Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Karrmann (talk | contribs) at 22:14, 17 May 2007 (→Current requests for protection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


"WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, or Wikipedia:Random page patrol.
    Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.
    Shortcuts

    Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection)

    After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
    Request a specific edit to a protected page
    Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
    this header: view • edit


    Current requests for protection

    Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    semi-protect indefinately. Heavy amounts of vandalism over a long period of time. Is a huge target for vandalism since Tails is popular among younger members. Karrmann 22:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection Revert warring. Please also be certain to block any editors who may have been disruptive, by, for instance, engaging in massive POV pushing - perhaps inserting statements like "Many of his postings and content at Wikipedia-Watch have made Wikipedia editors more aware of how their own behavior both reflects on the project as a whole. Brandt has made many editors aware of the importance of what they say and how they say it, and that their roles as editors may be subject to public review." Perhaps. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Revert-war, including three page blankings, by nationalist users trying to remove references to Serbia and use Albanian-language place-names instead of the ones commonly used in the English language (and thus in Wikipedia articles). - Ev 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined - one edit warrior & has never been warned. Final-warned for 3RR just now. Report/revert if they do it again but you need to warn those editors - Alison ☺ 22:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Fully protected due to revert warring. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe, feel free to undo, Alison :) Majorly (talk | meet) 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    D'oh! :) Should be fine - leave it, I'd say - Alison ☺ 22:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Revert war, vandalism. --19:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Ankimai

      Fully protected due to revert warring. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Tomie16 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    full protection This blocked user continues to add nonsense to his/her user talk page. NHRHS2010 Talk 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected WjBscribe 21:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotect-Heavy Ip vandalism over the last few days, frequent target. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 20:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected by Alison. WjBscribe 21:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Gets vandalized about every two days by IPs. Sodaplayer talk contrib ^_^ 20:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined. Not enough activity to justify protection. WjBscribe 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: continuous IP vandalism although it is not in the NHL playoffs. Johnny Au 20:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined. Not enough activity to justify protection. WjBscribe 21:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Revert war, vandalism. --19:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Ankimai

      Declined. There has only been one edit since the page was semi protected. WjBscribe 21:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism, especially during this month of May. Corey Salzano 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Watchlist and revert. Trebor 20:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect -- The main Bristol City page has had alot of vandalism in recent weeks, mainly from Rival clubs. Semi protection is the best thing needed for the moment. Matt101 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WjBscribe 21:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protection. Ongoing corporate spamming from a dynamic IP. Placed warnings numerous times, was previously under protection for same, and the spammers came back Puchscooter 18:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Alison ☺ 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Sizable amount of recent IP vandalism. JavaTenor 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alison ☺ 19:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Has been experiencing high levels of repeated vandalism. Requested semiprotection for 3 days. --Random Say it here! 18:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Michaelas10 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Linked to from main page which may explain current problems. —Gaff ταλκ 17:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined, - per WP:NOPRO - on the main page, sorry! - Alison ☺ 19:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protection: We have lots of users from IP's who constantly edit this page for the worse, it desperately needs to be Semi-Protected so we (proper users) do not have to keep reverting the changes. ¡иąтнąи! | Talk | Email| 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Already protected. - by User:Majorly - Alison ☺ 19:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection: Revert War over the title "Boss". David in DC 16:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected due to revert warring. Majorly (talk | meet) 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect: Vandal war. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Michaelas10 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Non-registered user (86.129.134.78; 86.153.142.101; 86.129.142.202; 86.129.135.24; 86.129.124.222; 86.143.159.97; 81.158.55.56) has repeatedly vandalised this article over the last 30-odd days, as well as several other articles, on which this artist is mentioned. I will keep a watch and revert when possible, but this particular article is hit most. Gram123 14:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Majorly (talk | meet) 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect This page has never been protected before. And vandalism happens more than seven times in a week. TheBlazikenMaster 14:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Majorly (talk | meet) 16:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    fully-protect. Over 500 pages are linked to this redirect. Philip Stevens 13:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected -- tariqabjotu 13:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Excessive anon vandalism - 10 vandals, many with multiple edits, in the last 2 1/2 days. The way, the truth, and the light 11:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Majorly (talk | meet) 12:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect Edit war --Ankimai 11:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for 1 week. Trebor 11:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect Regular vandalism from unregistered users. Dellarb 10:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. (It's on my watchlist now, too) – Riana ⁂ 10:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect -- This is a welcoming page—critical for integrating new users—and vandalism is rampant on the page. —WikiLen 05:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    But what a better way to welcome new users than allow them to edit the page? We should merely have more editors watching the page IMO. --Iamunknown 05:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really want a young single very christian mother clicking on a link at her talk page thinking she is getting help on using Wikipedia but instead getting "Wikipedia hates you. Go away." as occurred in this edit? Or far worse, this profanity: this edit —WikiLen 05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, WikiLen, I think people other than "a young single very christian mother" are offendable, I'm not sure why you used all of those qualifiers... --Iamunknown 06:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I guess I got carried away. Not surprising since I had just added a link to this vandalized welcome page at a talk page for a user that appears to be a "young single very christian mother" trying to be a self-published authority on issues of "Jesus" and the film "The Secret".
      Semi-protected, frequent target of offensive vandalism, important page with important messages, shouldn't be messed up... but if someone thinks this is excessive, please feel free to unprotect/request unprotection. – Rianaऋ 06:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect. Repeated vandalism, a user refuses to use talk pages except for petty accusations. Jesuislafete 05:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It seems that several IP's and you have been engaged in an edit war. Sr13 08:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Vandalism and edit wars. 66.245.236.43 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC) me[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Brand new article, can't see much of an edit war. Use the talk page, please. – Rianaऋ 04:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect -- the Hamlet page already has been protected for edit warring, and this has the exact same problem. This and several other plays below need this in order to allow editors to cool off and discuss the issue in a central location. Wrad 03:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. - auburnpilot talk 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is the case, then please unprotect the Hamlet page (see below). Wrad 04:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect -- the Hamlet page already has been protected for edit warring, and this has the exact same problem.

      Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. - auburnpilot talk 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect -- the Hamlet page already has been protected for edit warring, and this has the exact same problem.

      Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. - auburnpilot talk 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect -- the Hamlet page already has been protected for edit warring, and this has the exact same problem.

      Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. - auburnpilot talk 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect -- the Hamlet page already has been protected for edit warring, and this has the exact same problem.

      Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. - auburnpilot talk 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect -- the Hamlet page already has been protected for edit warring, and this has the exact same problem.

      Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. - auburnpilot talk 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect -- the Hamlet page already has been protected for edit warring, and this has the exact same problem.

      Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. - auburnpilot talk 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect -- the Hamlet page already has been protected for edit warring, and this has the exact same problem.

      Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. - auburnpilot talk 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect -- the Hamlet page already has been protected for edit warring, and this has the exact same problem.

      Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. - auburnpilot talk 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect -- the Hamlet page already has been protected for edit warring, and this has the exact same problem.

      Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. - auburnpilot talk 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect -- the Hamlet page already has been protected for edit warring, and this has the exact same problem.

      Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. - auburnpilot talk 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect -- the Hamlet page already has been protected for edit warring, and this has the exact same problem.

      Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. - auburnpilot talk 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect -- the Hamlet page already has been protected for edit warring, and this has the exact same problem.

      Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. - auburnpilot talk 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-Protect -- the Hamlet page already has been protected for edit warring, and this has the exact same problem.

      Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. - auburnpilot talk 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "Semi-Protect, or more" -- There have been multiple instances of vandalism to this page in the past half hour.. Thanks Hondaty87 02:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Majorly (talk | meet) 12:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

    • To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
    • Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
    • Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
    • If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.

    Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    Protected for 2 months. Don't make it a third -Halo 20:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Unprotected WjBscribe 21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Noted at Talk:AACS encryption key controversy#page protection that this should probably be unprotected (if not done already). Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Unprotected - seems reasonable. Let us know if the nonsense restarts - Alison ☺ 19:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am requesting the unprotection of this page on the grounds that pay per click is a very fast-changing subject and it is not possible to keep the article current and correct without the ability to update itEman 17 May 2007 (UTC)

      Un-protected. It's been protected since November 2006. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. - auburnpilot talk 15:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps this has been protected by mistake. Theres no reason for it to be, and no-ones talked about a reason for it to be protected. Willy turner 10:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      The reasonable issues that started the revert 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 {{Editprotected}} 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. Majorly (talk | meet) 16:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please reverse this. I have recently returned to this article only to find it protected. Apparently, the protection was requested by the user User:Tony Sidaway who started deleting tags without discussion, then started warring with other editors, then requested page protection when a number of users reverted his deletions. I think the regular page editors can watch him from now on.Smatprt 02:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    By, "I think the regular page editors can watch him from now on", what do you mean? --Iamunknown 04:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Declined Tony made one edit, and immediately went to the talkpage for discussion. Please join him there. – Rianaऋ 04:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what he means, but I know there was a skirmish over spoiler tags, and it got full protected before anyone knew what was going on (at least me). I just applied for several other plays to get protect, each of them having the same problem as this one, and was denied. I therefore see no reason for this to be protected like this, as it is no different from any of them. Wrad 04:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair point. I'll ask the protecting admin for advice. – Rianaऋ 05:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The reasonable issues that started the revert 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 {{Editprotected}} 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. Majorly (talk | meet) 10:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone please look back over the several plays posted before, then? Some, if not all of them have the exact same problem: Edit wars. Wrad 17:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please reverse this as aricle has been unfairly deleted and protected to prevent re-creation.

      Declined - incorrect venue (for page undeletions, go to deleting admin and then deletion review), page is currently at AFD. --Iamunknown 04:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has been protected for a month (and over a stupid thing like whether it's "Fatal Four Way" or "Fatal Four-Way"). Nobody has commented in several weeks, so it looks like there are no more problems with it. TJ Spyke 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Unprotected - Alison ☺ 00:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection Requested unprotection yesterday and edit history says it occured, however, the article is currently not letting me edit it and says "This page is protected" when I hover over "view source", indicating it has been fully protected instead of unprotected pIrish Arr! 23:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Unprotected WjBscribe 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: - my bad. Duh! - Alison ☺ 23:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page has been protected for a long while now since 28th Feb i think thats way to long. Pages shouldnt be protected for this long, just to make it easier for others Lil crazy thing 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      It's still to soon to un-protect since the wave of vandalism will likely continue immediately after un-protection. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I unprotected it before you spoke. I will immediately re-protect it if vandalism wave starts again. Aquarius • talk 20:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protect More than one IPs to vandalize this page. This even includes sneaky vandalism. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for 2 weeks. bibliomaniac15 03:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect due to repeated vandalism by anonymous users... CrazyC83 02:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Already protected.. It seems that the trouble lies in older accounts. Warn them every time they vandalize, and if they do it 4-5 times in a row, list them on WP:AIV. 02:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    Semi-protect, or more: This page has been unfairly deleted as well.

      Declined Deleted userpage; I believe that that was a legitimate delete. Sr13 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, or more: Despite previous semi-protection, this page is frequently heavily vandalized. Please semi-protect (or fully protect) this page for a long period of time. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 01:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for 1 month. bibliomaniac15 02:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mao: The Unknown Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protect Edit warring between two editors. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected. When will they ever stop? bibliomaniac15 02:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect For 72 hours to a week. The commish made a recent ruling that's made a lot of fans unhappy. We were having BLP problems before anyways, so protection seems warranted until the playoffs are over at least this round. Quadzilla99 00:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Already protected. by Prolog. Sr13 01:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. I believe it was permanently? semi-protected before its stint as yesterday's featured article. It was removed due to the celebrity of being a FA. It'll be in the "recently featured" for awhile. Perhaps it needs to wait until it completely falls off the track? --Cheers, Komdori 23:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined Yep, wait 'til it's completely off the main page. WP:NOPRO. – Rianaऋ 04:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect just as Jerry Falwell has been semi-protected. Anon vandals continue to insert adverts and editorial comments celebrating Falwell's death. An admin already attempted to semi-protect article, but protection didn't stick; anon vandalism continues (see edit history). Please fix. =Axlq 23:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Already protected. by User:BigDT - Alison ☺ 23:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect for 1 week as last 50 edits (within past 7 days) are either vandalisms or reversions. --Sigma 7 22:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected – Steel 22:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated vandalism by several anons (mostly involving some "350z"). —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Already protected. by Naconkantari. – Steel 22:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been vandalised 8 times today most of them redrecting to pages involving Sex or other stuff that people don't want to see when they start up there user page and I have been vandalised on a daily bases by troll accounts only made to vandalise ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 20:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Already protected. - by Luna - Alison ☺ 22:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent edit war on status of leading family of Kuwait - royal or ruling? Authoritative source (see talk page) says ruling. IP editor (looks like same person on IP of 62.150.x.x) say royal. Parmesan 12:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. constant vandalism. Jemather 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring over content of template instructions. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected due to revert warring. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection to alleviate edit-warring by sockpuppets churned out at high rate Phaunt 19:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alison ☺ 19:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection requested to alleviate anonymous vandalism. --ElKevbo 18:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alison ☺ 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Quakerman 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined, one IP vandalising, and you have not warned them yet. I'll do so now. – Rianaऋ 18:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection due to repeated vandalism by anon users following the death of Jerry Falwell. Red Herring 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Already protected. - by User:Mangojuice - Alison ☺ 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for unprotected, found new, relivantinformation on marilyn monroe that i would like to add to the page Moteldotelll

      Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mangojuicetalk 18:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Page has been repeatedly clear out completely by unregistered user(s?) despite warnings.

      Declined Not that bad. – Rianaऋ 04:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Page has been repeatedly been vandalized, vandalism especially at the moment because of playoffs. Xtreme racer 00:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. – Rianaऋ 04:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war breaking out over whether or not to include a warning about the plot of the play. --Tony Sidaway 17:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected due to revert warring. Majorly (talk | meet) 17:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-protection, Requesting temporary protection because of a minor edit war over the interpretation of WP:TRIVIA policy. This is affecting the large number of articles that use this template. -- Nick 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected due to revert warring. Majorly (talk | meet) 17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Continuous IP vandalism from a variety of addresses, varying from "I love Florida" type of stuff to the "it's shaped like a penis" variety of vandalism. -Ebyabe 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Images are repeatedly being restored on the page. eZio 13:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected – Steel 13:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. High level of IP vandalism, appears to be generated by local students nearing end of school term. SwissCelt 13:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected – Steel 13:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection For a long time, I resisted asking because quite a few of the anon edits were valid. Well not anymore. It now consists of color changes (of the table), name order changes and adding unsourced info. And also vandalism. All disruptive and against consensus. I'd like to see it semi'd until a couple of days after the results are announced. That would be May 25th. I am an admin but I am way way heavily involved in the article to protect it myself. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected – Steel 13:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page was semi-protected due to a "linkspam" from a single user. However: (1) The link is just a tutorial. These kind of link is very common in programming language article, and shouldn't think as spam; (2) The "spam" link is from one single user, the user have now registered (see talk page). Semi-protection can't stop a registered user from adding the link again. -- SDiZ 13:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Unprotected, it's been a long time. – Steel 13:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. Article is being vandalised DAILY by same user on non-registered IP and SPAM vandals replacing article citation links and inserting SPAM links and POV at around the same time every day. Keeping article unvandalized is a daily chore. Vandalism is by the same user. Most all vandalism is by IP 63.254.78.142 who's only contributions are repeated vandalism on one article, posting POV, erasing citations, and keeps reposting what appears to be a copywritten POV diatribe from somewhere without clearance. Blocking this IP should get rid of most of the vandalism, but PLEASE semi-protect this article - or I am going ask that you just delete it if nobody will protect it. I have worked with other editors to edit out some of the content that vandal kept defacing, and he just went on to defacing other content - but the article content is not the problem... BOTTOM LINE IS THIS... this is a user that doesn't care enough about Wiki to even bother registering, but somehow cares enough to go to this one article EVERY SINGLE DAY and deface the article by - erasing the same citations (which then results in fact tags being put in, then the citations reinserted. This same user then often puts in links for a company called "National Corporate Research" and occasionally inserts a lengthy diatribe that appears to be copied from somewhere without (c) clearance - and borders on defamation. I seriously think that if I didn't erase some of the stuff this idiot posts, Wiki would probably be sued. This user very occasionally uses another IP (as with today). If you semi-protect for even a short period, this will force the user to register (which trust me - to vandalize this article they will do), then at least we can track even when he/she moves to other IP's and/or block. PLEASE HELP and semi-protect for 30 days - or alternatively delete article which I'm sorry I ever wrote.Dougieb 03:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please reconsider - at least PLEASE semi-protect long enough to force vandal to register so their defacements can be tracked. The vandalism is DAILY - that is 365 instances a year by the same user - who does nothing but vandalize this one article. please reconsiderDougieb 10:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection - When the page is unprotected, 80-90% of the edit count comes from timewasters, leading to work for other people.--Ianmacm 07:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Sr13 08:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - An anonymous user has been continuously advertising his website here; has had to be reverted about 20 times since early March; IP address to broad for a block. Was protected once already by Veinor on 16th March. Spammer is also likely to spam on Puzzle. Marasmusine 06:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Sr13 08:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking through the list of protected pages, I can find no reason this page was semi-protected. The talk page also contains no information about why this page was protected. The page is about a historical figure from the 1800's who is not of great note or controversial in any fashion. Qapf 07:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit: Stupidly forget to look in the edit history, looks like autprotection was triggered in late April. Request for Unprotection stands as the article has been protected for over 2 weeks. Qapf 07:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Unprotected Protected due to some IP vandalism, but it's a low risk article, and long term protection seems unnecessary. – Rianaऋ 07:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User Yamla and Steel has been doing some bad faith decisions on my page by first blocking me for no good reason other then that they dont like me i haddent even been back for even 24h. Then Steel blocked my talk page so i cant request unblock which is my right. Then i sent a unblock request before totall blocking which steel denied even tough their was no clear case. Please look trough this case properly and you will see i have done nothing to deserve being blocked until november which is just a unreasonable timeblock anyway.And do i even have to mention that i dont want either of theese to admins to make the decision.Unblock user:Matrix17regards--90.225.121.21 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the place to request page un-protection, not user un-blocking. I recommend that you e-mail one of the active arbitrators at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee to request unblocking if you feel your block was justified and the blocking administrators decline. Best, Iamunknown 17:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: The arbcom is not the best way to get yourself/others unblocked. Email unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org and thoroughly explain the situation. That is the best way to get a second admin opinion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'll tag this section with   Declined so the bots take over; recommend mailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or an ArbCom member. --Iamunknown 07:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Declined, - requested by blocked user evading block - Alison ☺ 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection List used by FearBot to manage it's filters - requesting semi-protection since vandlas could cause FearBot to perform undesired behaviour if they added common words to badwords list and/or add spam words to goodwords causing it to not recognise spam. I considered not using a page however this way makes it easy for anyone to update and improve the bot. This can be undone if FearBot is not accepted as a bot (currently under review). Thanks! TheFearow 04:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full-Protect Edit warring between 2 users. Cannot attempt to make any improvements on article or additions, they will just get caught up in this edit war. No discussion is on the discussion page either. 74.204.40.46 04:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User talk:Ned Scott (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protect. My talk page keeps getting trolled by someone from the University of Maryland, and the IP changes often. The first IP that starting doing this was blocked for it, but they're keeping at it. Semi-protection for a two or three days hopefully will be enough. -- Ned Scott 02:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for 3 days. Krimpet (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. Huge amounts of anonymous IP vandalism over the past two weeks at least. The first page of history appears to be almost completely covered with vandalism and reverts by editors but almost nothing else. AllynJ 02:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.TerriersFan 02:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Vandalism from four different IPs in the last half hour or so. Short term protection (12-24 hours) should be enough. 69.201.182.76 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. And it's best not to protect articles while on AFD. – Rianaऋ 02:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect Lots of IP vandalism. Election is Tuesday, 5/15/07. Please semi-protect to prevent anonymous vandalism throughout the next day. Candidate Chaka Fattah's page is semi-protected because it was vandalized a lot recently. Please also semi-protect the other major candidates: Bob Brady, Tom Knox, and Michael Nutter for the next 48 hours. Aardhart 02:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Bob Brady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tom Knox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Michael Nutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[reply]

      Declined: not enough vandalism on the others like there was at Chaka Fattah to justify semi-protection. Krimpet (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC) P.S.: vote Nutter! ;)[reply]

    Semi-Protect Constant vandalism in the past week. Ambrosia- 20:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Moronic vandalism is occuring more often than usual. Probably 7th and 8th graders angry at their chemical homework? Mr. Raptor 13:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Phaedriel - 13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lame edit war over a section header. Request full protection. >Radiant< 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected. 24 hours to talk it over. Marskell 12:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect- vandalism levels extreme, (as usual). Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 10:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 4 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. – Rianaऋ 11:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Continuous IP vandalism - I've just reverted about 2 days worth of changes to get to a reasonably stable version, and even that required a bit of tidying up. David Underdown 10:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected – Rianaऋ 10:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP blanking vandalism. Tristan.buckmaster 09:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Rianaऋ 10:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lame tag war. Request full protection. >Radiant< 09:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. – Rianaऋ 10:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection A number of vandalism attempts by both IP and newbie accounts within the last 3 days. Ranging from juvenile humor to replacement of images and text.--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alison ☺ 08:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. IP vandalism in the past few hours. In addition, this has been reported in the website of a nationally-circulated news paper in the Philippines minutes ago, so this might attract more vandals in the next few hours or even days, as the national elections have just concluded. ---- Tito Pao 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - we don't pre-emptively protect but this is bad enough already - Alison ☺ 06:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full edit warring (a couple probably already past 3RR) sigh --Iamunknown 03:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Already protected. - by User: John Reaves - Alison ☺ 03:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=131645219"