Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

[[:|WP:RFPP
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 sign the request) 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).

Here is the log page if users want to look up whether or not pages have been protected.

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.

Current requests for protection

Please place new requests at the top.

Plasma cosmology

I have made a series of edits to a section of Plasma cosmology which I delineated rationale for on the talk page. Since then, I have received no comments related to my edits directly, but only reversion by User:Elerner and User:Reddi. I'm not sure what to do to avoid the previous edit war chaos that occurred on this page less than one month ago so I was wondering if a page protection request would be appropriate to force the editors to discuss exactly what they found wrong with my edits. Thanks, --Joshuaschroeder 19:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On my watchlist. I'm going to hold off a bit, no edits today yet. (Probably just everyone waiting for the 24 hours to wear off so they "get" another 3 reverts, or am I growing cynical?) Dmcdevit·t 09:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second law of thermodynamics

Someone with a variable IP is repeatedly vandalising this article. There is a list of IPs which have been used to vandalise the page at Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/IP_Severe#November_2005. Obviously banning all these is untenable and so I request that the page be protected, temporarily, until the vandal loses interest. Infinity0 16:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If

Someone is vandalizing this template, heavily used for special effects. It should be fairly stable, so the best policy is to protect it and maybe other Wikipedia special effects templates. Thanks --surueña 16:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There've only been a few vandalizing edits to it in the past day. Doesn't warrant protection yet. Just revert. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British Sea Power

A long time struggle between Pigsonthewing and just about everybody else. I'd protect, but i've become part of everybody else. Considering his behavior, this page will soon see the words "fallacious", "lie", "attack", "cease", or "unfounded" from him fairly soon. So for more information on the matter, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#Evidence presented by Karmafist#Andy's Tactic Regarding Edit Wars Karmafist 14:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. Dmcdevit·t 03:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

list of Serbs

Can someone please protect this page? A user is continuously reverting the established image at the top without given reason. Thank you. 72.144.150.156 00:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have warned both users and watchlisted. This may become more severe, but I'll wait and see for now. Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I revert that image, because almost all active admins from sr: wiki vote for Image:Srbi.jpg. --Sasa Stefanovic 02:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is true... look at Talk:Serbs -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 02:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a good reason to edit war, reprehensible behavior. Just don't do it. I'm also pretty sure you'll be getting lots of opposition from putting sr's preferred version in intead of our own. Dmcdevit·t 03:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Numerals

This page is falling victim to, what I must assume from obvious bias and errors, some Hindu nationalist activism. I have made the required reading of neutral scholarly accounts, Western and Chinese, edited the history of Arabic Numerals to a one as widely agreed upon by historians and scholars, linked to scholarly pages including a paper from a Singapore scholar who is a member of the International Academy of the History of Science, and provided evidence for every claim. The Arabic Numerals are in part indian in origin, but as we know them today they are the work of the Arabs due to considerable modification and development to the numerals themselves and their methods of computation. Unfortunately, the page was reverted back to the unsupported, erroneous and emotional (implicit hate and pride) narrative. I re-edited again, but it was reverted within minutes.

It requires protection, as the history of the Arabic numerals, which now belong to the entire world, needs to reflect the scholarly consensus and supporting scientific evidence, not baseless natioinalist revisionism.

It may be wrong, but at the moment, protection is not needed (that's not what protection is for). You should probably try WP:DR. I just filed a RFC for it. Dmcdevit·t 08:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that original research cannot be directly put into wikipedia articles. Only statements and theories accepted by a large number of people are acceptable. deeptrivia 14:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. That's not what page protection is for. It does not endorse any version, but is just an electric fence to stop edit wars or vandalism. Anything else needs WP:DR. Dmcdevit·t 03:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Dmcdevit, I was not asking for page protection, just explaining the anonymous editor above why his edits were reverted. deeptrivia 13:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is RFPP, and nothing more. We tend to get clogged with people who want to argue the content dispute here, so that's why I responded like that. No big deal. Dmcdevit·t 18:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panavision

This article is continually being re-edited by Girolamo Savonarola who apparently originated it. The original article held a large amount of incorrect (althoughly widely believed) information, much of it originally derived from a long series of misleading press releases from a former PV CEO (who was fired in Jan 2003)

A recently added financial section has been vandalized prior to being severely watered-down by the above person. As far as I could see, although the information may have been highly embarrassing to Panavision, it was all backed up by easily accessible online sources. Last night the whole "Financial" section was completely re-written, obviously by an employee of Panavision.

Since it then consisted of nothing more than a simple series of unsupported rebuttals of claims that readers can no longer see, I decided it would be better to completely remove the section unless it can be protected

With three edits in the last three days, I don't think this warrants protection. Try our dispute resolution. Dmcdevit·t 08:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to just note that the user has been making extremely speculative and NPOV claims as to the company's financial status, bordering on propaganda (and extreme minority POV at that). I've tried to refer him to Wikipedia policies, which he seems not to have bothered to read, and furthermore he has attempted to delete my comments on the talk page, whereas I've tried to compromise with him (NPOV'ing potentially libellous content apparently is now "watered-down"). I agree, dispute resolution would be in order. As would an attempt by him to have some familiarity with how this site is run. I've tried the talk page, but now I guess I'll go to requests for comment. --Girolamo Savonarola 09:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bundeswehr

There is an IP vandal (IP 83.109.xxx) who from time to time starts an edit war on this page, as has happened again today. This person has also used user names that have been identified as sock puppets (user:BoroughJohn, user:Witakone. Both user pages have been marked as such. His entries are on politicly sensible matters of German history. He has indicated on the talk-page that he is not willing to stop.--KuK 16:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does not look that serious right now, and, though I'm not an expert in the area, it looks much more like a content dispute than vandalism. Not protected. Dmcdevit·t 07:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Clarkson

Some guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed this request made yesterday, SqueakBox 16:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat depressing revert war going on over whether the article should be NPOV tagged, and with both editors already up to 3R. Maybe a week of protection would allow editors to get to the nitty, gritty real issues behind this dispute. I am part of the deeper dispute but not of this particular battle, SqueakBox 19:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still going on. Thanks to the vandalstic intentions of Some guy this request was removed and so the edit war continues, though nobody has yet broken the 3RR rule, SqueakBox 16:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No reverts since then, watchlisted in case it starts up again, but not protected for the time being. Dmcdevit·t 03:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdanov Affair again and again and again and ...

With all due respect to Tony Sidaway and others who say that the last thing to do to a page under constant vandalism attack, why not protect the article for a while, unprotect it for a short period of time allowing for legitimate edits (and more vandalism from the subject of the article), clean out the vandalism and POV edits, and reprotect it for another period of time? The reasons given (or not given) for leaving the article (which currently needs little legit modification) unprotected do not make sense. This is wasting many person's time. Can you please consider protecting the article for longer than 2 days (why not a week?), unprotecting it for a couple of hours (or a day, if you want) when the article will for sure be vandalized, then, in one effort, a NPOV admin can clean out the vandalism, leave in the edits from legit editors (not banned by ArbCom) and reprotect the article for this period of time again. We might not need more than a few cycles of this before the vandal finally gives up, but the status quo is that multiple WP admins and editors have to stand vigel at all times watching this damn thing (either that or let this banned vandal write his own vanity page). r b-j 15:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we had a slew of people blocked today. I'm going to protect the page for at least a day or two. Rbj might be right. We might have to do this a few times. Otherwise, it's too much of a drain on everyone. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to unprotect the article for awhile and let's hope it's quieter this time. We'll see. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for unprotection

Please place new requests at the top.

Disputed status of Gibraltar

This article has been the target of a troll called Ecemaml. Instead of protecting the article, the Ecemaml troll should be blocked and the article released.--Gibraltarian 11:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:DragonflySixtyseven

It's a bit hard to communiacte with a user whose talk page is protected. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's protected due to vandalism. Just give it a day or so and it should be unprotected. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Berlet

This page was blocked 16 Nov i.a.w. this request [1] and there is a pending request for arbitration related to user conduct concerning this page. I suggest that if user conduct is an issue, it's better to block the user than the page. Anyway, the registered users will presumably be on good behavior through the pendancy of the request for arbitration.--FRS 21:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not yet. I'm going to give it a few days yet. Passions are still too high for my liking. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second request. For the reasons given below, I'm renewing this request to unblock. -FRS 00:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism

Mel Etitis changed this page to a redirect and protected it. His edit summary claimed that "there was a clear consensus for redirect". Well, Mel himself did vote for redirect in the AfD for this article; however, the closing admin determined that Keep had received a plurality of the votes, and he closed it as a Keep. Mel feels that his argument for redirecting is better than that of the Keep voters, who he has characterized as "hate-filled Islamophobes". However, this should not allow him to override the results of the AfD and falsely claim a "clear consensus" when there is none. Babajobu 18:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Favor. I agree with this request. The best argument with which Μελ Ετητης defended his redirect [[2]], was that a page entitled Islamic fascism already existed, but this is false, because the Islamic fascism page, too, has been redirected. The redirection of Islamic fascism, was done by Cberlet after an AfD vote on Islamofascism that was closely split between keep and merge/redirect. At the time of the AfD vote, there were arguably sound arguments that the word is a neologism, and the subject was already covered by Islamic fascism. Those arguments disappear as a result of Cberlet's redirect. FRS 22:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected, if consensus is disputed (and the protecting admin also reverted) I'm wary or the protection. This should go to AN/I or somewhere else to ask for comments with regards to your specific complaints against the admin. Dmcdevit·t 09:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed status of Gibraltar

This page should be unprotected. Ecemaml is a troll whose sole objective was to get the page blocked. He should not be allowed to get away with this. Block HIM, but let the rest of us get on with it.--Gibraltarian 15:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected for now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will reprotect. Apparently I was being hasty and stepping into a mediation. My apologies. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Khalifa

[3] This page is being protected by probable Sunni individuals to promote tabloid style allegations against an American reformer of Islam (who was assasinated by Sunni terrorists. --User:H.yahya

The requester blanked referenced information several times, which led to the regrettable protection. See Talk:Rashad Khalifa. Thanks. --Ragib 09:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is only to a third party scan of a hearsay allegation published in a tabloid. There is absolutely no reference to actual court documents and no reference to the final court judgement on the issue, making it biased. The reference URL of the "Scan" in question itself belongs to "www.answering-christianity.com", a famous site promoted by Sunni Muslims and are openly anti-Rashad. The victim of the allegation, Rashad Khalifa, is also not alive and obviously cannot defend this defamation case. See Talk:Rashad Khalifa. Regards --User:H.yahya

That this page is being used to debate the article's content says to me that you're not working together well enough to lift the protection yet. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]