Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

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 Please remove requests once they have been fulfilled or withdrawn.

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

Current requests

Please place new requests at the top.

Lyndon LaRouche

The edit war at the "Political Views" article has now spilled over into the "biography" article. Massive amounts of POV material are being injected. Please protect. --HK 03:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It might not be likely to be honored; as users Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper are considered to be operated by the same person. Can you confirm this, HK? Peter O. (Talk) 04:18, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

No, I cannot. SlimVirgin is engaging in a personal attack. --HK 04:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then try logging in as "Weed Harper". It doesn't seem like a personal attack. Peter O. (Talk) 04:30, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedialang

Please unprotect Template:Wikipedialang so that I can change "Gallego" to "Galego" as requested at Talk:Main Page and confirmed at gl:. —AlanBarrett 17:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made the changes you requested. Instead of unprotecting. BrokenSegue 19:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. —AlanBarrett 19:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chernobyl

User:Mikkalai is guilty of "sneaky vandalism" - Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos.

He has become the personal watchdog for this page and reverts all changes to suit his own persaonl opinion and agenda; namely, outright trying to hide, discredit and disassociate the very word Mugwort from it's true common name, Common Wormwood, and then all it's related biblical associations that follow.

Supposely, you are both in violation of Wikipedia:Three revert rule. However, I am going to be more gracious, and allow you both to resolve your differences on the Talk:Chernobyl page. If you are unable to resolve your dispute, you may ask at WP:RFM -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not. In my last edit I inserted the mention of "common wormwood" the anon guy so insisited. You better read a bit before jumping to conclusions. As for "sneaky vandalism", yes, I am a personal watchdog of the page (and of about 3,000 other pages) against vandals and kooks. You have a problem with this? Mikkalai 23:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

User:Vfp15 consistently vandalizes the article and has caused an edit war. While protection is not in the article's best interests, I request protection merely to draw administrative focus to the issue. This vandalism from User:Vfp15 must stop.

Adraeus 23:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I am protecting the page until it is resolved on the discussion page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Half-million pool

There's no trophy. Per Wikipedia:Protection policy, the page:

• is not a high-visibility page
• does not contain the site's logo
• is not a key copyright or license page
• is not a press release
• is not a system administration page
• is not in the MediaWiki namespace
• is not a user page or subpage thereof
• is not the target of an edit war
• is not the target of persistent vandalism
• is not the victim of a bug in the MediaWiki software

Vacuum c 21:03, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need to protect Wikipedia:Half-million pool, since we have such things as watchlists and edit histories, but now that it's protected I don't see any pressing need to unprotect it either. (Wikipedia:Million pool was originally included in this request, but I removed it since it isn't protected.) —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not terribly important, but I feel that protecting is anti-wiki and that all protects should be subject to serious consideration. Vacuum c 23:31, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

The reason that it is protected is that it was a poll. Historically, it looks like it should be static because it seems like to be a page where it represents everyone's guesses before the Wikipedia reachs a half-million articles. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We don't protect other polls, or even talk page archives. I'll unprotect unless anyone has strong objections. Cool Hand Luke 08:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd protect it after the Wikipedia gets really close to the 500,000 mark. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Unprotecting, and making the closed notice larger. Cool Hand Luke 08:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Eagle Scout

For some reason, I believe it's personal, someone calling themselves Sistertina keeps adding a paragraph about two kids from Chicago getting their Eagle rank. These two kids don't have any historical significance. There is no reason posted on the talk page for the changes. I'd rather not start an edit war about this. It seems to be a constant campaign by Sistertina. 4 or 5 other people have realized that the information doesn't belong in the article and have removed it.

Also, I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia, could someone explain why Sistertina has a username but no user page? Dismas 12:28, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've left a note on Sistertina's talk page about this (the reason there's no user page is simply because Sistertina hasn't created one). I don't think protection is necessary quite yet. --Michael Snow 18:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's been changed back to Sistertina's version. How long should we wait for a response from her? --Dismas 18:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Left a final warning on Sistertina's page, if s/he does not communicate s/he will be blocked for a while. silsor 19:34, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

User came back anonymously to revert after being warned, I'll try blocking for a few days. silsor 07:38, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

This turned out to be an AOL IP so it is not blockable. silsor 09:55, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sistertina has responded on Talk:Eagle_Scout. She seems to be determined in getting her way which, from my POV, is not a NPOV. These scouts have no significant historical impact. She also has been editing the List of Eagle Scouts to put Mr. Reed and Mr. White in that list. She also keeps taking names off of that list because, in her view, they do not live up to the Eagle Scout rank. They are Eagles who have become murderers. They have found a place in history however dubious. I'd also like to see that page protected now that I see that she has been changing that to suit her POV.

Sistertina has continued posting on List of Eagle Scouts the two names in addition to removing a murderer/rapist and a serial killer/pedophile from the list. Her justification is that the badges were forfeited when they deviated from the scouts standards and God's. here Segekihei 01:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please attempt to resolve this through dispute resolution, or try WP:RFM. If that has failed, you may attempt to take it to WP:RFAr. The page does not seem a need for protection as the user is not altering the page, unless that user is using the anonymous ips to do so. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See also

• Dispute resolution
• Vandalism in progress
• List of protected pages
• Protection policy
• Alternatives to the standard protection policy:
  • Wikipedia:Non-admin protection
  • Wikipedia:Two versions
• m:Protected pages considered harmful
• m:The Wrong Version
• Protection log