Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CesarB (talk | contribs) at 23:54, 12 September 2005 (→[[User:Nihiltres]]: protected). 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 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.

User:Nihiltres

A vandal under an IP also used by legitimate parties is repeatedly vandalizing my user page. Please revert the babel to en,fr2 or 3,and la-1, and protect. Nihiltres 19:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Protected and reverted to last version before the vandalism started. Feel free to ask if you want any changes made. --cesarb 23:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Koufax

User 69.236.170.5 keeps adding a bullshit link to todays featured article. Gorrister 14:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty protection on Urdu language page

This page has been protected to a biased, nationalistic (pro-Hindu), and faulty version. One of the users has had his friends to revert to this page and then filed a complaint. There is a great deal of incorrect information in the page, and protecting it is keeping Wikipedia from being a free encyclopedia. Please unprotect this so valid information can be inserted.

You should probably read m:The Wrong Version and take this to the admin that originally protected it. If it is a content dispute, it probably shouldn't be edited by anyone until disputes are resolved. Sasquatcht|c 01:35, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Biff Rose

A longtime POV pusher has made an unsourced mess here. After the article languished in a protected state for a month or so, I unprotected, researched the subject, and produced a fully sourced rewrite. The POV pusher is back and shows every sign of wanting to restore the rubbish that was there before.

A brief period of protection (a day or two at most) would probably help here. Having more eyes look at the changes and add opinions would also help. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Expansion theory

This article was created by a physics kook (Mark McCutcheon) as an advertisement for his self-published book on the key to understanding the universe. The article he created is in clear violation of the "No Original Research" policy of Wikipedia, because his book is self-published. Several people have tried to re-edit the page, pointing out that the basic idea is ridiculous, and is not new. McCutcheon continually reverts back to his self-promotional advertisement (many more than 3 reverts per day, another violation of wiki policy). The reasons for prefering the consensus page have been clearly explained in the Discussion/Talk page, and McCutcheon has been invited to respond, but he declines, and simply reverts back to his version. The page was placed under protection for a month, but within hours of the protection being lifted, McCutcheon had reverted it back to his self-promotional ad. I fear Wikipedia has met its match. Mr. McCutcheon has already subverted the amazon.com book review process by flooding them with raving five-star reviews of his book (under a host of aliases), with phrases like "the man is a genius!", and now he's working on Wikipedia. I'm honestly not sure how to stop him (and others like him, after he succeeds). Anyway, I'd suggest protecting the page again, permanently if possible, or just deleting the page entirely.

Hmm, I'm not sure I can protect this as I have gotten involved but I would not oppose (i.e. I would like to see) page protection. Sasquatcht|c 01:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect my version of Kuma\War

I've been in heated dispute over the article since two days. 86.132.35.147 insists on this version, while I insist on this one. Discussion on the Talk:Kuma\War seems fruitless and we're in a deadlong which has heated to the extent that he vandalises pages like this.NightBeAsT 19:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected it on m:The Wrong Version, and am investigating the vandalism stuff. --Phroziac (talk) 02:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
That's a blatant copyvio, now it's the wrong version. And i see he's been warned for the vandalism and stuff. --Phroziac (talk) 03:05, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


Request to protect Afrocentrism

We seem to be in danger of getting into a revert war here. In my view, this whole article is in need of substantial rewriting, but user Deeceevoice is refusing to accept either the insertion of a short paragraph pointing out the problems some people might have with particularly contentious formulas, or placing an NPOV flag on his preferred wording. It strikes me as bad practice to instantly remove NPOV flags without giving people any time to resolve the issues. I suggest there should be a presumption in favour of retaining NPOV flags in cases like this. PatGallacher 07:58, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

Request to protect Boxing Day

Whenever I put up the UK populist view that Boxing Day is invariably 26 December, an unregistered user changes it to read that Boxing Day is the first weekday after Christmas. I tried putting up a compromise listing both views, but the unregistered user reverted it to show his/her own (minority) view only. As the view held by the majority of people in the UK should surely be mentioned, not ignored, please could the fact that most people in the UK always observe BD on 26 December be put back in the article and the page then protected? Many thanks. Jess Cully 00:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE : The unregistered user has done it again, and yet again perpetrated the tiresome piece of vandalism that when 26 December is a Saturday 'Monday 28 December is instead Boxing Day'. It's a bank holiday in lieu, that's all. Monday 28 December has NEVER been Boxing Day. Jess Cully 21:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect MC (mainland China)

this is an article to help promote and inform hopefuls on the background of the Mc gaming clan. i have found over the course of a few days that unregistered readers have been editing the page to slander the high ranking members. it would be much appreciated if this page could be protected. :) thanks!

Request to protect Imai Eriko, Shimabukuro Hiroko, and SPEED (band)

Various anonymous users (or perhaps one or two using varying IPs) continually blank, remove entire sections, and purposely misspell words in these articles on a near-daily basis, particularly the former two. Please protect these pages temporarily. Thanks! Kamezuki 23:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the last one need protection yet but we'll see. I have protected the other two. Sasquatch讲看 00:26, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Sasquatch! Kamezuki 03:26, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect Megleno-Romanians

User:Theathenae is engaging en an edit-war there. Please protect the page until the dispute has been resolved on the talk page. REX 20:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Michael Frank

User Nihiltres believes that this article is destined to insult him, however it is a factual article about a real historical figure. The situation needs to be monitored as he keeps listing it for speedy deletion without due cause. 207.236.151.102 19:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC) -This has been resolved. This is a post by a vandal, and the misinformation/useless articles he created are being systematically eliminated. Michael Frank is now a good disambiguation page about factual Michael Frank's; however I still request temporary protection against further vandalism. Nihiltres 21:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Kathleen Blanco

User SwampFoxx138.162.0.42 or 138.162.0.42, some times 207.162.228.11, which is non-registered user, kept citing information while change the original sentences to fullfil his personal view against oneside. I don't want to play editing war with him anymore, he just kept pasting those false information again and again, modify any information from his original sources.--C.levin 19:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Arvanitic language

I 'm afraid that User:REX will take his edit war regarding the already protected article Arvanites to Arvanitic language. See also Talk:Arvanites and Talk:Arvanitic language. Thanks. MATIA 15:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to worry, I won't take the edit-war to Arvanitic language as long as the POV message in at the heading. MATIA, You really shouln't falsely accuse me of anything and you really shouldn't request protection of there is no edit war or vandalism going on. REX 20:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect philomena

This article has been regularly vandalised by Everyking (talk • contribs • block) FreplySpang (talk • contribs • block) Ihcoyc (talk • contribs • block) for the past two days with false information.. --User:filumenae

Everyking and FreplySpang are admins, so even if they were vandalizing, protecting wouldn't do anything. Anyway, I'm looking into it. --Phroziac (talk) 16:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I do not feel protection is needed here. I find it interesting that the entire edit war was you, insisting on your version staying, and everyone else reverting you. And then you call them vandals. Also, the content you were adding was "use with permission". Only GFDL licensed content may be used here. And even then, we don't have huge headers on the page saying where it's from. We also don't accuse people of vandalism on the bottom of the page. Arguments usually go on the talk page, not the article! And, I also see that after you and an anonymous user were blocked for 3rr, the edit war was over. Edit wars are bad, don't do them. I suggest you read or re-read our main policies before editing again, as Visorstuff suggested on your talk page. --Phroziac (talk) 16:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


Request to protect White supremacy

Edit war with an anonymous user who constantly keeps deleting contents from this article. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 06:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Morrill Tariff

Edit warring on this page over a content dispute on Charles Dickens. Proponents of one argument about a Dickens passage have generally disregarded multiple attempts to find a compromise on the talk page & are instead reverting to the same paragraph containing their POV. An RfC has been filed for outside input and multiple requests on compromise proposals may be found on the talk page. Please consider protecting this page until the matter is settled at Talk:Morrill tariff. Thanks Rangerdude 06:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Request to protect user page: User:Pigsonthewing

Please protect my user page, to the last edit by me, indefinitely. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 22:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I protected this page for about 10 hours, with it being unprotected just a few hours before this request. Protection is only intended to last for as long as it's required to stop the war. The page was unprotected after I asked User:Leonig Mig to stop reverting it, and he has not reverted it since. --Phroziac (talk) 17:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Request to protect Terri Schiavo

A dispute over this article has degenerated into an edit war. Please view this article's talk page here for details.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute appears to involve a small number of users, principally GordonWattsDotCom and FuelWagon. It would appear to this disinterested observer that Gordon started the contentious editing that led to the "edit war", so it seems a bit disingenuous to be asking for the page protection. Regardless, that page is quite unstable and I suspect that several users are on the verge of 3RR violations (Gordon may actually already have violated it, I'm examining the history now), so I'm protecting the article for the time being. I plan to unprotect it tomorrow once I see some productive discourse on the article's talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
GordonWattsDotCom has definitely violated WP:3RR today at the Terri Schiavo article. I am, however, using some discretion and have chosen not to ban him, as I feel it would be counter-productive in getting this dispute hammered out. Please see User_talk:GordonWattsDotCom#3RR_Violation_at_Terri_Schiavo for further details. I will continue to monitor the discussion over the next several days. I welcome any criticism of this decision on my talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. I answered, as saved in this 00:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC) "permanent link" diff on your talk page.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Request to protect Roma people

Article (and its talk) under attack of (sockpuppeted) person who disagrees with the information there (and makes personal attack on others ([1], [2]). Vandalised over and over for weeks. It is most likely the same person that caused last protection two months ago. Pavel Vozenilek 22:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Request to protect Trinity College and Trinity (disambiguation)

User:Duncharris has been adamant about circumventing a vote on merging the two and insists on removing the notices on his own. Deadsalmon 19:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a bizarre idea that Trinity College should be merged with Trinity (disambiguation). The "vote" to which he refers, at talk:Trinity (disambiguation) consists of two people who have said that that would be a silly idea. Dunc|☺ 19:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Request to protect John Cena

This page has been repeatedly vandalized by several anon IP's over the course of two days. Hopefully a brief protection for vandalism will make this person/people give up. Soltak | Talk 22:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vprotected. El_C 22:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Boxing Day

Minor edit-war festering, between user Jess Cully (JC) and others. JC edits/claims are based soley on his claim(s) of modern popular belief, with no historical precedents. Corrected versions, based upon more than a century of culture and evidence, point out that Boxing Day can only ever be on the first weekday after Christmas, and no other. This viewpoint is also supported by Merriam Webster dictionary, online edition and print edition, and also The Oxford English Dictionary print edition and web edition (login required though). It is also supported by official goverment documentation elsewhere. Popular belief should never be an alternative for historical accuracy. Janedunnie 15:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Request to protect Republic of Macedonia

Revert war. At least one user has broken the 3RR. Jonathunder 00:55, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Yes, this page should be protected. Maybe that will encourage participation in the talk page. Certain users insist on reverting to their own desired version of the page without arguing their reasons of preference, despite if a discussion on those very issues earlier in the talk page had already settled those issues. Colossus 01:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misandry

There are POV edits being made by anonymous and one logged in user (presumably the same person) on the Misandry article and should be protected temporarily, as the edit history is being cluttered. Thanks Dysprosia 22:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Society of St. Pius X

The same reasons as on Tucker Max (below), except I don't know if the anon is a troll. The editor, well meaning as he may be, is in a mini-edit-war with me. He seems to be a Catholic and is re-writing some areas of the article as if he was writing the Bible.--Antonio Pee Pee Herman Martin 12:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Tucker Max

I'd like a protection placed on this page while pursuing solutions to a "low intensity" revert war. An anonymous user, 24.166.6.153, has been editing and reverting the article for POV reasons identical to that of blocked user Albus Dumbledore (blocked for trolling), specifically trying to include alleged, uncomfirmed sexual liasons between the article subject and a 17-year-old girl. I am attempting to edit the article for content supported by opinion in its previous votes for deletion, but consensus is not working, and good faith seems unlikely, as the probable user has already been blocked for apparent silliness.

Basically, I request a cooling off period while I pursue conclusive options.--Clapaucius* 20:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Broadbandreports

I'd like to ask for a revert of this article (to re-include the links that keep getting removed). The 24 hour 3 rv rule has been passed, and the article should be protected at the state it was before the edit war began. I have also asked for assistance from the AMA here in the hopes that a resolution can be reached. Until then, can the page prior to all the edits be protected temporarily? I have also commented on this here --Paul Laudanski 17:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correction- many different IPs and new wikipedians have reverted the information left there in a two day timespan. Can the original article prior to the edits be put back and protected for enforce a cool off period? --Paul Laudanski 23:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus was reached in the talk page, and when the changes were put back into the article, an anon IP reverted part of it. Can it be replaced and protected short term in order to achieve an RfC? One has been asked for and commented about near the bottom of the Talk:Broadbandreports. --Paul Laudanski 13:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Edit war on Urdu language

There may be some misbehavior here. It may require that the page be protected, or that some users be rebuked. A disinterested admin should probably look at the recent history. -- Beland 01:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually noticed the edit war at Hindi and came here looking to see whether protection had been requested. It's the same edit war in both articles, with the same editors involved, over the same issue; and it has been running for nearly 2 months if my reading of the history is correct. I've protected both articles. Uncle G 16:48:54, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

Request to protect Cindy Sheehan page

Please consider temporarily protecting the Cindy Sheehan page, which has become a battleground for an edit war between name-calling right-wingers and those who just want the facts. I tried to edit the obvious mud-slinging but couldn't. I tried to revert to an earlier edition but it is being edited so often that I couldn't choose. For those who look to Wikipedia for information, not mindless invective, please help.

Request to protect Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

This page is currently part of an edit war between A Link to the Past and some other users. Link disputes the quality of the article, saying that many parts are unneeded and the plot summary is too long. Others dispute the unnecessary parts, though the shortening of the plot summary is agreed upon. In any case, the users are revert warring. KramarDanIkabu 19:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been reverting for hours, and there is an attempt at gathering a consensus on the talk page of Revenge of the Sith. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


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

Please take your problems to WP:AN/I. WP:RFPP is not the place to cite issues and problems with administrators. Furthermore, you are only allowed to ask to protect your own user page. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Boothy443 is not an admin. And if he was, protection wouldn't really prevent him from it.

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]

Vandalism is managable, not very serious. Will archive tomorrow. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:09, 2 September 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]

Was an edit war, can not see one from the current state of history. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to open and fix Christianity and world religions

More quotes needed for pro-Zoroastrian position according to a fair and transparent vote taken. --154.20.105.198 15:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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]

I'm not really understanding what the problem is... --AllyUnion (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the anon vs everyone else (it seems) edit war mentioned in RFP System of a Down, which has been protected by User:CesarB. Rich Farmbrough 23:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Current requests for unprotection

Please place new requests at the top.

Unprotect the Urdu page

May someone please unprotect the Urdu language page. The original protector is irresponsive, and there is much faulty information on the current version protected. urdu language

I would like to bring to your attention that the Wrong Version has been protected on the Urdu language page. There are biased views in the current article that are far away from the truth. The article reads, "Urdu and Hindi are the standardized forms of the Hindustani language, also known as Hindi-Urdu.

Urdu developed as a vernacular dialect from the interaction between local Indian Sanskrit-derived Prakrits "

This is completely false if one reads the history of the Urdu language from authentic/credible textbooks. Hindustani is a language that arose after the formation of Hindi and Urdu separately. It wasn't a precedent, it is a mix of the two that many people speak nowadays. Also, Sanksrits/Prakrits had very little to do with Urdu's formation.

It is currently on a version that promotes a pro-Hindu mentality. It writes that it was developed in Delhi. In truth, it is not known to an exact location and was developed in numerous areas. The word Hindi is written moreso on the URdu page than urdu itself. If one would like to read about the Hindi page they would go to that language page.

These are two completely different languages if one studies the both of them and knows how to speak them. It is different from Hindustani which is the mix of the two. This is the Urdu language page and discussess the Urdu language, there is a separate page for Hindustani and Hindi. You can see for yourself by using these dictionaries: |Urdu Dictionary and |Hindi Dictionary. (For the Hindi dictionary you must choose English for the first option and Hindi for the second at the top).

Also, a large portion of the History has been cut out, which explains the Urdu development. The most incorrect part however has to be the introduction in which cities are named. Urdu is the official language of Pakistan and JammuKashmir (now considered part of India).

If one could at least revert it to the Correct Version: one was on 18:05, 10 September 2005 by JacobCK.


Request to unprotect Mark Wingett

There is no dispute on the discussion page. No dispute at all. What there is is a habitual vandal from New Zealand who persists in saying that Mark Wingett voices Montgomery Burns in The Simpsons. He also does other stupid things, the history is easily checked. His edits are simply not true and no-one has ever suggested on the talk page that they are or attempted to offer any evidence. It's just plain ordinary vandalism and, while it would be nice if it stopped, it is well under control by good-faith editors. Ben-w 19:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect Robert Sungenis NEUTRAL ADMINISTRATOR PLEASE

Dunc|☺ is keeping this article hostage:

1. It has been 5 days 2. The main complainer, PhilVaz has said:

"This article can be unlocked now, unless you have strong disagreement with what I've said so far. Edit the section on Robert's geocentrism, and explain what he believes on that. PhilVaz 07:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC) "

3. Phil and I are very close and ready to finish this. 4. Dunc|☺ refuses to participate in the discussion, yet keeps it locked. 5. Dunc|☺ locked the same exact version twice, not even showing the "disputed" version so others (who are starting to join in) can see it.

PLEASE SEND A NEUTRAL ADMINISTRATOR TO LOOK AT THIS.

Thank You,Truth_Seeker 18:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect Winter Soldier Investigation

It has been protected forever, and there has been zero talk on the discussion page for almost a month now. 165.247.212.49 17:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories

This page was protected on a vandalized version. There is talk to merge this page into another, but there is no content to merge, nor link to this page because it was turned into a redirect back to it's refering page. Discussion is at a standstill because the discussion page is trapped on a redirected page, and the "merge" tag is gone from the article along with it's content. Kevin Baastalk: new 13:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

This request is inaccurate in several regards. First, the page was not vandalized. The content has already been merged into 9/11 conspiracy theories. Second, there are two pages to discuss the merge: Talk:9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories and Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. I don't appreciate the attempt to pass this off as protection of a vandalized article. Carbonite | Talk 13:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect Terri Schiavo

A book length amount of talk in three days that's simply going in circles. There are enough good faith people hanging about it now that it can be usefully edited. Marskell 08:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect User talk:Imdaking/Complaints

Wont be used as vandalism nomore. the strikeout code i use on usernames is to mark as read sinse I cant be notified by it. unsigned by Imdaking

Please keep this page, and any other pages of this user, blocked. He is currently circumventing a 48-hour ban by using his neighbor's computer (this is now blocked as well). His suggestion that striking out usernames to "mark as read" is simply a lie; he harrasses users regularly (including me), and this is one of his ways of doing it. paul klenk 00:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion: Read the complaint at WP:AN/I#User:Imdaking, plus look at the edit history and edit summaries for User:Imdaking's complaint page, and then make your own judgement about the veracity of his statements above. BlankVerse ∅ 15:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect Fucked Company

It's been protected for quite a while, and I think the trolls that were vandalizing have probably found better things to do by now.66.115.235.199 03:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect Arvanites

This page will always be a controverial topic, but improvements on the stance of all parties have been made. Please unlock the page. REX 21:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I strongly disagree with that request. MATIA 22:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to. We will implement Wikipedia policy and when you want to change something, cite your sources and if they are reliable then your changes will be added to the article. REX 21:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect Robert Sungenis

Someone (VeryVerily) has protected this page (Two Page) and claims the ontroversy is between two pages, one should be mine. The two pages protected are exactly the same. I think someone is trying to trick the administrators into locking in their desired edits. This page should be the second "disputed version": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sungenis&oldid=22798481 Truth_Seeker 22:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See m:The Wrong Version :) oh, and NPOV. Dunc|☺ 12:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look, PhilVaz and I are very close to agreement. This was not necassary. POV works on both sides of the issue. Undo the stupid lock.Truth_Seeker 18:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been two days. I have proposed changes, and have gotten no response. Please unprotect. Thank you.Truth_Seeker 22:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phil said:

"This article can be unlocked now, unless you have strong disagreement with what I've said so far. Edit the section on Robert's geocentrism, and explain what he believes on that. PhilVaz 07:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC) "

Please unlock it.

IT HAS NOW BEEN 4 DAYS. PHIL HAS SAID:


"This article can be unlocked now, unless you have strong disagreement with what I've said so far. Edit the section on Robert's geocentrism, and explain what he believes on that. PhilVaz 07:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC) "
Please unlock it.Truth_Seeker 03:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect User talk:Hephaestos

It's been protected for too long. There are some new users trying to leave a new message about the the Welcome sign. - 205.188.116.136 23:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the user seems to have left so talking with him seems futile. This link is Broken 03:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Request to unprotect List of people who have said that they are gods

This page lock seemes completely unnecessary and improper. It was locked almost an hour after the last edit, purposefully changed to a prior version by the admin who locked it, and the edit comment ([3]) seems to be bragging about the fact that he changed it before locking it. The article has a long history of controversy, but consensus had clearly been reached on the talk page. The only people removing the section in question are one person who sneaked the change in against consensus amongst other edits, someone who was blocked for edit warring and came back to continue it, and the admin who stepped in. When pages are protected we're supposed to discuss what to do to get past the conflict, but we already have extensively done so and there's nothing left to do except ignore troublemakers. DreamGuy 16:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I view the above comment as distorted, coupled with unfortunate insinuations. The portection stands. El_C 17:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could present what you consider to be the innacuracies instead of lashing out with full denial but no actual defense for your actions. You entered a controversy that had already died down, switched it to a non consensus version (apparently knowingly from your edit comment), and locked it yourself. That's simply not how things are supposed to be done. DreamGuy 17:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
You write in your edit summary: Respond to admin who changed it, locked it to his version, and refuses to discuss the situation. My version, you say? I never edited that article, nor do I have a strong opinion on whether Jesus does or does not belongs in it. As for your allegation regarding my refusal to discuss the protection, that is also false. I have, and will continue, to discuss it. But I will not lift the protection at this point. Sorry you find The Wrong Version disagreeable. El_C 17:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you are disagreeing with a word in the dit summary... perhaps I should have said "the version of a frequently banned peoblem user User:Gavin the Chosen instead of "his"... but you also said "the above comment is distorted" but gave no evidence to support this at all, and say you are willing to discuss it yet have avoided doing so. Once again, please explain why you took it upon yourself to enter an edit conflict that had cooled down to change it to the version put there by someone blocked for constant edit warring and not even trying to discuss his edits and then locking it so they large community of editors who have consistently been undoing that editor's change can not respond to it like normal? The controversy has already been extensively discussed on the talk page, there's nothing left there to talk about other than wondering why an admin would decide to make such an odd move. DreamGuy 17:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
That's a peculiar opinion considering that, since the protection, the ongoing discussion is progressing nicely. Further, there are two other editors in addition to Gabriel (Zappaz and Jossi) who support the removal of Jesus under the current title. El_C 17:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in the history suggesting that El_C has been engaged in editing this article. If he has been engaged in editing the article, then he shouldn't have protected it. If he has not been, then article editors should settle the dispute, reach consensus, then ask for unprotection. Don't complain about which version was protected; that's why the protection notice says clearly "Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version." The edit comment was snarky, but that's not a reason to unprotect the page.
Page protection is a "timeout" mechanism, not a judgement of right or wrong. If I'm reading things correctly, the difference between the two disputed versions is whether or not Jesus of Nazareth belongs on the list. Presumably the parties to the dispute are in agreement about the other individuals listed. Thus, the sysop protected a version of the article which has only the undisputed information, and omitted the item that is under dispute. That seems like a good call to me, particularly since the article does not claim to be a complete list.
I don't see any urgency about unprotecting the page. Any item like this is bound to be contentious. Most readers will already know something about Jesus so this is not one of the more informative items on the list. The discussion is better done on the talk page than in the context of an edit war. Wordsmith something that everyone can live with. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
El C was right to protect the page. A request was made, which the editor later said was ironic, but it looked genuine to me, and there was clearly a revert war going on. There's currently a good dicussion happening about whether a new page title is needed, and people are trying to reach a consensus, and when it's reached, they can formally request unprotection. The page will survive without Jesus for a bit. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:47, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I swear it was a joke. I know where this page is and how to ask to have pages protected. Witness when I asked to have a page protected during a real edit war. Given that Gabriel had used up his 3rr allocation for the day, the edit war had ended for 23 some odd hours at that point. Hipocrite 18:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to diffuse with humor what I percieved to be a tense situation, ala the last edit summary prior to my protection. I didn't mean to come across as snarky because I'm not quite sure what that word means! :) El_C 17:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zappaz put a template on the article suggesting that it was in a state of flux and that changes were being discussed on the talk page. While these discussions were happening he was not present whatsoever. He then came back, ignoring these discussions, and implemented his own point of view and called it NPOV, removing the template. I suggest the article, when unlocked, be reverted to its state as of yesterday before Zappaz came along, due to his contradictory behavior and the lack of discussion surrounding his edits. --Alterego 18:15, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I continue to see no bad faith on the lockers part, or a reason to unprotect the page at this point, but I insist again that someone fix the damn row-shades, which I painstakingly fixed after the last edit spree such that they are blue-white-blue-white. Hipocrite 18:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, I told you, it's always in the last place you look! Can another admin attend to that request, I can probably do it, but it will take me a while to figure out (I'm not very good at ... things, and a lot of them seem to be happening right now). El_C 19:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Old vprotects

Most if not all of the following articles should be unprotected:

  • No articles currently listed
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=23130427"