protection

Please place new requests at the top.

Talk:Anus

This page has been under attack from anonymous link spammers using a variety of different IPs for the last couple of days now. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Currently under attack by anonymous editor who refuses to go to discussion page and has violated 3RR.Cberlet 20:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thumbshot

Dear admins, I'm asking for your help. I'm the webmaster of Thumbshots.org and I am the original author of the page Thumbshot. My page is frequently vandalized by an anonymous user who keeps changing my text and adding words to Girafa trying to distort our definition. The word Thumbshot is our brand and trademark and should only refer to Thumbshots.org. Please place a protection lock on the page to prevent further vandalism. Thank you and sincerely yours.

Democracy & Nature

User:Narap43

As the webmaster of the International Journal of Inclusive Democracy,which is the successor of the Democracy & Nature journal, I originally started the wikipedia article under "Democracy & Nature" on October 20 and uploaded a modified version on October 24 under the username Narap43 (see the page history). I also confirm that the user under the name PaulCardan is in fact an impostor, as mentioned in an earlier entry by a member of the Editorial Board of the journal. In fact, different members of the EB were making the past days efforts to restore the original version and to protect the page from inaccuracies, as noted below. Following this, PaulCardan requested his version of the page to be protected!! I therefore hope that the wikipedia entry on Democracy & Nature that was provided at 23.18 on November 7 will be uploaded again and be protected against any further vandalism by Paul Cardan. On behalf of the EB. The webmaster of Democracy & Nature

• Page protected by User:Dmcdevit ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 11:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, however the page currently protected is the spurius version by user PaulCardan. Representing the Editorial Board of this journal being the webmaster of [1] and the one who originally started the D&N page, I'm asking you to restore the version uploaded at 23.18 on November 7 and protect it against PaulCardan, or else remove the page all together. Thank you. User:Narap43 8 Novemeber

Does User:Dmcdevit realise that by protecting the present page he is in fact protecting vandalism? I wonder whether anybody from the Administrators has read the interventions by user narap above and a member of the Editorial Board below and, if yes, why no action has been taken (or even a response given) for nearly 24 hours.

User:Antoshi

I noticed today that my userpage has been frequently vandalized by an anonymous user. If possible I would like to request a temporary page lock since I don't think I'll be editing it any time soon. --Antoshi 04:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected. Good luck Antoshi. FeloniousMonk 04:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Mario Kart DS

This page is currently experiencing repeated vandalism by various anonymous users coming from GameFAQs. (See these topics from the Mario Kart DS message board at GameFAQs: [2], [3].) Jason One 01:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems that vandalism has subsided. If vandalism ensues again, I will protect. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 11:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The vandalism has continued today. It's less frequent, but is still ongoing. Jason One 01:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Democracy & Nature

The user under the pseudonym Paul Cardan is in fact an impostor because the original entry of Democracy & Nature was uploaded by the webmaster of the International Journal of Inclusive democracy (which succeeded Democracy & Nature) on behalf of the Editorial Board. Paul Cardan vandalises, for a week or so, the entry of the EB and keeps replacing it with his own, full of inaccuracies entry, as it can easily be traced by any reader of D&N. For instance, the last updating of the Editorial Board's history, which we uploaded at 23.18 on January 7, was a full description of D&N's EB’s history. On the other hand, the one substituted for it by Cardan (which he had the nerve to ask to be protected!) provides a completely inaccurate periodisation in which he wrongly mentions, for instance, Alexandros Gezerlis as a member of the EB since 2000 (whereas, in fact, he was a full member of the EB--as opposed to an editorial assistant-- only for 2002-2003).At the same time, he omits a constant menber of the EB since the first issue of D&N (Stavropoulos). Furthermore, Cardan added a section on “Main Theoretical Influences” (something unheard of for a journal!) which is again inaccurate because, as it is stated in the aims of the journal, the Inclusive Democracy project (which was promoted by D&N) is a synthesis of TRADITIONS (i.e. the democratic and the socialist traditions, as well as of the radical trends within the new social movements), and not of the thought of some thinkers within these traditions, as Cardan simplistically presents it! Finally, Cardan is blatantly lying when stating that we simply keep deleting his changes whereas in fact we took on board some of them –e.g. providing an (accurate) version of the history of the EB, including the name of Gezerlis in the contributors’ list, whereas Cardan, arbitrarily, deleted the name of a contributor (Koumentakis). whom presumably does not like! We therefore hope that the wikipedia entry on D&N that we provided at 23.18 on January 7 will be uploaded again and be protected against any further vandalism by Paul Cardan. (on behalf of the EB) .

Adi Shankara

Sam Spade (talk • contribs) insists on mass reverting my edits. Some of them could be discussed (such as my position that there were too many small sections and too many duplicate internal links, and my editing to improve style and grammar), some of them are clear (such as my correction of internal links), but he reverts them all, refusing to discuss them, or to respond to my explanations (beyond making personal remarks about me on the Talk page and in edit summaries). Could someone protect the page in order to force him to discuss the edits in question rather than merely reverting them? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you the take it to the talk page, or his talk page, first. Or some other WP:RR. With only two edits today, I'm uncomfortable protecting it. Dmcdevit·t 23:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected. A history of reverts going back to 28 October is reason enough. FeloniousMonk 01:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Haldane's Dilemma

The page "Haldane's dilemma" keeps getting reverted by user user:Duncharris to a version which is factually incorrect (he said it was to do with tacking substitution times one after another this is complete nonsense). I wrote an edit as a stepping stone to something more comprehensive (I saw little point in writing a time consuming comprehensive edit as I knew that a NPOV article that would please everyone would take a number of attempts). I've requested people talk to me in the discussion page and left a message on Duncharris's page but he continues to revert it back to his nonsensical edit. I'm asking for protection (of the longer rough edit) until people are willing to talk where they should: in the discussion page cheers - Graham

You're trying to replace an article with your own rough draft, complete with smiley, which amounts to an unsourced personal essay. Duncharris is right to revert you. See note on your talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay fair enough the draft was rough but it was correct although I anticipated some controversy over whether it was POV or not (it's a hot topic which i wanted presented accurately and I left sections for people to present solutions to haldane's dilemma) which is why I made it rough. I'll do a referenced article later. This request for protection may be removed (although if another edit war occurs over the proper essay without discussion in the discussion section I'll make another request) cheers

Ravnica

There seems to have been a three day long edit war, please protect this page so it can be sorted out. Jack Cain 02:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Threatening in an edit summary to kill someone probably isn't a good idea, though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Gothic metal

Two editors have reverted that article 23 times each today (going back and forth every several minutes), and I've reported them on WP:AN/3RR. They seem to be using their edit summaries rather than the talk page for arguing back and forth. Please protect the page (in the somewhat cleaned-up version) for a few days to ensure that we get real discussion on the talk page, not a revert war. --Idont Havaname 17:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to mention I protected this. I protected this. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

WMVY

At least one anon (from multiple IPs) seems to be repeatedly molesting this article, changing the one external link in the article for the most part to random Martha's Vineyard-related websites that nevertheless have nothing to do with WMVY. Not quite sure what to make of this -- the vandal has been active for several weeks. Haikupoet 05:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see enough vandalism (or activity for that matter) to protect. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Miss World

The article for "Miss World" is incorrect. The 2005 winner has not been chosen. In addition, the name listed for the 2005 winner has nothing to do with the event at all. Thanks!

The statement above is correct. Miss World 2005 wil be crowned on December 10th. The 2005 winner listed on the page is actually the winner of Mrs. World.

scripture2-channel

the user with the IP # 71.80.132.153 is very opposed to the page and has been banned for vandalising the page (22 times in one hour, minutes after hearing the page was created). The user who is known as "ishai" has been very vulgar on and off the wiki page, and has claimed he will come back with a different ip address (he has proven to be capable of using proxies) or wait the ban out and come back. He is very capable of keeping this going for as long as he is able, and we do not want a good page to be ruined as it begins to start up. Fireflies 01:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The user hasn't made a reappearance yet, so there's no need to protect for now. I'm sure the vandalism will be dealt with as and when it occurs in the future, in whatever way is appropriate for the circumstances. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. -- Francs2000 01:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is on AFD anyway. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Rajput

User:Shiraj Singh was blocked for 3RR. He is using an anonymous IP address to evade his block and insert POV and off-topic text into article. Editors who oppose this text include User:Zora, User:Taaoo, User:Supersaiyan, User:Tom Radulovich and myself. He is also using the talk page to bait Muslims into a flame war. — goethean ॐ 17:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm also included الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 17:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Democracy & Nature

The user with the IP # 212.205.107.171 keeps changing the page back to an old, ugly and shorter page. I am thus forced to revert it to its correct form at least once every single day .I know that the information contained in the sections he keeps deleting is totally accurate (and in any case he isn't substituting them with something else, but simply deleting them!). Could something be done to protect the page? PaulCardan 16:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have ceased. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, but apparently it hasn't stopped. If you check the page's history you'll see that the guy/girl who's doing this (and is now using variable IP's) is probably really determined! :-( PaulCardan 15:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected now. Dmcdevit·t 23:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks a lot! And at least this way (with the notice you put up) if it's not a knucklehead but someone with actual reasoning skills that will be clarified on the talk page. PaulCardan 1:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry

There is an on going, year long edit war in the section John Kerry#First Purple Heart over using the word 'minor' in discussing Kerry's wound. The User:Rex071404 is pitted against User:Gamaliel and User:JamesMLane among others. I tried to add the sentence: "Kerry's detractors consider this wound "minor" while other people don't." But, that doesn't seem to placate the parties. CuinnDubh 19:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A year long edit war - and you want protection. What for a another year or two? No way. I suggest you try WP:DR filling a 'request for comment' may be the best way if no compromise is possible.--Doc (?) 19:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

While it may be a long-term dispute, a major edit war has erupted in just the last few days. It's been going on until today too (this request is a few days old). I'm temporarily protecting. Dmcdevit·t 23:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! There is so much POV being pushed in this edit war that it makes the whole section on Kerry's first Purple Heart unusable as a reference work. CuinnDubh 01:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I talk 'til I am blue in the face over and then, other editors like Mr. Tibbs (a sock?) and a bunch of anons swoop in and with no dialog, revert every edit I make. Also, only a few of those who make reverts dialog to any degree there (Talk:John Kerry. And, I've several times pressed a few of my editorial foils there to agree on some rules of thumb by which we could iron things out, but I was rebuffed. If we had say a 10 point list of an elucidated disput resolution framework and held ourlelves to it, we could get to resolution. I've asked my key foil JamesMLane to lay out a framework with me, but he refused. We have editing guidelines already. What we need is a workable dispute resolution framework. I've made suggestions. No one else there has. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Just thought you might like to know, he is the anon, he's been having a revert war with, check for yourself, it's funny really, he doesn't even bother changing ports after logging back in--IKnowWho^{(Gee, I'm a sockpuppet, how unexpected)} 00:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Nintendo GameCube

User:Xizer and User:GoldDragon have been reverting each other's edits way over the three edit rule and their discussion is going nowhere. They are argueing over the wording of a passage about the gamecube's success. The page needs to be protected until a group consensus can be found. -- User:Jedi6 October 30, 2005

The passage being referred to calls the console "kiddie," a common, yet untrue assumption. It is strictly POV and does not belong in the article. I removed this section to clean it up, but GoldDragon seems to be enjoying trolling it. Xizer 04:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Can't we just block the revert warriors for 24 hours? Phil Sandifer 05:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Calm it down, children. We are having a discussion on the talk page of the article. There is no need for any blocking to be done. Xizer 18:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars

There has been a long edit war on this page between myself, User:Copperchair, and several other users. Recently, Copperchair has been removing large portions of text from the page against consensus, as well as modifying the page to fit his standards, rather than what the community wants. In light of User:TheCoffee protecting the other pages Copperchair disrupts, I am requesting that this page be protected until we can settle this on the article's discussion page. The Wookieepedian 06:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's see if the Arbcom issues a revert injunction first. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Has been protected. Dmcdevit·t 23:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

Please place new requests at the top.

Democratic peace theory and Criticisms of communism

As admitted by himself, Ryan Delaney has willfully broken the protection policy because he dislikes me as a person. At the same time he made a personal attack: "To this, I plead guilty as charged; I did willfully ignore that part of the blocking policy, and I ignored it because I felt the situation called for me to do so. Rather than revert while protecting, I could have waited for someone else to revert, and then protect the article, and in so doing avoid all appearance of impropriety: but I feel that would not have been necessary. Ultramarine is one of the most stubborn, persistent, and arrogant Wikipedia editors I have encountered." [4]

He has now in addition twice protected without request and without giving an explanation[5][6] after becoming involved in the RfA about the articles [7].

He also seems to think that he owns articles he has protected. Other administrators must ask him before they unprotect an article he protected 8 days earlier [8][9]. In addition, this seems to violate that the protection should be temporary.

I therefore ask that Ryan Delaney stops protecting articles he is personally involved in and that some other administrator unprotect them. Ultramarine 00:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:203.173.8.12

This is ridiculous. There was minimal vandalism on our talk page, but it was protected to stop vandalism. It has now been protected for a week, and we can't converse with anybody and nobody can leave us messages. Please put our talk page back. Thanks very much. --203.173.8.12 03:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

LUElinks

((Moved to top... wasn't getting much attention.))

NSA 06:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a legitamate site and community, not affiliated with the redirect page, GameFAQs. We have nothing to do with GameFAQs, and request that the page be unprotected so we can edit the page to display the info about it.

• I added a sample article to the Talk:LUElinks. If more serious members from the site work on the article, it can thrive into a quite informational page. --NSA 07:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Rocket Summer

There has been no activity from the vandal's IPs. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 13:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Acetic'^Acid 07:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sealand

Needs the links to Roughs Tower changed to HM Fort Roughs and the first paragraph in the history section rewritten [10]. - Diceman 13:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is part of the vandalbot attack. (See the entry on WP:PP.) I don't know what can be done, but at the moment, I don't feel comfortable unprotecting. Dmcdevit·t 23:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Republika Srpska

This page is being held hostage by a nationalistic nutcase that needs to be dealt with. There is a workable and justified proposal that needs to be added to the article for it to be accurate, complete and balanced.--Dado 02:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I think that the page should be protected for the long time. Dado ask for unprotection because he want to place there biased nationalistic propaganda as the one can see from the talk page: Talk:Republika Srpska. Nothing should be added to this article further until both sides involved in the dispute agree to add that. Currently, I proposed compromise on the talk page (Talk:Republika Srpska), and until the dispute is not solved, the page should stay protected. PANONIAN 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---