Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

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 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, 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.

Russian architecture

An unresolved edit war over NPOV, including non-stop name-calling and accusations in edit summaries. —Michael Z. 2005-11-11 20:30 Z

Done, see how it goes. G-Man 20:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Scott Keith

Substantial vandalism by anonymous editors, some subtle, some blatant. McPhail 16:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

List of alternative rock artists

Repeatiately vandalized by someone who adds musicians indiscriminantly (that is, he adds musicians who are obviously not alternative). The vandal uses an anonymous IP, and switches to adifferent one every time. -- LGagnon 05:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

White Australia policy

Repeated vandalism (removal of paragraphs at least 20 times) [1] and the occasional POV edit (once or twice) [2] from an Anon IP who won't ever discuss changes or use the talk page. Agnte 19:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hampton School

Has received a lot of vandalism in the last couple of days. Protection for a week should hopefully prevent it recurring, until the culprits get bored. Bluap 13:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Test

Getting hit every few seconds by someone/thing with a multitude of IPs at their disposal, which they change every one or 2 times. 68.39.174.238 03:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair

I know this is an old perenial issue, but the article is in a very stable condition from everyone's perspective, except the subject of the article who is banned by the ArbCom from Wikipedia (and most certainly from editing this article), who does not submit to the ArbCom's injunction, and who vandalizes the article repeatedly under an unending list of sock-puppets. 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? Protecting this article from the tenatious and repeated vandalism of Igor Bogdanov is very costly in hours of time of the admins and legitimate editors of Wikipedia. r b-j 20:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've protected it for now due to the seemingly endless edit war, to allow things to cool down a bit. It should probably be left for a few days, but it cant be protected on a permanent basis 'cause that is against the spirit of wikis. G-Man 21:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

i understand. i have officially proposed to the ArbCom that a modus operandi (sp?) might be to protect it for a week (or whatever length of time they choose), unprotect it for hours, clean it, and reprotect it again until the subject of the article (almost exclusively vandalizing it) might finally give up. that's the only solution i can think of that allows editors and admins to not have to pay attention constantly. thanks G-man. r b-j 21:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Democracy & Nature

The administrators of Wikipedia must honor and protect the history of the Advisory Board that the Editorial Board has written. The person who is changing the entry seems to want to alter the importance of D&N as if Bookchin and Castoriadis were its originators. I support the EB and request that Wikipedia protect it. User: john November 11, 2005

Thank you for the advice and we fully realise that the site is not ours provided however that EVERYBODY understands this! We notice however that although we provided a series of reasons why no differentiation in the listing of Advisory Board members has ever been made by our journal (and as far as we know no other journal for that matter) you have not provided a SINGLE reason why we have to adopt the ludicrous distinction between first and second class members of the Advisory Board, the former being entitled to separate sections on them and the latter just being entitled to the simple mentioning of their name! If Wikipedia would like to introduce such politically biased practices (based, as in this case, on the arbitrary judgement of a user) we would prefer to withdraw our entry altogether rather than cooperate with such an arbitrarily differentiating practice which insults most of our Advisory Board members. (Member of the Editorial Board)

Please bear in mind that once you post it here, it's not yours anymore. If you want complete creative control, leave it on your own site.--SarekOfVulcan 17:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Could we avoid for once technicalities and concentrate on the substance of the matter? Of course, after the unprotection, we had to correct the blatant inaccuracies of Paul Cardan as regards the history of the Editorial Board and also concerning his arbitrary decision that two of our IAB members (Castoriadis and Bookchin) were the 'main theoretical influences of the journal'! This was the whole point of the dispute between the Editorial Board and several users who supported us here on the one hand and Paul Cardan in the other. It is clear that SarekOfVulcan, not well informed about the exchanges and having no idea of what the dispute was about he restored Paul Cardan's section on Bookchin and Castoriadis, simply changing the title from 'Main Theoretical Influences' to ‘International Advisory Board Members'. For the reasons I described below , it is totally unacceptable to draw such distinctions between IAB members . Furthermore, an Encyclopedia should be as neutral as possible in presenting political information and obviously the arbitrary decision to emphasise the supposed 'enormous' significance of two members of our Board (whose articles published in the journal is in fact a minuscule proportion of the total number of articles published in it) is ludicrous. This is why we changed this section again and replaced it with one presenting all members of the IAB on an equal basis. We hope the administrators would support this fair and unbiased presentation of the composition of our IAB and protect the relevant entry from Paul Cardan’s vandalism. (Member of the Editorial Board).

I would like to point out that the first edit after the unprotection was by the IP that made the below comment, and the content of the edit was a wholesale revert, with no edit summary. --SarekOfVulcan 15:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Could the administrators protect the D&N page from somebody under the nickname 'Paul Cardan', who has continued vandalising the page, as soon as you unlocked it? In his systematic effort to belittle the journal and present it as simply reflecting the views of two members of the International Advisory Board (Bookchin and Castoriadis) --presumably because of his connections with these writers or their associates--he first added a ludicrous section yesterday night in which he presented in detail, under the title 'International Advisory Board members', the work of these two members, ignoring all the other members and insulting in the process such people as Steve Best, Pierre Bourdieu, Noam Chomsky, Gunder Frank, Serge Latouche, Harold Pinter and others. After this ridiculous entry was replaced by a new one in which ALL members of the Board were mentioned equally, he came back today, vandalising again the D&N page with two paragraphs (of exactly the same content as yesterday) devoted to the same two writers and just mentioning the names of the others! THe Editorial Board of The International Journal for Inclusive Democracy (which has succeeded D&N of which I am a member) finds totally unacceptable such distinctions to be made between the honorable members of our International Advisory Board in order to satisfy the whims of a single user. Furthermore, we think that Wikipedia's reliability could not be enhanced by the arbitrary decision of every 'Paul Gardan'(!) to decide who of the IAB members is important (in general, or for D&N in particular) at the expense of all the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.127.105 (talk • contribs)

I request the administrators protect D&N entry 23.18 dated Jan. 7, 2005. This material needs to be protected so the webmaster can protect against malicious changes. User:jason November 10,2005

I am asking that the administrators to protect the D&N entry 23.18 of Jan. 7, 2005. I am in agreemnet with the EB of D&N. Protecting the entry from individuals who give mis- information is needed.User:arunaNov.10,2005

I am supporting the EB of D&N in their request to protect the D&N entry 23.18 as originally uploaded on Jan. 7, '05, since it is being vandalized. User:john November 9, 2005

The user with IP number 130.126.8.84 (Paul Cardan(!)-- (P.C.), who vandalised repeatedly the page on Democracy & Nature, which was uploaded by me as the webmaster of the International Journal of Inclusive Democracy that has succeeded and continued the work of D&N, continues his vandalism even here. He moved our correspondence arbitrarily to “requests for unprotection" because he decided (democratically enough!) that we do not understand what we need. Clearly, either this guy does not know how to read, or deliberately aims to confuse the administrators, so that he will be free to continue his vandalism. As the letter by the member of the EB put it, “We hope that the wikipedia entry on D&N that we provided at 23.18 on January 7 (here P.C. even insults us as “probably drunk” because of the obvious mistake in the month) will be uploaded again AND BE PROTECTED against any further vandalism by Paul Cardan”. For anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of English it is therefore clear that we requested from the admins not just to unprotect the D&N page but to restore the page which P.C. repeatedly reverted and then protect it from his vandalism.

Secondly, he mischieously quotes the Wikipedia rules to justify his vandalism. It is clear however that any self-respecting encclopedia aims first of all to provide as much as possible accurate information otherwise it becomes a useless tool of knowledge. Surely, Wikipedia aims to provide realiable information and not just to satisfy the whims of any user. So, although users should help in improving entries, this should never be at the expense of realiability. And, surely, the people involved in publishing a journal are much better qualified in providing accurate information about such things as the history of the composition of the Editorial Board, the aims of the journal, the names of important contributors etc . Still, it is exactly on this sort of factual information that P.C exercised his vandalism repeatedly when reverting our page. It is also indicative that this guy not only kept reverting our page but he had the nerve to request protection of his page—a protection which he unfortunately got because of an obvious mistake by an admnistrator. No wonder that, as the history of this page shows, he kept uploading today the present intervention of his every five minutes or so, with the obvious aim to keep it at the top of the list of requests.

Thirdly, he pathetically attempted to justify his addition of an entire new section entitled “Main theoretical influences” –which, though legitimate of course in discussing the bio of a writer, it is unheard of for a journal! His ludicrous justification is that “the journal was known because of Murray Bookchin and Cornelius Castoriadis”. Surely, P.C. carried out a comprehensive poll among all readers of D&N and derived his wise conclusion ! We are sure that Wikipedia will not host this sort of ridiculous assertions which will not contribute at all to its reliability. Not to mention, that this is insulting for many intellectuals that have contributed to the journal, e.g. Chomsky, Boggs, Latouche and others.

Anyway, as far as the Editorial Board is concerned, I am authorised to state that unless Wikipedia are willing and able to protect our page from the vandalism of P.C., we would like to withraw the entry altogether and, in case P.C. attempts in the future to upload an unauthorised page on D&N with this sort of inaccurate and mischievous information, we will take all necessary measures to protect the name of the journal. User: Narap43

i) How can the information I have contributed be considered "inaccurate and mischievous" given that I have offered specific links to texts published in the journal itself???

ii) I insist that all this should be in the section "requests for unprotection" given that the page is now protected.

iii) "he kept uploading today the present intervention of his every five minutes or so, with the obvious aim to keep it at the top of the list of requests" These people obviously do not know how Wikipedia works.

iv) To the Wikipedia administrators: I'd like to apologize (event though it is not my fault) that all this "dialogue" is taking up space here and not on the Talk page of the relevant entry. These people however think they rule the world or something. What they are asking for is ridiculous: I am providing specific links to specific texts from the journal and all they can do is howl that it should all be deleted. If people like them had won out, the history of the Soviet Union would have been written by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union!!!

--User: PaulCardan 00:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed! Paul Cardan(!) can easily justify everything under the sun provided he speaks in sufficiently general terms to disguise his inability to give specific answers to the concrete questions raised by User: Narap43. For example, the “specific links to texts published in the journal itself” are of course irrelevant if they were taken out of context and therefore could not justify the conclusions he derives about why “the journal was known” and, consequently, his arbitrary introduction of a section about “Main Theoretical influences”. Furthermore, this kind of ’explanation’ does not cover the grossly inaccurate view of the history of the Editorial Board that he offered, the selective presentation of the main contributors according to his own personal interests and tastes and so on. Finally, the fact that he has now resorted to insulting the Editorial Board, without attempting to provide any real answers to their accusations concerning his vandalism, is revealing of his desperate position but also of his ulterior motives all along to defame the journal.

Might I suggest you try following the Dispute resolution procedures, instead of making vague threats and repeatedly reverting without edit summaries or commenting on the Talk:Democracy & Nature talk page?--SarekOfVulcan 03:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Might we ask why you did not suggest the same procedure from the beginning but instead you acted quickly to protect the version of D&N that constituted an obvious act of vandalism against the version offered by the Editorial Board itself? All we are asking is that one of the administrators reads carefully all the exchanges between the Editorial Board and the so-called ‘Paul Cardan’, and then unlocks our page and protects the updated version we published at 23:18 on 7 November 2005 (which took on board several changes made by ‘Cardan’ but discarded all inaccurate factual material) against further attacks by him. We do not have any intention of wasting any more of our time in talking to this person and if you are not willing and able to protect our page (which is supported by the entire editorial board as well as third parties (see e.g. User:john) then we would like, as we have - we suppose - the right, to withdraw the entry on D&N. In case however, this person continues to upload his own version of the history of D&N with Wikipedia’s protection, we will have no other option but publicly to dissociate ourselves from this grossly distorted picture of the journal which defames all the important work that went into it for over ten years—something that will obviously not enhance Wikipedia’s effort to be a reliable source of information.

On behalf of the Editorial Board

The webmaster

)

Talk:Anus

This page has been under attack from anonymous link spammers using a variety of different IPs for the last couple of days now. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thumbshot

Dear admins, I'm asking for your help. I'm the webmaster of Thumbshots.org and I am the original author of the page Thumbshot. My page is frequently vandalized by an anonymous user who keeps changing my text and adding words to Girafa trying to distort our definition. The word Thumbshot is our brand and trademark and should only refer to Thumbshots.org. Please place a protection lock on the page to prevent further vandalism. Thank you and sincerely yours.

User:Antoshi

I noticed today that my userpage has been frequently vandalized by an anonymous user. If possible I would like to request a temporary page lock since I don't think I'll be editing it any time soon. --Antoshi 04:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected. Good luck Antoshi. FeloniousMonk 04:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Mario Kart DS

This page is currently experiencing repeated vandalism by various anonymous users coming from GameFAQs. (See these topics from the Mario Kart DS message board at GameFAQs: [3], [4].) Jason One 01:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems that vandalism has subsided. If vandalism ensues again, I will protect. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 11:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The vandalism has continued today. It's less frequent, but is still ongoing. Jason One 01:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Adi Shankara

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) insists on mass reverting my edits. Some of them could be discussed (such as my position that there were too many small sections and too many duplicate internal links, and my editing to improve style and grammar), some of them are clear (such as my correction of internal links), but he reverts them all, refusing to discuss them, or to respond to my explanations (beyond making personal remarks about me on the Talk page and in edit summaries). Could someone protect the page in order to force him to discuss the edits in question rather than merely reverting them? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you the take it to the talk page, or his talk page, first. Or some other WP:RR. With only two edits today, I'm uncomfortable protecting it. Dmcdevit·t 23:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected. A history of reverts going back to 28 October is reason enough. FeloniousMonk 01:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Haldane's Dilemma

The page "Haldane's dilemma" keeps getting reverted by user user:Duncharris to a version which is factually incorrect (he said it was to do with tacking substitution times one after another this is complete nonsense). I wrote an edit as a stepping stone to something more comprehensive (I saw little point in writing a time consuming comprehensive edit as I knew that a NPOV article that would please everyone would take a number of attempts). I've requested people talk to me in the discussion page and left a message on Duncharris's page but he continues to revert it back to his nonsensical edit. I'm asking for protection (of the longer rough edit) until people are willing to talk where they should: in the discussion page cheers - Graham

You're trying to replace an article with your own rough draft, complete with smiley, which amounts to an unsourced personal essay. Duncharris is right to revert you. See note on your talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay fair enough the draft was rough but it was correct although I anticipated some controversy over whether it was POV or not (it's a hot topic which i wanted presented accurately and I left sections for people to present solutions to haldane's dilemma) which is why I made it rough. I'll do a referenced article later. This request for protection may be removed (although if another edit war occurs over the proper essay without discussion in the discussion section I'll make another request) cheers

Ravnica

There seems to have been a three day long edit war, please protect this page so it can be sorted out. Jack Cain 02:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Threatening in an edit summary to kill someone probably isn't a good idea, though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Gothic metal

Two editors have reverted that article 23 times each today (going back and forth every several minutes), and I've reported them on WP:AN/3RR. They seem to be using their edit summaries rather than the talk page for arguing back and forth. Please protect the page (in the somewhat cleaned-up version) for a few days to ensure that we get real discussion on the talk page, not a revert war. --Idont Havaname 17:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to mention I protected this. I protected this. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

WMVY

At least one anon (from multiple IPs) seems to be repeatedly molesting this article, changing the one external link in the article for the most part to random Martha's Vineyard-related websites that nevertheless have nothing to do with WMVY. Not quite sure what to make of this -- the vandal has been active for several weeks. Haikupoet 05:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see enough vandalism (or activity for that matter) to protect. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Miss World

The article for "Miss World" is incorrect. The 2005 winner has not been chosen. In addition, the name listed for the 2005 winner has nothing to do with the event at all. Thanks!

The statement above is correct. Miss World 2005 wil be crowned on December 10th. The 2005 winner listed on the page is actually the winner of Mrs. World.

Rajput

User:Shiraj Singh was blocked for 3RR. He is using an anonymous IP address to evade his block and insert POV and off-topic text into article. Editors who oppose this text include User:Zora, User:Taaoo, User:Supersaiyan, User:Tom Radulovich and myself. He is also using the talk page to bait Muslims into a flame war. — goethean ॐ 17:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm also included الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 17:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

All these aforementioned users are either muslims or support muslim propaganda POV. No rajpput agrees with them. They do not provide any citations just there agenda. Also if you ask them questions they try and subvert the topic of discussion. As is also obvious they want to play the numbers game and want to outshout you. Now they have resorted to false accusations against me personally that I am impersonating others on wikipedia. Some action should be taken against them for making blatant false accusations repeatedly.

Shivraj Singh 04:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Democracy & Nature

The user with the IP # 212.205.107.171 keeps changing the page back to an old, ugly and shorter page. I am thus forced to revert it to its correct form at least once every single day .I know that the information contained in the sections he keeps deleting is totally accurate (and in any case he isn't substituting them with something else, but simply deleting them!). Could something be done to protect the page? PaulCardan 16:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have ceased. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, but apparently it hasn't stopped. If you check the page's history you'll see that the guy/girl who's doing this (and is now using variable IP's) is probably really determined! :-( PaulCardan 15:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected now. Dmcdevit·t 23:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks a lot! And at least this way (with the notice you put up) if it's not a knucklehead but someone with actual reasoning skills that will be clarified on the talk page. PaulCardan 1:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry

There is an on going, year long edit war in the section John Kerry#First Purple Heart over using the word 'minor' in discussing Kerry's wound. The User:Rex071404 is pitted against User:Gamaliel and User:JamesMLane among others. I tried to add the sentence: "Kerry's detractors consider this wound "minor" while other people don't." But, that doesn't seem to placate the parties. CuinnDubh 19:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A year long edit war - and you want protection. What for a another year or two? No way. I suggest you try WP:DR filling a 'request for comment' may be the best way if no compromise is possible.--Doc (?) 19:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

While it may be a long-term dispute, a major edit war has erupted in just the last few days. It's been going on until today too (this request is a few days old). I'm temporarily protecting. Dmcdevit·t 23:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! There is so much POV being pushed in this edit war that it makes the whole section on Kerry's first Purple Heart unusable as a reference work. CuinnDubh 01:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I talk 'til I am blue in the face over and then, other editors like Mr. Tibbs (a sock?) and a bunch of anons swoop in and with no dialog, revert every edit I make. Also, only a few of those who make reverts dialog to any degree there (Talk:John Kerry. And, I've several times pressed a few of my editorial foils there to agree on some rules of thumb by which we could iron things out, but I was rebuffed. If we had say a 10 point list of an elucidated disput resolution framework and held ourlelves to it, we could get to resolution. I've asked my key foil JamesMLane to lay out a framework with me, but he refused. We have editing guidelines already. What we need is a workable dispute resolution framework. I've made suggestions. No one else there has. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Just thought you might like to know, he is the anon, he's been having a revert war with, check for yourself, it's funny really, he doesn't even bother changing ports after logging back in--IKnowWho^{(Gee, I'm a sockpuppet, how unexpected)} 00:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Attention: I think we need protection again. It's been all of 40 hours since Titoxd unprotected the page and we've had 80 edits. And it's the same old stuff. We still have a dispute over whether or not Kerry's einjury that got him his first purple heart is a "wound" and whether or not it was "non serious". The problem is that we have a consensus, but Rex is fighting it...so...it's still an edit war. Please reprotect. It's exhausting trying to follow all of this. protection is needed. The thing is...it doesn't make Wikipedia look real professional to have an important article changed twice an hour. Dmc is right above. It's a year long battle, but we're in a major flare up right now. It's so bad that some of us can't even follow what's going on. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Nintendo GameCube

User:Xizer and User:GoldDragon have been reverting each other's edits way over the three edit rule and their discussion is going nowhere. They are argueing over the wording of a passage about the gamecube's success. The page needs to be protected until a group consensus can be found. -- User:Jedi6 October 30, 2005

The passage being referred to calls the console "kiddie," a common, yet untrue assumption. It is strictly POV and does not belong in the article. I removed this section to clean it up, but GoldDragon seems to be enjoying trolling it. Xizer 04:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Can't we just block the revert warriors for 24 hours? Phil Sandifer 05:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Calm it down, children. We are having a discussion on the talk page of the article. There is no need for any blocking to be done. Xizer 18:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars

There has been a long edit war on this page between myself, User:Copperchair, and several other users. Recently, Copperchair has been removing large portions of text from the page against consensus, as well as modifying the page to fit his standards, rather than what the community wants. In light of User:TheCoffee protecting the other pages Copperchair disrupts, I am requesting that this page be protected until we can settle this on the article's discussion page. The Wookieepedian 06:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's see if the Arbcom issues a revert injunction first. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Has been protected. Dmcdevit·t 23:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

Please place new requests at the top.

Wikipedia:sandbox

138.88.19.202 09:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

That’s the one page that’s meant to be vandalised. Susvolans ⇔ 10:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

thanks for protecting this article, but you protected the wrong version. you protected one of ted wilks many reversions. please unprotect, fix it, then reprotect. alternately, ban ted wilks permanently. Anus

The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one.^source — ceejayoz ^{talk .com} File:Australia flag large.png 21:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

too late, precedent to the contrary has been set. Anus

Democracy & Nature

The user under the pseudonym Paul Cardan is in fact an impostor because the original entry of Democracy & Nature was uploaded by the webmaster of the International Journal of Inclusive democracy (which succeeded Democracy & Nature) on behalf of the Editorial Board. Paul Cardan vandalises, for a week or so, the entry of the EB and keeps replacing it with his own, full of inaccuracies entry, as it can easily be traced by any reader of D&N. For instance, the last updating of the Editorial Board's history, which we uploaded at 23.18 on January 7, was a full description of D&N's EB’s history. On the other hand, the one substituted for it by Cardan (which he had the nerve to ask to be protected!) provides a completely inaccurate periodisation in which he wrongly mentions, for instance, Alexandros Gezerlis as a member of the EB since 2000 (whereas, in fact, he was a full member of the EB--as opposed to an editorial assistant-- only for 2002-2003).At the same time, he omits a constant menber of the EB since the first issue of D&N (Stavropoulos). Furthermore, Cardan added a section on “Main Theoretical Influences” (something unheard of for a journal!) which is again inaccurate because, as it is stated in the aims of the journal, the Inclusive Democracy project (which was promoted by D&N) is a synthesis of TRADITIONS (i.e. the democratic and the socialist traditions, as well as of the radical trends within the new social movements), and not of the thought of some thinkers within these traditions, as Cardan simplistically presents it! Finally, Cardan is blatantly lying when stating that we simply keep deleting his changes whereas in fact we took on board some of them –e.g. providing an (accurate) version of the history of the EB, including the name of Gezerlis in the contributors’ list, whereas Cardan, arbitrarily, deleted the name of a contributor (Koumentakis). whom presumably does not like! We therefore hope that the wikipedia entry on D&N that we provided at 23.18 on January 7 will be uploaded again and be protected against any further vandalism by Paul Cardan. (on behalf of the EB) .

---

As the webmaster of the International Journal of Inclusive Democracy,which is the successor of the Democracy & Nature journal, I originally started the wikipedia article under "Democracy & Nature" on October 20 and uploaded a modified version on October 24 under the username Narap43 (see the page history). I also confirm that the user under the name PaulCardan is in fact an impostor, as mentioned in an earlier entry by a member of the Editorial Board of the journal. In fact, different members of the EB were making the past days efforts to restore the original version and to protect the page from inaccuracies, as noted below. Following this, PaulCardan requested his version of the page to be protected!! I therefore hope that the wikipedia entry on Democracy & Nature that was provided at 23.18 on November 7 will be uploaded again and be protected against any further vandalism by Paul Cardan. On behalf of the EB. The webmaster of Democracy & Nature

• Page protected by User:Dmcdevit ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 11:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, however the page currently protected is the spurius version by user PaulCardan. Representing the Editorial Board of this journal being the webmaster of [5] and the one who originally started the D&N page, I'm asking you to restore the version uploaded at 23.18 on November 7 and protect it against PaulCardan, or else remove the page all together. Thank you. User:Narap43 8 Novemeber

Does User:Dmcdevit realise that by protecting the present page he is in fact protecting vandalism? I wonder whether anybody from the Administrators has read the interventions by user narap above and a member of the Editorial Board below and, if yes, why no action has been taken (or even a response given) for nearly 24 hours. -User:Narap43

First of all, both User:Narap43 and the ANONYMOUS guy/girl who claims he was a member of the editorial board are writing all this stuff in the wrong section. They are requesting unprotection, so they should write whatever they want in the section called "requests for unprotection". I am moving the present entry there so more administrators can see it (I am not one myself) and decide accordingly.

Secondly, it is totally irrelevant who actually created the entry: as Wikipedia said from the beginning "If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it." Wikipedia also has a "Talk" page for exactly this reason: to discuss disagreements etc.

For over a week two of the sections that I had introduced in this article kept being DELETED with no explanation whatsoever. I would then be forced to revert them over and over again. In the end I was forced to ask the administrators for protection. It just so happened that the latest version ("created" by User:Narap43), before User:Dmcdevit rightly protected the page against vandalism, was the ONLY one in which User:Narap43 decided to FINALLY edit one of the two sections ("Editorial Board") I introduced instead of just deleting it (as he did with the other one: "Theoretical Influences").

Now regarding the section "Theoretical Influences": regardless of what User:Narap43 may now claim, the journal was known because of Murray Bookchin and Cornelius Castoriadis. That is exactly what is stated in the section I added. It is totally irrelevant whether or not those participating in the journal felt things were so. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and should therefore follow the famous adage "Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness".

Regarding the specifics of the content of the "Editorial Board" section, we can talk about it, provided those who were vandalizing the page abandon their goon-like mentality and start using reason.

PS: I just realized that the anonymous "member of the editorial board" is probably drunk or something.:-) He speaks of the page "we provided at 23.18 on January 7". Say what? This page was created less than a month ago!

--PaulCardan 5:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Democratic peace theory and Criticisms of communism

As admitted by himself, Ryan Delaney has willfully broken the protection policy because he dislikes me as a person. At the same time he made a personal attack: "To this, I plead guilty as charged; I did willfully ignore that part of the blocking policy, and I ignored it because I felt the situation called for me to do so. Rather than revert while protecting, I could have waited for someone else to revert, and then protect the article, and in so doing avoid all appearance of impropriety: but I feel that would not have been necessary. Ultramarine is one of the most stubborn, persistent, and arrogant Wikipedia editors I have encountered." [6]

He has now in addition twice protected without request and without giving an explanation[7][8] after becoming involved in the RfA about the articles [9].

He also seems to think that he owns articles he has protected. Other administrators must ask him before they unprotect an article he protected 8 days earlier [10][11]. In addition, this seems to violate that the protection should be temporary.

I therefore ask that Ryan Delaney stops protecting articles he is personally involved in and that some other administrator unprotect them. Ultramarine 00:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

LUElinks

((Moved to top... wasn't getting much attention.))

NSA 06:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a legitamate site and community, not affiliated with the redirect page, GameFAQs. We have nothing to do with GameFAQs, and request that the page be unprotected so we can edit the page to display the info about it.

I added a sample article to the Talk:LUElinks. If more serious members from the site work on the article, it can thrive into a quite informational page. --NSA 07:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Rocket Summer

There has been no activity from the vandal's IPs. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 13:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Acetic'^Acid 07:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sealand

Needs the links to Roughs Tower changed to HM Fort Roughs and the first paragraph in the history section rewritten [12]. - Diceman 13:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is part of the vandalbot attack. (See the entry on WP:PP.) I don't know what can be done, but at the moment, I don't feel comfortable unprotecting. Dmcdevit·t 23:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Republika Srpska

This page is being held hostage by a nationalistic nutcase that needs to be dealt with. There is a workable and justified proposal that needs to be added to the article for it to be accurate, complete and balanced.--Dado 02:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I think that the page should be protected for the long time. Dado ask for unprotection because he want to place there biased nationalistic propaganda as the one can see from the talk page: Talk:Republika Srpska. Nothing should be added to this article further until both sides involved in the dispute agree to add that. Currently, I proposed compromise on the talk page (Talk:Republika Srpska), and until the dispute is not solved, the page should stay protected. PANONIAN 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Bagrationi

Assorted edit wars between Georgian nationalists and anyone else who wanders by. Recent features include repeated removal of the dispute tag, despite the fact that there's rather clearly a dispute. The problem is unlikely to go away given that one participant declared "I WILL REMOVE DISPUTE TAGS". Isomorphic 05:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox

For unknown reasons, Administrator CesarB recently protected the sandbox. I have not yet receved a responce after posting on the user's talk page yet, however in reading the other talk subjects, I noticed that the user seems to deal with blocks and protections a lot. Thus, I cannot understand why the user would block this testing ground for beginning editors.--Akako|☎ 01:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected - I cannot think of any possible rationale for protecting the sandbox -- Ferkelparade π 10:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Note to all who do not know about the protection log: I was not the one protecting the sandbox. I just noticed it was protected and added the tag to it, to make the protection more visible. --cesarb 15:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)