Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Requesting semi-protection of Tony Stewart (HG)
Line 9: Line 9:
==Current requests for protection==
==Current requests for protection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
===={{la|Tony Stewart}}====
'''Semi-protection'''. Persistent vandalism. [[User:Cutno|Cutno]] ([[User talk:Cutno|talk]]) 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

===={{la|Hello Kitty}}====
===={{la|Hello Kitty}}====
'''Semi-protection''', indef for slow but common vandalism. 1 productive IP edit in the past month and I can personally leave them a talk page message. Even a week might stop the trend; open to interpretation and admittedly this might be a little stretch on time frame. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Datheisen|daTheisen]][[User talk:Datheisen|(talk)]]</span> 02:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
'''Semi-protection''', indef for slow but common vandalism. 1 productive IP edit in the past month and I can personally leave them a talk page message. Even a week might stop the trend; open to interpretation and admittedly this might be a little stretch on time frame. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Datheisen|daTheisen]][[User talk:Datheisen|(talk)]]</span> 02:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:22, 8 March 2010

"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. Persistent vandalism. Cutno (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection, indef for slow but common vandalism. 1 productive IP edit in the past month and I can personally leave them a talk page message. Even a week might stop the trend; open to interpretation and admittedly this might be a little stretch on time frame. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Has been repeatedly vandalized by IP accounts over the past couple of days. —Farix (t | c) 01:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Persistent vandalism by IPs over the course of a month. Mephistophelian (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, high visibilty, extremely high visibility article. Gage (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined We don't really protect articles due to high visibility. There are a lot of good faith edits by IP's to the page, so I'm reluctant to protect this. Protection was already declined by AlexiusHoratius just a few hours ago as well, BTW. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Gage has asked me to reconsider, so can we have a third opinion on this? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Excessive vandalism, most if not all from anon IPs. 5 albert square (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Indefinite move-protection, Page-move vandalism. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I have asked the user if he wants the page protected. If he thinks it unnecessary, there is no need to protect since this has happened only once. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite move-protection, Page-move vandalism. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I have asked the user if he wants the page protected. If he thinks it unnecessary, there is no need to protect since this has happened only once. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, Anonymous users continuously stating it's Wikus at the end of the film, disregarding discussion on the subject. uKER (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, Vandalism resumed after end of previous protection. Laurent (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 Month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: High level of ip vandalism. Situation is similar with Pyrros Dimas (already semi protected) and Vasil Bollano [[1]](semi-protection requested): User:Keep it Fake [[2]] initiates an edit war followed by a number of ip users. In this article (Ghin Boua Shpata) he insist on removing sourced material [[3]][[4]] as part of his nationalistic agenda.Alexikoua (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I take you meant to tag Gjin Bua Shpata as Ghin Boua Spata is only a redirect.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protect persistent vandalism by IP accounts. TbhotchTalk2 Me 21:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - IP range 83.9.x.x has been disrupting the article by introducing inappropriate content for quite a while now, despite attempts by at least 5 editors to correct the problem. Warnings to the IP have gone mostly ignored, save for the occasional "you are a vandal" accusation. GraYoshi2x►talk 21:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection - Ongoing since December, a user who frequently changes IPs has been edit warring adding POV to the article about a "hostile takeover". Despite reverts and warnings from multiple other editors, the IP repeatedly edit wars over inclusion of this phrase - and has refused to respond to the talk page comment about the claim. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, lots of IP vandalism lately to chart positions. –Chase (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Vandalism has increased to the point where it is getting unmanageable. Various IP addresses, plus the odd new member. Quick look at history shows nearly every edit made today is vandalism of some sort. I would suggest temporary protection but it seems to get vandalised all year round. Uksam88 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection: After Pyrros Dimas' protection [[5]] again a number of ip as well user accounts (User:Keep it Fake: who initiated also the recent edit war on Pyrros Dimas [[6]]) try to remove this time sourced content on another biography of a living Greek-Albanian (Vasil Bollano). I've also informed BLP [[7]].Alexikoua (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. An edit war is going on between user Mr. Prez and user Checker Fred. I suggest protecting it for three days. Zhang He (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Let's see if your warnings work first. GedUK  20:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All right. - Zhang He (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection vandalism This has been going on for a long time now, several Ips vandalizing the article, please protect it permanently from IPs: [8] [9] [10][11] [12] [13] [14] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  20:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Several IPs keep filling the page with cruft that has nothing to do with the person's biography. De728631 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  20:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite move-protection, Significantly visible project page; subject to move vandalism. -- IRP ☎ 18:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Has anyone actually attempted to move it recently? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In September 2009, a user has made a controversial move, and moved it to Wikipedia:Snowball clause (historical), and the move has been reverted. I have nominated the redirect left behind from the reversion of the move for deletion. Click here for evidence of the move and click here for evidence of the reversion of the move. -- IRP ☎ 19:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined It was moved in September 2009, and not again for three years prior to that. There's no need for protection. GedUK  20:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Numerous anonymous IPs continue to make the same erroneous edit to this article based on an unfortunate and misleading claim made by a popular singer on Twitter.com. Piriczki (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection vandalism, 22 reverts/undos since January.[15] An IP user is continually changing the companys name into a libel. Todays undid/reverted was this [16]. Different IPs, but always the same provider. Some of the IPs are currently blocked.Special:Contributions/122.109.252.15Special:Contributions/58.109.118.149--Ben Ben (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TNXMan 19:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection vandalism, an anonymous user is continually adding information about the artists's career that is already mentioned under the Career section. getting quite annoying! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, ~7 reverts/undos in the last 24 hours. (Mostly) anonymous users inserting a "spoiler warning", and other misc disputes. Jwesley78 14:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  19:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semiprotection. Non-registered IP users have persistently changed his DOB from 1961 to 1971 (four times in the past four weeks), though the former date is confirmed by at least one authoritative source (currently referred to by an inline citation), and 1971 is patently incorrect given the pianist's career and physical appearance.--Alfietucker (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Sorry, I know it's frustrating, but it's not at a level high enough for protection. The occurrences are so spread out, that only long term or indef would actually do any use, and there's just nowhere near the protection history for that. I'll watchlist it, so at least there's another pair of eyes on it. GedUK  19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection. The page has already been semiprotected before and as soon as the protection expires, the questionable IP-Edits show up again. Refuse to explanain or dialog.--BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  19:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    longterm semiprotection. The page has already been semiprotected twice and as soon as the protection wears off, the questionable IP-Edits and vandalism (misquoting of sources, adding unappropriate POV, birthdate vandalism) show up again.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  19:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection dispute, IPs persistently trying to insert information about the recent changes to some election laws in Italy as a coup or coup attempt. Saddhiyama (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. All of the disruption appears to come from IPs/non-autoconfirmed editors, so semi-protection should suffice. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 19:32, 7 March 2010 (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.

    Unprotect - The protecting admin seems to have a worrying interpretation of our WP:PP and keeps inappropriately semi-protecting (mostly indefinitely) articles with no significant history of disruption as a pre-emptive measure. Thank you. 124.86.51.185 (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (a) the article is a BLP powderkeg, so what is more worrying? (b) you as an IP seem to be quite familiar with editing, so why not edit with an account? If some other folks step up to watch and reference the BLP segment, then I am happy to unprotect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    6 bits of vandalism since 28 November 2009, yeah this should be unprotected. And definitely shouldn't be semi-protected forever. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wanna do some referencing of the tricky BLP bit in the middle of it then first? That's a minefield that needs some bolstering. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not stick the "List of people associated with BW" section into a template - which you semi-protect? Then you can unprotect the rest of the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wanna do some reading of the policy before you semi-protect an article? This protection was done in obvious violation of at least two points. That is the issue. 205.228.108.186 (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity do you mind pointing them out? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:PP, "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view)." As there has recently been some BLP issues here, protection is not pre-emptive and is within policy. Please be careful about fighting an ideologic crusade against the concept of semi-protection on this page. There are other venues for that. Eraserhead; while comments from editors are welcome, please realize that this page is for admin review of requests. You do not need to comment on each one, especially comments such as "seconding" a request. One editor request is enough. Thanks. Tan | 39 01:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "As there has recently been some BLP issues here" - Sorry, could you please point me to them? I have probably missed them in the recent history of the article.
    "protection is not pre-emptive" - This is not what the admin's protecting comment ("high potential for vandalism" - bold mine) and their justification above ("the article is a BLP powderkeg") are suggesting. Thank you. 205.228.108.186 (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect - Could you please help the protecting admin reach a decision? Another admin also asked him to unprotect, but no action followed. Thank you. 124.86.51.185 (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ditto this one, it seems to have been hardly vandalised back in 2007 when it was locked, besides it should be unlocked occasionally to confirm vandalism doesn't return. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect - There was not enough disruptive activity at the time to warrant a semi-protection, let alone an indefinite one. Thank you. 124.86.51.185 (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And its now a redirect - and they generally aren't protected at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the fact that redirects are generally not protected is not too relevant. At least I could not find a mention in our policy. However, what has been characterised by the protecting admin as "spamming", consisted in fact of two IP edits within two months that restored the original article plus other information, and only happened to include one external link at the end. Incidentally, after the first change, this link was identified as commercial and removed by another IP (ironically).
    It's basically a mild content dispute that the protecting admin decided to resolve with an indefinite-semi sledgehammer. 124.86.51.185 (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a reason for anyone to edit this at the moment? Tan | 39 01:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the question is rather, is there a reason for this page to be protected now? And, has there ever been? Why bother putting a protection policy in place if it's OK for admins to ignore it? 205.228.108.186 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems pretty likely that this will be vandalised but this was put into permanent semi-protection in September 2008 and from the policy it appears a page shouldn't ever be literally semi-protected forever. So therefore I'm suggesting it should be unprotected to confirm vandalism returns. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    PS It was blocked by an admin who is now blocked so there is noone further to contact. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unprotected. No need to prove a point; obvious vandal target. Tan | 39 01:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for 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.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Target for excessive vandalism lately. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 09:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Repeated addition of a program schedule (in Chinese) by two single-purpose registered users and multiple IP users over the last week or two. —Largo Plazo (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Frequent vandalism by IP users. SabreBD (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 10:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-potection Some vandalism and speculations from IP accounts. TbhotchTalk2 Me 06:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined for now - IPs are often helpful in current events-type stuff like this, so I'm going to hold off on protection for now. Might need it later, but not at the moment. AlexiusHoratius 10:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism. Persistent high level of IP vandalism returns immediately after short-term semi-protection is lifted. Happens every time. Could possibly be from grammar/high school students. The Normandy Invasion is where 5,000 men died. Many survivors are still living.Malke2010 05:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, it's been protected only once and that was two years ago. Vandalism on this page is not very persistent, but I don't see any constructive edits since early January. So Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 09:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thoughts, Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 09:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term semi-protection vandalism. Consistent high level of IP vandalism since the article's long term semi-protection was once again lifted. The article has a long history of high levels of vandalism whenever semi-protection is removed from the article. The subject of the article naturally attracts vandalism from immature people. Vandalism edits on the article outweigh genuine contributions several fold whenever the article is not semi-protected. I don't think any IPs have edited the article in any way other than vandalism during the article's history. Maybe indefinite semi-protection is needed like the woman article? 88.106.99.2 (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed the article has been semi-protected for 2 weeks. Can I ask why the article was semi-protected again for only 2 weeks considering the last time it was semi-protected it was for 6 months? This article has such a long history of very high levels vandalism from IPs whenever its semi-protection ends. Like I pointed out, no IPs ever make any contributions to the article. The article's counterpart article, Woman, has indefinite semi-protection because the subject of the article naturally attracts vandalism from immature people, just like what the sex article or such might. I think this article, considering an article on this subject is a central article to an encyclopaedia, deserves proper protection. Many other articles have such protection, I'm not sure why this doesn't. 88.106.99.2 (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Already done by administrator Cirt. You can ask him on his talk page if you like. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 09:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    full protection. edit-warring over an NPOV tag. Tag was placed by an IP who turned out to be a named user that has been absent from the article for a long period; the tag has been removed by currently active editors, and replaced by editors who have edited the article in the past, but have been absent for awhile. There has been discussion of the tag on the talk page, but nothing constructive--this is the nth iteration of a long-running dispute. Protection might help people get constructive again. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 09:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Unprotect - I will create a better page for Melissa Jiménez.

    Not unprotected – Please create a sourced version of this article in a subpage or your userspace. When this is done, please make the request again, or ask any administrator to move the page for you. —SpacemanSpiff 07:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    User talk:75.72.171.191 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, This user was blocked earlier today I think, ever since then anonymous IPs have been vandalising the talk page by adding false barnstars to it. By false I mean that they are adding the barnstars when the user has done nothing to achieve them and they are pretending that the barnstars are from User:Dayewalker when they're not. 5 albert square (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection vandalism, continued vandalism since protection expired on Feb 22. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection dispute, An editor twice removed a video clip on the pretense that it is unsafe then later added an in-article disclaimer despite a recent discussion that concluded to leave the clip as is. —Farix (t | c) 04:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term semi-protection: This page has a surprisingly long history of vandalism and was protected (for short-term) six times in the past. Please consider a longer protection period. Thanks. Rehman(+) 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by another admin. Cirt (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term semi-protection persistent vandalism. Five hours after the padlock disappeared[17] and it's back. —Sladen (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Decline for now. Let's see how things go for a bit longer. -- Flyguy649 talk 17:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    *sigh* Eight vandalisms in the last fifteen minutes[18]. (Note that the main Ku Klux Klan article has[19] indefinite semi-protection). —Sladen (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. 5 albert square (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 05:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=348449613"