Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

[[:|WP:RFPP or WP:RFP]]

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

See Wikipedia:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection. If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and the date) below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting.

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

Please remove requests once they have been fulfilled, or once the requestee no longer wishes to make the request. Remember to avoid links within headings.

This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.

Current requests

Please place new requests at the top.

Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War

Please unprotect these two articles. They have been edited just twice in the past several days, based on discussions by the opposing editors, yet the reason incorrectly given for protection is "edit war continuing." -Rob

André Nilsen

Please unprotect André Nilsen. No reason for protection given at Wikipedia:Protected pages. anthony 警告 20:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I unprotected this on your earlier request today and deleted the protection stub that was left behind. The article text which was deleted by VfD a month ago was almost immediately reinserted by an anonymous user. Looks like this needs to stay protected. silsor 23:14, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Protecting an article on a bastardised version is absolutely not necessary. At the very least make it an encyclopedia article before you protect it. anthony 警告 23:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Donations for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

Donations for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake should be protected ASAP. Any further additions should be made by admins. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 15:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I personally can't justify this under wikipedia:protection policy and especially without support from other users. This is one of our most edited pages at the moment. silsor 16:15, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

This is a unique situation which does not seem to have occurred to the authors of the policy. There are, however, three conditions which concern "maintaining integrity" in some way, and the spirit of those conditions should be applied to this page given the scale of the disaster and the potential for scammers to take advantage of the humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake by abusing Wikipedia's openness. Wikipedia must not accidentally become associated with such predators. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 16:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I should mention Tompagenet also requests this. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 16:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the talk page you recommended that after protection, admins review links to be added. Why can't link review be done by non-admins on an unprotected page? There is a very large warning at the top of the page to keep viewers from falling into scam traps and direct them to the warnings and discussion on the talk page. silsor 17:50, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

The page would be much better if it didn't need that warning at all. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

However, without protection that's not going to happen. Agreed. If this page is protected, I'll put it on my watchlist and check at least every 12 hours for links which need adding/changing. Pak aran 02:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Michael Danby

Please protect Michael Danby, due to edit war. --HK 14:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit war indeed, didn't you revert that page just minutes before posting this request? silsor 15:22, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Be sure not to protect on the wrong version, silsor. anthony 警告 15:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I most certainly did revert it; User:Xtra has been reverting to a misleading version of the article, and has deleted the NPOV flag. Protect whichever version you like, but the reader should know that there is a dispute. --HK 15:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups

Please unprotect, thanks, antifinnugor 15:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No reason given. silsor 16:00, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

So that it can be edited by non-admins. anthony 警告 16:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree. Seems to be no reason the 3RR isn't enough to protect this page, for now. anthony 警告 16:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason to unprotect the page is that the vandalized page got protected. Thanks for unprotecting it in advance, It is protected now.antifinnugor

he asked for protection in the first place. Then, the wrong version got protected, and he is now trying to get it unprotected rather than seeking consensus (admittedly hopeless, in this case). dab (ᛏ) 19:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, User:Dbachmann vandalizes the page permanently. He admints openly, he wants to continue vandalizing. Therefore please unprotect it. Thanks, antifinnugor 20:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

so my admitting to "vandalize" this page is a reason to unprotect it? (not that vandalism has anything to do with this, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antifinnugor) sigh, the reverts will just continue, now that somebody has unprotected it. dab (ᛏ) 12:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, User:Michael Snow unprotected all pages yesterday as some kind of New Years' joke. See Special:Log/protect. silsor 12:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Al Hubbard (VVAW)

There appears to be a minor revert war breaking out over this article. One editor has reverted the article at least 3 times in the last 24 hours, and claims plagiarism. Despite requests by other editors, she will not explain or elaborate on her complaint in the Discussion pages - she simply keeps reverting. Perhaps a short-term protection until proper discussion is engaged. -Rob

Protected. silsor 20:27, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected: [1] silsor 00:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

...and the revert war continues, and the discussion page remains empty. -Rob

The plagarism has been explained to this user time and time again. It is getting a bit fucking ridiculous that he continues to find admins sympathetic to him.

Defenition of plagarism,

The use of mere facts, rather than works of creative expression, does not constitute plagiarism. For the latter, the issue of public domain works versus copyrighted works is irrelevant to the concept of plagiarism. For instance, it is legal for a student to copy several paragraphs (or even pages) of text from a public domain book, such as Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and then directly add these quotations to his or her own paper. However if these quotations were not clearly identified as to his or her source, then the student would be guilty of plagiarism, using another writer's work as if it were his or her own.

Now, the disputed text from the article.

Alfred H. Hubbard entered the Air Force in October 1952, re-enlisted twice and was honorably discharged in October 1966, when his enlistment expired. At the time of his discharge he was an instructor flight engineer on C-123 aircraft with the 7th Air Transport Squadron, McCord Air Force Base, Tacoma, Washington.

Now from a National Review article [2]:

Alfred H. Hubbard entered the Air Force in October 1952, re-enlisted twice and was honorably discharged in October 1966, when his enlistment expired. At the time of his discharge he was an instructor flight engineer on C-123 aircraft with the 7th Air Transport Squadron, McCord Air Force Base, Tacoma, Washington.

No "creative expression" use there; that appears to be a brief statement of facts from the subjects military file. So where is this alleged plagiarism?

The NRO article is quite specific on its source, and does not try to pass it off as original work as the anon is trying to do.

This anon has tried to claim that this was not him who was doing this, but after doing a simple IP trace it has become clear that all anon contributors to this article as well as VVAW and VVAW Winter soldier are from the same user.

I would also point out that the user in question has had a long history of plagiarism in VVAW related articles. [3] TDC 16:27, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your "Defenition of Plagarism." You might check the spelling of the word "of" in that title. Next, you might wish to recheck your supposed quote from the wiki-article - it is inaccurate, and not a quote at all. Or are you attempting to "pull one over on people?" Third, your article edits contain deletions of significant content completely unrelated to your above listed complaint. Was this an oversight on your part, or are you attempting to implement "stealth edits" without having to explain them? Forth, calling editors "idiot" isn't very productive, and could be construed as a personal attack. Finally, in your allegations of "history of plagiarism," might I suggest you be more specific in indicating the "user in question?" You may be required to back them up. I've found that admins, sympathetic or not, tend to strive toward resolving arguments, rather than promoting them. I apologize if that seems ridiculous to you, but I assure you there is no conspiracy against you here. Does the small addition I just made to the article clear up any confusion you may have? (I'll take your response on the Discussion page for that article, thanks.) -Rob

Sathya Sai Baba

I am not a substantive editor of this page however there is someone who has changed the page and removed most criticism and I have now reverted twice. I do not want to violate the three revert policy and since no one else has been reverting it (and the page has remained the more biased way for hours at a time) I did not know where else to place this complaint. So protect the page if you will, if there is some other more suitable means then that is fine as well. gren

I think protection would be an extreme measure for this case, two reverts of a questionable edit. You should have no problem finding someone who agrees with you. silsor 20:58, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Conner McKnight, Power Rangers: Dino Thunder

Revert war with User 62.252.128.15. There is an ongoing debate about the leader of Power Rangers Dino Thunder. The same user also keeps on clearing out the discussion page for Conner McKnight. I am trying to keep the article unbiased, but User 62.252.128.15 keeps on adding back his/her claims of Conner being the leader of the team. Andros 1337 02:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If this is indicative of the edits being made by 62.252.128.0 then I think blocking would be a better solution. silsor 21:06, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

User:Vacuum/Netoholic RfC

A certain user is vandalizing this page by adding speedy notices, despite the efforts of 3 different users to convince him that it is not a speedy. Please protect the talk page also. Vacuum c 17:21, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

This page is a copy of an uncertified Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Such pages are to be deleted, and "hiding" a copy in user: space is an attempt to do an end-run around the RfC process. -- Netoholic @ 19:47, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

This page is perfectly acceptable, it is obviously not a live RFC. What if it were deleted, and ten seconds later s/he recreated it with the same facts and comments, but without the RFC format? What then? Unacceptable content is grounds for deletion, presentation is not. silsor 20:12, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly oppose protection of this page. anthony 警告 19:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why? silsor 20:09, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Because if the page is protected only admins can edit it. anthony 警告 22:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Until we have per-user per-page protections this is the only way to keep people from editing pages, and traditionally requests to protect user pages are granted. silsor 23:47, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

There is a another way to keep one person from vandalising a page. Block him (although in this particular case Netoholic seems to have stopped making the questionable edits). And this isn't a user page, it's an RfC page which was moved under someone's user space. "We" may "traditionally" grant such requests, but I strongly oppose protection of this page. Many non-admins have made comments on this page, and they should be able to modify or add to those comments. Also, new people may wish to comment. Protecting the page in its current state is not at all proper. If this page consisted solely of comments by the user requesting protection it'd be a different story. anthony 警告 04:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's no need to protect this page. If Netoholic keeps tagging it for deletion, just revert him and explain that what people do with their own userpages is their own business, as long as it's legal and relevant to Wikipedia—and established conventions suggest that files on other users' behavior are relevant enough to keep around (I can point out numerous examples if necessary). That it's a copy of a deleted RfC is not, in itself, a reason to delete it. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this page shouldn't be deleted, but I don't think Vacuum should be able to do anything he or she wants on it. Specifically, in this case it is a discussion page, and should be freely editable by anyone. If it were clearly a page expressing the views of Vacuum, then I could see only letting Vacuum edit is, but that's not the case with this page, and so it shouldn't be protected. anthony 警告 23:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apparently Netoholic has also repeatedly attempted to speedy delete one of my subpages, actions of which I was unaware until informed the user had listed it on Votes for Deletion, knowing the VfD does not cover user spaces. - Amgine 05:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When was the VfD policy changed to not include "user spaces"?