Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yanksox (talk | contribs) at 04:01, 10 August 2006 (→{{La|Talk:Terrorism}}: unprotected). 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 of article protection, upload protection, or create 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-protection to stop vandalism. Despite the fact it's sometimes funny in an "I'm 13 and just learnt to edit on Wikipedia" way, it's also tiresome to keep having to revert it. He's the Prime Minister of Australia and yeah, not everyone loves him, but WP's not a place to vent your puerile, 1st year Arts student spleen. BaHaReep 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to vandalism. Hopefully, this will alow for things to cool down. Yanksox 03:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Transformers World 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Talk:Transformers World 2005 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Full Page Protection requested for both pages. Multiple users are making edits which vary between vandalism and possibly libelous statements. Unfortunately, I don't know what is true so I don't know which version of the pages to protect. I'm just a bystander in this little war. I also listed the page for deletion on Aug 8, so only need protection until AfD runs its course. --Brian G (Talk) 02:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection would not be the best option for this article. Right now, the article is being discussed for deletion, and full protection would hinder most editors if they could make edits to alter consensus. Just continue to keep an eye out, I've placed it on my watchlist. Yanksox 03:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection to stop multiple IPs from repeatedly linkspamming multiple times per day. User:67.70.3.37 is the only repeat linkspammer I have seen. Ladlergo 23:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP has been blocked, I don't see any reason for semi-protection. Yanksox 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What if it continues to be vandalized by other accounts? Ladlergo 00:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Repeated reverts that do not comply with NPOV standards, links to non-public mailing-list archives. Thanks! Lavieenrose User:Lavieenrose 08:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)]] [reply]

    I'm going to sit on this one, no one has edited this in a day, and I'm not entirely sure of fully protecting. Yanksox 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection. Sakuraba's article is constantly being altered by an unregistered user (IP is logged), who consistently adds illegal content (links to videos that infringe on copyrights). The history section of the article is littered with reverts because the person is so persistent in their cause. I request a semi-protection of Sakuraba's article, so only registered users can make edits. Thanks in advance. --Wyldephang 06:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: after I posted this request, the violations continued. A user reverted the edits, but cited the "good faith" clause. Seemingly ignoring this, the violations continued. I don't believe that this should be allowed to continue. It's being ignored, and when people see the edits, they assume it's a good faith edit. This has been happening continuously for the past week. Please address it. Thank you! Wyldephang 18:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected Talk about this issue on the talk page and address the anon there. Yanksox 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection I requested this a few days ago, and it was denied. Issue of two anon IP accounts reverting to a previous version. There is consensus that the previous version violates wikipolicy (see for yourself..) Anyways, I'm fed up, Please semi-protect the page as I will no longer be watching it and cleaning up after these odd unexplained reverts. The IP accounts are likely running some kind of program--their edits are always the same, with no summary or responses on talk pages. NOTE: Both IP's are registered to the Toronto Dominion Bank Tower, which is home to the Canadian Newspaper Association. nat-soc-241-***.tdbank.ca Thanks! Myciconia 05:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    There isn't enough recent activity to justify protection. Yanksox 03:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection please. Last time I requested this there was not enough activity, I think things have changed now. :( —Khoikhoi 01:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected[1]. Yanksox 03:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Edit war between anonymous users seems to be occuring. Danny Lilithborne 00:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to activity and length of this. Hopefully, things can cool down. Yanksox 03:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: 3 Vandals have vandalized this article, only because of the pages mention on The Colbert Report, please semi-protect.

    Nothing has happened recently, no need for semi-protection. Yanksox 03:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Frequent vandal site. I'm usually the one who finds the vandalisation first, and I'm tired. Vandals commonly add how much they love Miley Cyrus in the article itself, this is consistently removed. Miley Stewart and Hannah Montana, which are related to the said article, are also heavily vandalised. Bibliomaniac15 19:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Hopefully this can allow things to cool down. Yanksox 03:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: vandalised over 40 times since semi-protection was removed on 5 August 2006. --Pak21 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected Jaranda wat's sup 22:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Repeated re-insertion of Dexters House (which has been declared as a hoax, see talk page. Various accounts have been adding this claim. Protect now. --TheM62Manchester 11:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing has happened recently enough or along a severe enough nature for semi-protection. Yanksox 03:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. UK IPs keep deleting sourced info on a UK person without giving explanations, edit summaries or talk page posts.

    btw: my request here has been vandalised, this is funny. --tickle me 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm keeping an eye on this one, I don't semi-protection is needed yet. Yanksox 03:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary protection. NJ Trolls keep vandalising sourced info and reverting to edit wars and slander on a US businessperson without giving explanations, edit summaries or talk page posts. --J_araneo August 2006 (UTC)

    Keeping an eye on this one. I don't think semi-protection is necessary right now. Yanksox 03:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Article is in the process of being vandalized by trolls from 4chan and Gaia's General Discussion forum, as evidenced in the page history. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request withdrawn, vandal flood/edit war seems to have come to an end. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unwithdrawing my request after more vandalism occurred overnight. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't appear semi-protection is needed now. I'm watching the page, and will protect when/if necessary. Yanksox 03:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection to allow AFD discussion. Anon user (likely the author of the original author) repeatedly vandalizing the discussion. -- Fan-1967 22:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm seeing any real recent vandalism to merit semi-protection. Let the process follow through and place it here when it becomes an issue. Yanksox 03:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection. A series of anons (who on one occassion has created a new account & logged in) keeps on deleting a sourced statement of fact (about the existence of a previous marriage of the article subject) from the article without giving any reasons or explanations (and despite having been requested to do so), and keeps on reverting it back out even after others put it in. Could it please be semi-protected so that they can't do this... --SJK 11:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection. Just keep an eye and list here if it becomes an issue. Yanksox 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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.

    Not a high-use template; under 100 links to it and all of them on talk pages (= much less damage if vandalized than articles). No particular reason for protection that I can see. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not really convinced there is a reason for unprotection. I could be wrong about this one of course. Yanksox 04:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think someone made an error and protected the talk page instead of the article. Please unprotect the talk page. There is no notice about Talk:Terrorism being protected so I think it was an accident. — Reinyday, 02:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    Unprotected. Yanksox 04:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Danzig redirection to city of Gdansk page is made against wishes of majority of users. It's been protected for over a year. Simple Google search will easily show relevant numbers for Danzig name usage. I understand the patriotic feeling of Gdansk people and their strong feelings about german name for their city, but while Gdansk visitors can easily reach it's page by typing it in, Danzig (band) visitors are prevented by redirect. We ask this page to be unprotected and redirected to Danzig (disambiguation) using the standards all other articles do.Enzigel 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This article should be unprotected as it has been protected for several days now. NHLfan 20:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We should unprotect this page so we can have a real discussion of the concept of Wikiality and to decide whether or not the Wikipedia concept itself is valid. I believe that the Wikipedia concept is flawed, and the recent "elephants" concept shows this very clearly. If the administrators of this site are going to freak out and censor any viewpoint which doesn't agree with their particular world view, it's not really a Free encyclopedia, is it? It's just an encyclopedia of power-hungry elitists who look for reasons to censor people. The Wikiality page could discuss the problems and defects of the wikipedia model. Specifically, if Colbert can lock down tons of pages just by mentioning them on his show, then why not lock down the whole site and only allow registered moderators to edit anything? The simple answer is "Because that wouldn't be a Free Encyclopedia", but neither is this. Locking down pages isn't Freedom, but the kind of freedom you believe will generate superior content will also generate occasionally inaccurate pages such as the Elephant Fiasco. So, which is it? Freedom or censorship? Reality or Wikiality? Editable by anyone, or editable by a supposedly-intellectual elite who can't tolerate people futzing with "their" pages?

    Hail Colbert!!! Let the Elephant hunting comence!!

    The article on the UnitedStates shows the wikiality concept clearly. Although the historical section provides a basic chronology that is roughly correct the content itself is hopelessly upbeat and positive. None of this is true, the US although populated primarily by 'good people' is now, and for a long time has been, one of the most evil and destructive countries on the face of the planet. It's empire now spans most of the globe, but there isn't a single mention of the word empire on that page, nor is there a mention of the country's deliberate destabalisation of other countries for profit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.12.111 (talk • contribs) .

    The member who likely requested the protection is relatively new to the fandom for this show and is hardley qualified to handle a guide where the majority of the info comes from sources where you would have to be a long time member of the fandom to know their credibility. He has refused to include key info that several credible sources have posted just because they haven't been included in official articles. The fact that this is a show that doesn't get this kind of regular press means that all info has to be relayed via credible fandom members, which you would need to have at least a year of active experience at a board where the credible users in this fandom post at to know who to believe. This user posted something once at the main "hub" of the fandom, had his thread closed because it was posted several months prior, and hasn't been active at that board since then. Also, the show is in production, and has a warning about info subject to change, so it isn't neccisary to be so anal about where the source come from and require it to all come from official Disney articles. He even refuses to post any leaked cast info and cites a change that wasn't announced until a week before the show aired. Isn't that the point of the info subject to change disclaimer at top? In the discussion he actually used a comment from a known fandom troll to support his case. I request that protection be removed so all of his ill-informed decisions that made the guide a stub can be reversed, and someone with more experience when it comes to the release of info can handle the guide. And if possible, bar him from the guide while a more informed fandom member rebuilds it. --Kyl416 05:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur, if he's going to refuse to put stuff on the basis of a last minute notification that happened last season, he might as well delete the entire page and wait until the premiere in 2007 if he wants to be so certain. The disclaimer is there for a reason. This is a show where nearly all the info comes from credible fandom members and not official articles. If he refuses to acknowledge members that have proven themselves to be correct time and time again as official sources, and/or if he doesn't know who these members are, he has no business editing this show.--64.12.116.134 16:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel the same way. The production and/or the publication staff on board the Power Rangers series has always been very, very slow about releasing information, especially after Dino Thunder. While making an assumption on avalability of information is alright in some mediums, it IS NOT on Wikipedia, and sadly, this is what the current editor is doing. Kyl416 hasn't released information that isn't credible the whole of the time I've been in the Power Rangers fandom, and if himself or Burgandy Ranger SAY it's going to happen, chances are they have validated their claims through multiple resources at their disposal and unless there is an 11th hour change, it will come to pass. As far as the editor at hand venturing into the "hub" of the Power Rangers fandom? Well, Rangerboard isn't a place where asking questions or being new is held in a good light, persay. --Richardstone15 18:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, he's basically being selective on what info is "official" and what isn't. He'll accept advanced episode titles as legit, but not the logo, even though they come from the EXACT SAME SOURCE, and like the logo, he has no way to personally verify the episodes, which was the excuse he used to doubt the validity of the logo. If he refuses to accept one thing from me as official, he might as well refuse to accept anything from a credible fandom source as official and reduce the page to just, "Next years title is Operation Overdrive, nothing else is going to be here until the show premieres or a promo airs." He actually cited an example of a character who's official name wasn't updated until a week before the show aired as an excuse to leave any possible character names off the page. This is exactly why there's a DISCLAIMER at the top of the page that says information is subject to change as the debut of the show comes closer. It's so you can provide a semi-complete guide and not be liable when things change as the show comes closer, and use credible members of the fandom as sources. Who put this guy in charge anyway? --Kyl416 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    lol, Now the user is saying that if episodes are posted at TV.com, that counts as verification, even though I am the one posting them there.Kyl416 21:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point all of these users to the most important policy of Wikipedia: Verfication. The entire premise of the opening argument is wrong on every aspect of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it is not a place for your ownership of the article to post unverified speculation. Let the Disney press office do its job for the encyclopedia, not fanfare. Ryulong is completely acting in accordance with editing policies. Teke 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not new to the fandom of this show. I watched the original Mighty Morphin Power Rangers each afternoon when I was in Kindergarten. I had originally requested protection for the page due to constant unsourced cast and character lists that only had sources that are unverified as well as IP editors claiming the logo as legit and then linking to it (including one user who uploaded it without any source). Even if the logo could be uploaded, it would not be under fair use since it affects Disney's ability to sell their product and it is also a very high resolution. The character lists are extremely unverifiable at this point in time, and blocking me because I do not agree with the inclusion of the logo in its entirety on Wikipedia is ridiculous. Episode names are one thing; a high resolution logo is another.--Ryūlóng 21:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Watching the show from the beginning does NOT mean you are a long time member of the fandom. You are "new" as in the sense you are unaware of major names in the online fandom who have proven themselves to be right time and time again to the point where they can be considered official credible sources. It is possible to resize the logo, you don't have to upload the hi-res version. And again, who says you have the final say in what can get uploaded? This is a wiki, not your personal guide. Kyl416 21:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit more policy wonking for you. Please brush up on Reliable Sources; more specifically WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources. Being a well known fan source does not qualify, and does not deminish Ryulong's or any other user not in your ring edit the article as is appropriate to building the encyclopedia. Teke 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't think a low-resolution version of the logo would satisfy Wikipedia's fair use policies. Ryūlóng 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that you and others are helpful to the fandom by releasing information early, but I am merely trying to keep complete unsourced speculation off of the page. I have nothing against you. I merely have an issue with the anonymous editors who made cast lists that made a female green ranger the leader of the Overdrive team. Ryūlóng 21:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The current editing dispute meets none of the criteria for vandalism or disruption. Furthermore, it is specifically not in keeping with the "When to use" and "when not to use" advisories of the site's semi-protection policy. One user has decided to repeatedly delete the same information, because it is not to his liking. He refuses to discuss it civilly, and enlisted an admin to semi-protect the article. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this.

    Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

    Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

    • Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
    • Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
    • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
    • If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
    • This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.

    Fullfilled/denied requests

    Full-protection with {{deletedpage}} notice - persistently re-created and deleted content --How dare you? 21:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted this page (both times) and pretty much all the articles on the whole "hampton" family. I don't think a deleted page protect is necessary right now. Yanksox 21:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well keep this here on this page for now, and see what happens. Add it to your watchlist if necessary. --How dare you? 22:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection to stop IP editor from reverting/inserting a section of polemical attacks and rants about subject of the article. IP editor refuses to come to the Talk: page, just continually reverts in what has become an edit war.

    There is no recent activity to justify semi-protection of this page. Yanksox 21:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection This keeps getting votes after close. It needs to be preserved intact in case of deletion review. Ace of Sevens 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected[2] Yanksox 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection to stop the banned User:Bonaparte from editing. —Khoikhoi 16:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected[3] Yanksox 21:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Move Protection. Preferred name for article is La Jolla, San Diego, California, based on extensive discussion on the talk page. User Serge, however, keeps changing the name to La Jolla, California.Orayzio 16:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Move Protected Appears consensus is clearly in favor of this title. If anything arises, please contact me. Yanksox 22:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection. An image stored in commons, originally provided by the CIA. Contains map and pie chart listing Somali clans. Wikipedia page contains transcript of text in image, including wikilinks to the listed Somali clans. Anonymous user disagrees with CIA figures and constantly changes figures. -- Petri Krohn 16:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is nothing recent at all to justify semi-protection. Before today's edit, the IP's last edit on the page was in July. Yanksox 22:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection. Article is currently & consistantly being spammed by individual(s) attempting to advertise their music group. Previous restriction only served to change I.P.Rsm99833 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to recent activity. Yanksox 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection. This article get's reverts 4-5 times per day. Federline currently is a huge target for mocking on the Internet and in tabloids. Please view history of article for all reverts

    There has been no recent activity or vandalism to justify semi-protection. The last vandalism was nearly a day ago. Yanksox 22:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection page is being vandalized at an alarming rate by forum users, both registered and anon. It had a protection tag at one point, but that seemed to be bogus. - Bootstoots 01:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully Protected It's my understanding that deleted pages are fully protected. Yanksox 22:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Cleanup page to just the template-messages. If not possible, WP:'T should definately be linked so people can find out more. (Note: I'm requesting this here and not on the talk page because the talk page is protected as well (Both are protected to keep Primetime from logging on and vandalizing them)). 68.39.174.238 18:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:'T linked on Userpage. -- Avi 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While the article, as with all controversial subjects, had seen some attacks, it does not appear to have been under any attacks from vandals immediately before it was protected. -- TexasDawg 12:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There were plenty of IP rdits and reveresions immediately prior to the semi-protection according to the history. Give it a little while longer to cool down. -- Avi 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This article was deleted while an AfD was still in progress. Regardless of the supposed outcome of the AfD, articles don't get deleted until the AfD is finished! Deleted/Recreated multiple times, protected multiple times due to vandalism. It's about time this group gets a decent and factual article without any other junk. I request that protection be removed (and the article possibly undeleted to allow for cleanup) as the original did have some reference citing issues, but nothing that should result in outright deletion.  T.K.  TALK  05:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This was deleted through regular channels more than once, and properly so. Please take it to WP:DRV if you would like it reviewed. -- Avi 15:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. IP editor continually inserting a series of links into the article that are off-topic personal websites, which are then removed by at least a half dozen longstanding editors. Refuses to come to the Talk: page, just continually reverts. Jayjg (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protected due to IP revert warring and vandalism. -- Avi 15:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This page has been previously hit by vandals, and was in an edit war, however, everything has cooled off. This page is going to see a lot of traffic in the coming days, and it needs some work. Semi-protection could be a viable option, but a full block on this page is unreasonable, and needs to be modified. --MZMcBride 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I originally requested the semi-protection, and agree that it might be time to return to semi-protection. The edit war between the two editors seems to have calmed down, and there is a mediation in place. If they edit war again, it may be possible to block them individually, rather than fully protecting the article. But, I strongly believe that semi-protection is still needed, considering the level of vandalism that was occurring before the semi, and with an election pending (Aug 8). Sandy 17:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Sandy, semi-protection (at least) is needed til after the election tomorrow. Phr (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Semi Protection is a good idea, but full blown Protection is overkill. Please unprotect the page! dposse 03:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that semi-protection is warranted, especially since the election is now over and the new information should be made available to readers ASAP. Thesmothete 03:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page really needs to be unprotected. Lieberman just lost the primary and we can't write about it due to the protection status of the page. --Smedley Hirkum 03:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • another request for a quick return to semi-protection, so the page can be updated with current post-primary election information.--riffic 04:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Page was unprotected by Samir earlier today. Syrthiss 14:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Edit war is going on over whether Muhammad should be described as a "final prophet". Pecher Talk 14:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Temporary Semi-protection. An war of reversion is being carried to prevent any mention of Muhammad as a prophet. Even when appropiate and contextualized vis-a-vis as being related to islam. It is not limited to this article however is symptomatic of a wider ranging edit war issue on the same topic.--Tigeroo 14:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. -- Avi 15:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request unprotection. Person who implemented protection is not making any arguments in Talk. (And why should a user's exceeding his revert limit be an excuse for protection rather than temporarily blocking the user?--Mike18xx 01:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=68753192"