Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VampWillow (talk | contribs) at 17:47, 23 August 2005 (→Unprotect [[Virtual Magic Kingdom]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

This page is for requesting that a page or image be protected or unprotected.

If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and the date) at the top of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Before you do so, however, consult Wikipedia:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection.

Only consider protection as an option that is necessary in order to resolve your problem and that the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection. Sometimes the problem will go away after a week or so.

After a page has been protected, it is listed on Wikipedia:Protected page with a short description indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.

When submitting a request for page unprotection, you may want to consider the reason given for protection at Wikipedia:Protected page (or lack thereof).

Administrators: When you have fullfilled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and move the request to the old requests section at the bottom of the page.


Current requests

Please place new requests at the top.

Unprotect Virtual Magic Kingdom

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

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

Unprotect Continuity Irish Republican Army

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

The anonymous user who caused the protection of this page is still actively vandalizing Tom Maguire (history) and Republican Sinn Féin (history). It seems they also vandalized Wikipedia:Protected page last night [1], apparently in the belief that removing the Continuity Irish Republican Army page from that list would unprotect it. So it looks like they intend to go back to their old habits on the CIRA page as soon as it's unprotected. Demiurge 09:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blech. -- Beland 13:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple

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

and

Thanks in advance, Sincerely, Scotty

Request to protect Kamma

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

Request to protect Freedom Institute

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

Request to protect Katharine Hepburn

For some months now, an anon user from an ever-changing PacBell IP has been doing hit-and-run changes to the article. Primarily this has consisted of deleting properly sourced and verifiable material, and also inserting material without sourcing. Typically this has only happened once every couple of weeks, so I've simply reverted each time. Within the past few days, however, the anon actually popped up on the talk page to start talking -- which is great (except for a few incivility issues). We agreed on a few changes to the article. However, there were several items he wanted changed for which I requested a source, but none was given and he is no longer choosing to talk on the talk page (except to blank our earlier conversation and insert "Stop changing my corrections" [2]). He has continued making those changes (and also removing properly sourced and pertinent information -- most recent [3]), and the amount of reversions he's doing in the past few days (4-7 per day) has become untenable, particularly since he apparently sees no more need to justify his edits. I am requesting this block as a way to force the IP user to continue our discussion on the talk page, which I think could eventually result in a compromise we could both live with, instead of allowing him to force his unsourced additions and near-vandalizing deletions into the article with impugnity. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect Wayne Rooney

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

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

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

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


Request to protect: Prem Rawat

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

Metroid: Zero Mission

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

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

List of Nu metal musical groups

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

Criticisms of communism

Some editors are now without consensus removing the Two-version template which has as a purpose to prevent an edit war. The template has previously caused a valuable discussion which has improved both versions. However, the editors supporting the less critical version are now refusing further discussions (See for example, many new referenced facts about communism and democracy [4] and earlier talk discussions [5], [6], [7]). They are now deleting well-referenced facts without any attempt to explain why. They seem to be afraid to let others even see the the referenced facts and form their own opinion. Some of the same editors previously tried the same on Vladimir Lenin which caused it to be protected. That protection has now caused a good discussion on the talk page about the content and was thus necessary and valuable. This link [8] leads to a version of Criticisms of communism with the Two-version template included so that the two most recent versions can be compared. I therefore ask for page protection with the previously included Two-version template again included. Ultramarine 20:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page in question devolved into two versions: one being edited by everyone, including Ultramarine, and one being edited by only Ultramarine. All other editors were content to have Ultramarine's version remain the "B" version while we all improved the "A" (collaborative) version. Ultramarine repeatedly reverted to "his" version, claiming that the two-version tag gave him the right to the "A" version, and asserting in effect that consensus could not exist without his consent. All other editors found his version biassed in whole or in part. There were multiple calls for him to abandon "his" version and join in actively editing the collaborative version. After a few repeats, I proposed a poll to verify consensus: the vote was 3-to-1 to remove the two-version template and invite Ultramarine to actively edit the collaborative version. I implemented the consensus, sparking a quick revert war, landing us here. See the talk page. Robert A West 22:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, Ultramarine has threatened before to have this page protected, "using my version", if he didn't get his way; he also appears to have attempted a similar ploy on Vladimir Lenin — resulting in its present protection. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ultramarine#Copyright and threat of rules abuse for details. I am not convinced this page needs to be protected; I am certain this sort of gaming of policy should not be rewarded. Septentrionalis 22:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If they are accusing me of violating Wikipedia policy, then they should ask for arbitration, not simply delete without explanation. Regarding Vladimir Lenin, it was not my version that got protected, but simply a version that included the Two-version template, which is all I ask.
From Wikipedia:Consensus "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.".
The above editors now make no attempt to have a factual discussion but simply deletes embarrassing bur referenced facts. They are the one gaming the rules. I want to keep keep the Two-version template and referenced facts so that everyone can form the own opinion, and to continue the factual discussion so that one good version can be formed, and avoid an edit war. Ultramarine 09:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Talk:Criticisms of communism is 153K. Most of this has been spent discussing Ultramarine's proposed text and claims of fact. Every sentence he has suggested there has been discussed; most of them have been included. But he is right that this is not the forum for edit disputes Septentrionalis 13:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply false. Many of my referenced facts have not been included in their version and many have never been discussed. The discussion also shows many instances of factual inaccuracy and npov violations in their version which they refuse to correct. Ultramarine 15:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest that all involved parties read Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles. Articles are not owned. There cannot, either legally or in Wiki policy, be an "Ultramarine's version" and an "our versions" existing concurrently. All versions are collectively "owned" if they are owned at all. Therefore I would suggest that this page be protected, and either both versions be merged or one version deleted. There is no encyclopedic point to having two versions. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should find one factually correct version. See this for a discussion of differences and which version is factually correct [9]. Ultramarine 11:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'd be more interested in finding the least controversial version so I can protect the page and end this revert war until consensus is reached. Wikipedia is about neutrality, not truth or factual accuracy. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:Criticisms_of_communism#Poll_to_remove_2V_tag; in which all three other editors recognize a consensus to use the version which Ultramarine does not choose to edit. They do not regard it as "our version"; Ultramarine has been repeatedly invited to contribute to it, but he has not done so (except to add back the 2V tag there deprecated). (Details at the requests for comment and arbitration on Ultramarine.) Septentrionalis 16:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See below about RfA. Ultramarine 16:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at that debate, I would have to say that the involved parties could very much use a good read of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Most of these factual disputes could easily be resolved simply by shifting the microphone to the reference rather than Wikipedia. For example, if the statement "Technological progress in the Communist states was sometimes highly uneven" is contentious, then Wikipedia should say "XXX said _here_ that technological progress in the Communist states was sometimes highly uneven." The latter claim cannot be disputed whereas the former can. Thus, everyone can be happy. Present facts -- not interpretations. Both sides of the aisle seem to be guilty of original research in their interpretations of facts. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we move this to Talk:Criticisms of communism? I will need some time to phrase a reply anyway. Septentrionalis 16:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will repaste this comment there. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is an RfA about this [10]. You may want to add your interesting argument that "Wikipedia is about neutrality, not truth or factual accuracy." there. I have provided sources for my facts. Ultramarine 16:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopædia Dramatica

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

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


Old requests / Completed requests

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

Otherkin - two requests

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

Request to protect Otherkin

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

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

Otherkin

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

Looks like there was a 3RR block today. We'll see if it starts up again tomorrow, but nothing for now. Dmcdevit·t 06:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=21661171"