Current requests for protection

---

Ongoing dispute. Two editors want a certain version. The other editors want another. Revert war simmering. Full protection needed. Mayday! Mayday! --ScienceApologist 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Semi-Protection. Article is mostly disputed amongst Serbs, Croats and some others who think that they have to take a side. Reverts mostly appear in article introduction, mostly first few sentences. As Nikola Tesla was Serb by ethnicity, born in territories that was Kingdom of Croatia within (some might try to dispute this formulation, but it's verifiable) Austrian Empire, and now is Croatia, most of his life spent in America etc., everyone thinks that article introduction "has to be short, and there is no place for the other one". I suggest either formulation "...was world renowned inventor..."(which I prefer), or much longer version "...was etnical Serb, born in Smiljan, Lika, within Military Border, part of Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia within Austrian Empire (now Croatia), most of his fruitful life spent in United States of America..." (or something much like it)! Afterwards, I think, there should be some sort of protection of that introductory part. As for other parts of document, there is more or less a consensus on most of things, reverts don't occur, mostly just corraborated additions...-- Vladimirko 10:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting temporary Protection with revert to -flagged state.
Mediation to determine validity of reverts has been requested at Requests for mediation/Parsi.
-- Fullstop 10:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Protection. Should redirect to Brian Peppers, a protected page Clappingsimon Clappingsimon 09:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Semi-Protection. For several days now, anonymous users from the Ottawa, CA area have been engaging in an edit war involving this article about some Ottowa-area personality. -Seidenstud 04:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Although normally semi-protection would be a bad idea in an edit war, this edit war appears to be taking place ENTIRELY between IP editors. MangojuiceContributions/Mangojuice^Mangojuice 05:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed my mind. I blocked two of the IP editors for 3RR violations. Also, semi-protection isn't right now that I've thought about it some more. MangojuiceContributions/Mangojuice^Mangojuice 12:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Semi-Protection. There is recurring vandalism on this bio of a recently died senior communist leader. //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anil_Biswas arijit 07:19, 18 July 2006 (IST)

Requesting Semi-Protection. Anonymous user keeps creating/editing spam content about a specific game clan, has been cited for creating spam-only article. (assuming it's the same user) -- Yukichigai 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, why exactly isn't the article name template dealie working like all the other requests? -- Yukichigai 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Parenthesis were used instead of brackets. I fixed it :) Cowman109^Cowman109 02:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Semi-Protection. Around 5 reverts over last hour. A lot of vandalism and changes in number of casualties. 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Hello32020 18:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferick is continuing his solo crusade to remove any reference to Kosovo's history or the other autonomous province in Serbia from the article's intro. Please put under full protection temporarily so that a snap poll can be carried out to demonstrate consensus. -- ChrisO 06:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting "permanent semi-protection". This is my user page that is beinig vandalized by people at my school. Well, it is only people who know about it. I have never done this before, so tell me if I have done something incorrect. -Pg8 18:17, 16 July 2006 (EST) I'll protect it but I'm not sure it'll be permanent since it's only one user and it's only been for a few days. --Woohookitty^Woohookitty 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Semi-Protection. Constant vandalism and misinformation coming only from IP addresses and newer accounts. IP addresses keep making extreme formatting changes and vandalism is introduced at the same time. — Moe Epsilon 18:57 July 16 '06

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice of All 06:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

08:12, 14 July 2006 blocked with an expiry time of 1 week (trolling). Since this user has been blocked, they were reblocked indefinitely and have added a an anti-wikipedia slogan which containes the f-word and blames the Jews, and it is a very angry face! Myrtone86

PS given the highly abusive glovepuppetry, I suggest a report sent to the relevant ISP about cutting the internet connection of the user's ip adress (I think this users behaviour is bad enough to be banned from the internet).

Current requests for unprotection

---

Semi-protection is overboard for this article. Sure it gets vandalized, but only once or so a day. Nothing a simple revert can't fix. Please unprotect it. Ardenn 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of edits on the article over the past week or so have either been vandalism or reverts. Please leave the semi-protection in place for at least a day or two to try to discourage the vandal(s?). Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that User Ardenn has a conflict of interest in that his user page states that he is a member of the Green Party and is a supporter of another candidate. --Atrian 21:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

GrantNeufeld is President of the Green Party of Alberta, he has a conflict as well. That aside, it has nothing to do with this. This article simply doesn't get vandalized often enough to warrent semi-protection. Other articles have been denied it for more. Ardenn 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A troll inserted a picture into the article that attacked an admin. The admin responded by protecting the page. That is inappropriate use of page protection. Delete the picture (restore the old version) and deal with the troll. SchmuckyTheCat 17:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No reason to unprotect this article. There is a huge encyclopedia filled with information for you to update and vandalism to revert that does not involve repeatedly attacking a valuable contributor to this project. Hipocrite - Hipocrite 17:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

excuse me? there are two edits from a troll, that does not merit page protection. deal with the troll. don't "for you" anything, because I'm not the troll. Maybe you'd like to rescind that part of your response. SchmuckyTheCat 17:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting the page means that we'll have to deal with pernicious vandalism from multiple sources. Protecting the page means that multiple sources will get bored and go away. You'll have to do something else while waiting for them. There's a pretty good discussion about , and random article gave me Mitesh_Patel. Hipocrite - Hipocrite 17:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reprotected this article with myself as protecting admin. Wikipedia isn't to be used for harassment. --Tony Sidaway 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect - Policy says to revert vandalism, not protect, on high-profile pages. From the FULL policy,

When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is not appropriate to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself. - emphasis mine

Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice, a link to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article, unless there is widespread agreement that the page was protected in violation of these policies. - original protecting admin edited article after protetion to REMOVE (not revert) the image. It is possible to keep the old image without having the new, harassing one.

Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over. - alsoviolated by original protecting editor. And with no discussion anywhere, except an intimidation message to the offending editor. Karwynn Karwynn 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify. I am not 'the offending editor' and I have absolutely ZERO clue as to why he would say such things to me, be accusatory and creepy like that or use those strangely veiled threats. It's kinda weird, imo. Either way, at this point both a link to the site and the screenshot image have been removed following the protection. Wikipedia admins are just having their way with the article and refusing to let regular editors edit it. It's rather disheartening to see. --Bouquet 04:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I consider any admin that encyclopedia dramatica criticizes on their website to have bias, POV, and edit dispute in the article. There's thousands of admins so I think it's easy to find one not mentioned. Personally, there is GTBacchus who is also an admin that watches the article (he may be away). The rest of the admins that watch the article do so as a result of being flamed on the website -- I'm not advocating the flames, I'm just saying it's bias. Basically, it's the same reason people aren't allowed to edit articles about themselves. DyslexicEditor 18:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like MONGO banned the editor who did the edits to the article yesterday and the edits stopped maybe 12 hours before the page was protected. DyslexicEditor 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we please change the protecting admin to someone NOT criticized on encyclopedia dramatica? DyslexicEditor 18:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

These people actually exist? o.O (SCNR) --ContiE|ContiE 18:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that now Mongo is editing the article while under page protection. There has yet to be a justifiable reason for the page protection, and this is tiring already. --Badlydrawnjeff Badlydrawnjeff 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that MONGO, who complained of personal attacks, has vandalized encyclopedia dramatica with personal attacks under the name "MONGO1" and then impersonated ex-bureaucrat "Ed Poor" by using his name to make more personal attacks on encyclopedia dramatica. I would offer links as proof, by MONGO has ordered me not to link to them.

Quoting NPA, "While you may not be directly penalised for off-wiki attacks, they may be taken as aggravating factors when any on-wiki policy violations are being considered. For example, they can be used as evidence of bad faith in the dispute-resolution process, or as evidence in ArbCom cases." I read somewhere that off-wiki impersonation of wikipedia users is also prohibited by wikipedia's rules. DyslexicEditor 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps as there is a question of bias with certain admins/editors over this article, this needs to be reviewed on a higher level above any of the admins presently involved. Concensus (by numbers here and on the actual talk page) would seem to support this. Perhaps a vote? Rootology 00:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think it'd solve it, fine, but the irony is that everyone who's actively involved in the editing agrees with everyone else. There is no actual conflict to speak of, with the exception of one person who's fired up and violated protection policy to deal with it. --Badlydrawnjeff Badlydrawnjeff 12:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I was uninvolved with this article until this morning. And the trolling with respect to this article is still going on as recently as a few hours ago this morning. It's too early to remove preventative protection on this page, and I am disappointed at the cavalier attitude many editors here have about personal attacks coming from users of the ED site. Please get your heads on straight. NoSeptember/Signature11 13:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you please provide diffs to demonstrate the multiple personal attacks and the "recent trolling?" Perhaps demonstrate that it's an ongoing issue as opposed to one that can be handled by simple reversion? --Badlydrawnjeff Badlydrawnjeff 13:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Been protected since June 23. Discussion goes away from the original reason for protection and becomes less and less. At least two admins had tended to unprotect it. But due to no requests from editors, no action is done yet. Now I request to unprotect it. Thanks. Fnhddzs 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

this wonderfull little girl has been ruthlessly voted out of Big Brother UK BB7 UK, she is going to have a very successfull career outside BB, MUCH better than Jade Goody Chantelle_Houghton she needs her own page.. PLEASE un protect her page. the rules are that a page for housemates isnt allowed, she is no longer a housemate but a MAJOR UK celebrity. Aarandir 18:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

She is not a major UK celebrity, and should not have her own article until she does something notable other than Big Brother. — FireFoxFireFox 10:04, 17 July '06

The page no longer needs {{deleted page}} and has been turned into a GUSified userbox by JzG. Unprotect it for now. -- ADNghiem501 23:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

---

Should be unprotected and moved to Template:User Anarchosyndicalist --helohe helohe 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Done.Voice of All 07:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fullfilled/denied requests

---

Requesting Semi-Protection. Vandalism by the exclsuon of opposing views by pro-repatation activists --Atrian 14:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Semi protected. Jossi Jossi • Emailuser/Jossi 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just found someone attempting a cut and paste move on the article, but looking back at the edit history, there's a move war going on. This page needs move protection. I ask the administrator to be careful when protecting the page, in spite of The Wrong Version, please make sure you protect whatever page version actually has an edit history, not a cut and paste version (if my de-cut-and-paste gets reverted). Right now the talk page is 'mobile' between the two versions, but the main page isn't since someone did a cutandpaste. Kevin Breitenstein 07:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a bit more to this story, please see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Battle_of_Deir_Yassin.2FDeir_Yassin_massacre:_move_poll_closure_review_requested. -- KimvdLinde ^KimvdLinde 09:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Been protected for weeks. No sign of vandals. It's probably safe to unlock it for now. Mike Garcia 00:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Move-protected only now. Voice of All 07:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No discussion has taken place for quite a long time. Pecher ^Pecher 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice of All 06:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting move protection, either permanent, or temporary until policy question regarding involuntary userfication has been clarified. — WCityMike (talk • Contributions/WCityMike) 02:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Protection is a last resort, not a first resort. The page has been moved just once and there have been no other editors besides yourself. I'd suggest talking this out with the user who wants to move the page first. --Woohookitty^Woohookitty 06:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting move protection, either permanent, or temporary until policy question regarding involuntary userfication has been clarified. — WCityMike (talk • Contributions/WCityMike) 02:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Protection is a last resort, not a first resort. The page has been moved just once and there have been no other editors besides yourself. I'd suggest talking this out with the user who wants to move the page first. --Woohookitty^Woohookitty 06:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Semi-Protection. Page keeps getting vandalised by various IPs and some users (who continue to repeat the offence). Page keeps getting vandalised saying that that subject of the article is a gay porn star and has had relationships with other high profile celebrities. --BenjMartin 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Not enough for semi-protection. It can be easily reverted. --Woohookitty^Woohookitty 06:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection. Various AOL IPs have persisted in vandalizing this article by deleting the entire plot section without explanation, or with frivolous explanations. Please see the discussion of this issue on John254#The_Messenger:_The_Story_of_Joan_of_Arc. John254 16:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to Protection_policy#Uses Semi-protection_policy at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice of All 06:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection; IP vandals are making work extremely difficult with numerous reversions, edit conflicts, and the need to constantly search the history. Tewfik^Tewfik 16:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to Protection_policy#Uses Semi-protection_policy at this time. The page is well watchlisted too, and simply get a lot of edits (see stats below). Voice of All 06:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

657.534 edit(s) per day (current)

692.308 edit(s) per day (since last active)

131.538 marked revert(s) per day (since last active)

1 : 0.23 regular edit to marked revert ratio (RE:RV)

Requesting temporary semi-protection. Over the last 72 hours, this article on an online game has been repeatedly vandalized by anonymous users attempting to announce who the best player is, denounce other players, generally vandalize, blank the page out, or otherwise. It's getting out of hand--I've reverted for the third and final time today. I'm guessing everyone's coming here from message boards or the game itself; perhaps a temporary semi-protect will turn some of them away. -- HumbleGod (^HumbleGod/_{Contributions/HumbleGod}) 08:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to Protection_policy#Uses Semi-protection_policy at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice of All 06:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This article attracts way too many vandals/trolls. IP users with similar IP adresses are constantly vandalizing the page (EX:It gets tiresome reverting the article. It needs to be Semi-Protected, or we need to get an anti-vandal bot especially for that page. (EX 2:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dragon_Ball_Z:_Budokai_Tenkaichi_2&diff=prev&oldid=64136448 this topic was discussed twice on the talk page, and the outcome of the debate is obviousley being ignored by the IP adresses. KojiDude (KojiDude) 18:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to Protection_policy#Uses Semi-protection_policy at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice of All 06:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at it now. There's been alot of activity scince you turned down the request. KojiDude (KojiDude) 20:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to vandalism on the 11th; a high profile page due an unprotection. --Robdurbar 17:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected by Theresa knott. Voice of All 06:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This page does not need to be protected because of such an inconsequential debate as whether one should use AD/BC or CE/BCE. Also, the proposal put forward which was important in the protecting in this page has ended and was rejected. It does not even include the initials AD,BC,CE or BCE. Professoryak 17:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Un-protected by Tony Sidaway. Voice of All 06:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The following articles removed from the template definitely belong there:

1. Bybee memo. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism. 2. Combatant Status Review Tribunal. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism. 3. Extraordinary rendition. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism. 4. Long War. The Bush Administration has callen the War on Terrorism that. 5. Unitary executive theory. It is about the prisoners captured during the War on Terrorism. 6. U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Do I need to explain? 7. Detroit Sleeper Cell. This was certainly not a main event.

The following articles were added, and shouldn't have been:

1. 2002 Bali bombing. This was not a main event. If the Madrid and London attacks are not listed, why this one? 2. Hambali. His organzation's article is listed, and has a link to his. 3. Khadaffy Janjalani. His organzation's article is listed, and has a link to his. 4. Shamil Basayev. His organzation's article is listed, and has a link to his. 5. Moscow theater hostage crisis. The Second Chechen War article is listed, and has a link to it.

Notice that the articles that belong there even the template, and the ones that don't doesn't have it.

As the Second Chechen War and the Al-Aqsa Intifada are ongoing conflicts, they should be listed as "Contemporaneous conflicts", just as the other war templates have that section.

Also, why were the borders of the flags removed? Esaborio 06:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The AGF issues that started the Edit war do not yet seem to have been resolved. It is also too soon to assume that the editors have lost enough interest. Consider adding to the page's talk page to request small modifications, or making a significant edit request on this page for large edits that are agreed upon. Voice of All 06:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Semi-Protection. Page is frequently vandalized by anonymous users. The controversy is discussed (well, not really; the vandals don't discuss, they just revert) on FR's talk page, under the heading "Revert War." Gordongekko909 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC) There is not enough recent activity to Protection_policy#Uses Semi-protection_policy at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. --Woohookitty^Woohookitty 06:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)