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
Hencetalk (talk | contribs)
215 edits
Line 12: Line 12:
==Current requests for protection==
==Current requests for protection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}

==== {{la|Fatass}} ====
'''Full protection''', full protect to prevent people from removing the speedy delete tag. [[User:Hencetalk|Hencetalk]] ([[User talk:Hencetalk|talk]]) 06:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

==== {{lu|Brainchannels}} ====
==== {{lu|Brainchannels}} ====
'''indefinite full protection''' , User is using this page for a soap box to gripe about his dislike for Wikipedia (and that he wishes to leave). Language is a bit of a problem (email is a little worse)..[[User:Neutralhomer|<font color="#0000C8">NeutralHomer</font>]] <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>[[User Talk:Neutralhomer|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Neutralhomer|C]]</sup></span> 05:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
'''indefinite full protection''' , User is using this page for a soap box to gripe about his dislike for Wikipedia (and that he wishes to leave). Language is a bit of a problem (email is a little worse)..[[User:Neutralhomer|<font color="#0000C8">NeutralHomer</font>]] <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>[[User Talk:Neutralhomer|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Neutralhomer|C]]</sup></span> 05:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:55, 7 December 2007


"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.

    Full protection, full protect to prevent people from removing the speedy delete tag. Hencetalk (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite full protection , User is using this page for a soap box to gripe about his dislike for Wikipedia (and that he wishes to leave). Language is a bit of a problem (email is a little worse)..NeutralHomer T:C 05:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Come back here if he starts to edit-war over it (which, judging by the diff I looked at, isn't likely). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. On September 30, due to unremitting vandalization, "Perfection" was semi-protected for 2 months, with possibility of extension for 4 months. Since de-protection on November 30, the article has undergone 18 changes (vandalizations and their reversals) with no net change in text. I request renewed semi-protection for 4 months. Nihil novi (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, continued vandalism from IP users.NeutralHomer T:C 05:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 05:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism.Marlith T/C 04:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    indefinite full protection User talk of banned user, This user kept vandalizing his/her userpage after being indefinitely blocked.Johnny Au (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Jmlk17 04:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Same problem (and users) as Ian Eagle. Somno (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite full protection Vandalism, Image is getting a lot of vandalism (for an image, at least), with few to no eyes on it. There is really little reason for an IP to edit the page; they can make a request on the talk page..The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. bibliomaniac15 03:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Two users are edit warring and inserting libellous text about a living person.

    Semi-protected bibliomaniac15 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection-Goodshoped 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection-Goodshoped 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection-Goodshoped 02:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection-Goodshoped 02:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection-Goodshoped 02:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection-Goodshoped 02:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection-Goodshoped 02:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection-Goodshoped 02:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection-Goodshoped 02:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection-Goodshoped 02:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Since this article was unprotected on November 8, childish IP vandalism has re-started at an alarming rate. This article has proven the need to be permanently semi-protected in order to keep vandalism at a low level. Canjth (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Jmlk17 05:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection-Goodshoped 02:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection-Goodshoped 02:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection-Goodshoped 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite move-protection , Per the MarIth incident a few months ago.Marlith T/C 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that the move protection on User:Marlith didn't seem to take effect, so I applied it again. It should be move-protected now — TKD::Talk 05:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry. Mis-click. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection for a day or two - IPs and new users vandalising this article, probably because it's on front page and the title is... "humourous". --AAA! (AAAA) 01:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Semi-protected by Tawker (talk · contribs). I'm usually opposed to main page protection, but I'll endorse this. - auburnpilot talk 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection High-visible template, high visibility template that frequently gets blanked or vandalized. .VartanM (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Alexfusco5 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    indefinite move-protection , No need to move.Alexfusco5 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected --Oxymoron83 00:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. (Current) protection has expired but IP van still prevalent due to subjects recent death. Requesting 2 weeks to a month. τßōиЄ2001 (ǂ ) 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Oxymoron83 00:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Alexfusco5/Archive 4 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    indefinite full protection , Archive, editing not needed.Alexfusco5 00:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done --Oxymoron83 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Alexfusco5/Archive 3 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    full protection , Archive, editing not needed.Alexfusco5 00:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done --Oxymoron83 00:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Alexfusco5/Archive 2 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    indefinite full protection , Archive, editing not needed.Alexfusco5 00:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done --Oxymoron83 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Alexfusco5/Archive 1 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    indefinite full protection , Archive, no more editing needed.Alexfusco5 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done --Oxymoron83 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection , and move protection User subpage no editing by ips needed, also, no need to move.Alexfusco5 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done --Oxymoron83 00:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection , Page is constantly being added to by anons who add unsourced info EVEN THOUGH there's a big warning at the top stating that all info must be sourced. I am suggesting that this page be temporarily semi-protected to cut down on the number of constant reversions..Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite move-protection , My user page does not need to be moved.Alexfusco5 00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism in the links section. Links to external pages are being sabotaged so that they no longer work. Dustinroyer (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1.5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Oxymoron83 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - in the last two or three days, vandalism has been a lot more frequent than usual. I would semi-protect this page myself, but since I've edited this article more than any other, and do a lot of work on it, it would be inappropriate for me to apply protection, as stated in the protection policy. Acalamari 23:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Ryan. :) Acalamari 23:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of new user/IP vandalism, which happens whenever semi-protection is lifted. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection, short term, please. See here [1] This is a serial anon IP vandal, a nuisance for three months who thinks he has better technology than we do. His various accounts named "Ketias*" have all been blocked. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • User(s) blocked. - all recent vandalism from a single IP, which I've blocked for 48 hours. If it recurs, let's deal with the IP instead of protecting the page. If the vandalism is coming from more than just 1 IP, let me know and I'll semi-protect the page. MastCell Talk 22:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since come back as User:86.143.176.164 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and been blocked. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. JNW (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Ongoing vandalism, sex jokes etc. Please consider long-term protection. Gregorik (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Maxim(talk) 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, Vandalism target. Most edits since last protect expired yesterday are vandalism and reverts mostly different IPs..NrDg 21:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protect 3+ revert edit war between s.p.a.'s Manghu (talk · contribs) and Arhat79 (talk · contribs) UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - A request was filed by Huldra (talk · contribs) on the 3rd of December due to repeated blanking of most of the article. It was declined. A request to block one IP responsible for some of blanking was approved. However, the blanking has continued from different multiple IPs for the last three days. Today, most of the article was blanked six times. Perhaps limiting editing to registered users would encourage the vandals to sign up and engage in a more constructive response? Tiamut 18:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. IP repeatedly adding unsourced and somewhat tabloidish biographical details. Does not respond to comments on talk. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 00:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection. For weeks, 2 registered users are engaging in an edit war regarding the infobox' lay out. Kameejl (Talk) 12:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - no activity for more than 24 hours, although both users have edited. Kusma (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you they will continue. Kameejl (Talk) 13:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can watch it. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi protection It is being a target of vandalizm. In fact, yesterday a user replaced his name with "Boner" every time it appeared. Footballfan190 (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 05:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Do people understand what it means that making fun of people with OCD is not funny. This page has been protected before and vandalized.Footballfan190 (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 05:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection This movie's article is being vandalized. Footballfan190 (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2007 (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.

    Page was protected from recreation due to repeated nonsense articles. I request unprotection so that I may create a new article on this notable event. See User:Hdt83/Go Skateboarding Day for a preview. Thanks in advance. --Hdt83 Chat 05:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected since September 19. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 18:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected --Maxim(talk) 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef protected by now-MIA admin Jayjg 30 July 2007 with rationale "edit war seems to have spilled onto multiple pages"; this seems to have been based on exactly one revert. <eleland/talkedits> 01:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Jmlk17 05:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Not a soap box. Please blank the page. Mercury 13:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this a problem? I can see why it might annoy some people, but is there some reason it's a pressing threat to the project that needs admin attention? The best move, as I see it, is to just try our best to pick up the pieces and move on. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined per Wikipedia:Deny recognition or some sort of userpage privacy policy. Let's leave it to gather dust. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please replace indefblocked user with appropriate template? I did before it was protected, but someone mentioned on my user page reverted to his fascist quote. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  20:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done I've also reverted your userpage. - auburnpilot talk 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (The category should be edit rather than talk: I'm not sure how to fix that. This article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wrote_The_Dead_Sea_Scrolls%3F_%28book%29) was fully protected today to prevent an edit-war. In its current state, the article includes a photo (the second one, inserted into the section on "reviews") that has no fair use justification (see Eric's comment to this effect on the discussion page) and the intent of which is implicitly defamatory. I have requested either removal of the photo or unprotection from the administrator who blocked it, but he feels that it would not be appropriate for him to take such actions on an article he has already protected. I have no problem with the article being protected, but the defamatory photo should certainly be removed pending a resolution of the matter through discussion.Critical Reader (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    P.s. Please note: the editor who inserted this photo into the article about a book by Norman Golb said of Dr. Golb the other day: "In between the lines one can read and feel the disdain, anger and indignation of the writer, that IMO reflects more poorly on him than the other way around." Now, out of seven or eight editions of this book by Golb, he finds one on which a photo, according to him, was printed upside down, and redundantly inserts it into the "reviews" section of this article about the book, without any fair use justification and without citing a single source discussing this photo. Clearly there is at least the appearance of a defamatory intent here and the photo should be removed.Critical Reader (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, user doesn't have suffrage. east.718 at 07:11, November 30, 2007
    Done Self revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it OK if someone remove the red link? They deleted the editor nomination page. :( -Goodshoped 02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done —Kurykh 04:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The following was posted on my talk page, I take no position, but just forwarding the request to the right people. Carlossuarez46 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. I'm a beginner of wikipedia. May you help me?

    Anti-Americanism. i find some edit is wrong. but i can't edit. article protected. in fornt of page, "unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled" i'm a new user. i found you can edit this page. so may you help me?


    "In South Korea, two junior high school students were killed by American military personnel in a traffic accident at the final stage of a presidential election in 2002. As a result, the Korean public opinion was enraged and Roh Moo-hyun, who advocated anti-Americanism, was elected President. President Roh Moo-Hyun and his administration considerably weakened the alliance of the United States and South Korea.[39] Also, the Iraq War and foreign policy of America was invoked as rationales for inciting negative attitudes towards America in South Korea[citation needed]. In 2007 anti-Americanism spreads rapidly. [40]"


    in this, "In 2007 anti-Americanism spreads rapidly. [40]" [40] source is "rape of okinawa". so not relation with south korea. it is obvious WRONG. must move to japan relation sentence. i think this article need rewrite or clean.


    addition, As a result, the Korean public opinion was enraged and Roh Moo-hyun, who advocated anti-Americanism, was elected President. >> this is lie.


    President Roh Moo-Hyun and his administration considerably weakened the alliance of the United States and South Korea.[39] >> this is lie. given news[39] never metioned.


    Also, the Iraq War and foreign policy of America was invoked as rationales for inciting negative attitudes towards America in South Korea[citation needed]. >> this is uncreditible. please, attach [citation needed].


    In 2007 anti-Americanism spreads rapidly. [40] >> this is japanese relation. must move to.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.124.22.42 (talk • contribs)

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi-Protection I've had enough of all this dumb vandalism. There has been no useful edits in several past days. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Oxymoron83 20:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite full protection Vandalism, Should this not be protected fully, as established users seem to be making edits to edit as well, surely people can contact administrators if they need something to be added, it should stop a lot of the vandalism.. The Helpful One (Talk) d (Contributions) 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - very high profile page - it's on many watchlists, including mine, and the vandalism is usually quickly reverted. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, remember? I don't think we're to the point where it's absolutely intolerable here yet. - Philippe | Talk 20:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. IP vandalism returned and repeated within the last 3 days after temporary semi-protection lifted. MMetro (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 4 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi protect for now, full protect if necessary. Various IPs, and possibly a few user accounts, are attempting to recreate article on non-notable website which was axed after a recent AfD; the result of the AfD (and subsequent review) was redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. Note that Criticism of Wikipedia no longer mentions the Wikipedia Review website (it did at one point), so the redirect may no longer be appropriate--in which case revisiting the AfD (and deleting the article) is probably the most appropriate course of action. --EngineerScotty (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism being egged on the host talking about it on his radio show. harlock_jds (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I've (uncharacteristically) left the "big" template up, hopefully that will send a message :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    'Full-protect - I'm requesting a move protection. An editor is continually moving the article to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, even after having been informed that it was the consensus of the editors on the talk page that naming conventions stipulate that the article should be "TV series". They refuse to discuss on the talk page, and just move the article back.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected. Please request unprotection here when discussion concludes. - auburnpilot talk 17:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm... that editor would be me. There's a couple of problems here. First of all, I'm an admin and able to edit/move protected pages so protecting the page wouldn't help much if I am the party this is intended to act against. (Nor would it be necessary, I'm not going to edit war to the point that protection is needed!) Secondly, I would hardly call 2 edits to the talk page, one of which is a detailed outlining of Wikipedia guidelines and naming conventions, and a dialogue on my user talk page a "refusal to discuss" :)
    This isn't the place to discuss the naming issue, feel free to chip in on the article's talk page, but I would recommend either refusing the protection or locking the page as Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which is line with guidelines and reflects consensus that the TV show is the primary topic). --kingboyk (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
    As an admin, you are fully aware that protection doesn't endorse anything, and that if you were to move a protected page, you'd be desysopped before an ArbCom case could be filed. Consider it an electric fence if you wish, as the ability to still move the page doesn't entitle you to do so. Try discussion. - auburnpilot talk 17:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, which is why I have said you don't need to protect it. Of course I'm not going to move it whilst it's protected. Discussion? I'm waiting. There's a curious silence at the talk page... --kingboyk (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've pointed out the first factual flaw in this request, that I have refused to enter in dialogue. Secondly, I notice the editor claims that "naming conventions stipulate that the article should be "TV series"". Actually, the closing admin said that his closure violates the naming conventions! I've also written a long piece explaining the guidelines. This request should have been disallowed; since it wasn't I hope the admin who protected it will now attempt to stimulate debate and if necessary make a decision. The admin who made the original closure is on wikibreak; the person who requested protection isn't talking and nor is anybody else; how long am I meant to wait when I've already made a strong case that the current name violates naming conventions without any good reason? --kingboyk (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has been protected for barely an hour. I'm sure you realize this is a world wide project, and looking at the editors involved, one appears to live in the Southern United States whereas you live in England. Different times of day tend to have different editing patterns. In other words, wait longer. - auburnpilot talk 18:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Usual IP vandalism we get before a wrestling event. Unprotect please on 17th December at 00:00. Cheers, Davnel03 16:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected as requested. - auburnpilot talk 17:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Most edits are IP vandalism. Was semi-protected on Dec 4 for one day. This needs to be semi-protected long-term, as it's a constant target. Too many vandal edits are staying up too long for a BLP. --Elliskev 16:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - auburnpilot talk 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for editconflicting. --Oxymoron83 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. 1 week versus 2 isn't that big a difference. - auburnpilot talk 17:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was exactly 3 seconds too late :( --Oxymoron83 17:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the template here accordingly. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 06:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protect. Edit war. Muliple users continue to insist on reverting back to revisions that include unverifiable rumors that haven't cited reliable sources. Jcoolz has been warned twice to stop reverting and continues. Attempted to move to the discussion page, but other editors are ignoring that venue. Please revert to revision 176157062 and protect. Thanks. BShiplet (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected on current revision due to edit warring. - auburnpilot talk 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, Just daily vandalism..—aitias •discussion• 14:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PeaceNT (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Heavy anonymous IP vandalism amidst a concerted copy editing drive - some needed reversions are getting missed because of the frequency of these edits. Thanks either way! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined WP:MPFAP --Oxymoron83 15:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I didn't even realize this was on the main page! Sorry! So much for nominating it for Poe's birthday next month... :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Repeated IP vandalism over many weeks. Undoing cleanups to previous edit which includes local schoolchildren as "famous people". Third request in seven days. BeerMatt (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. A forth request won't be more successful if the activity remains that low. --Oxymoron83 11:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protect. Persistent edit warring with both (all?) parties apparently not interested in attempting to work things out by argument. I have admonished both on article talk page and individual user talk pages without much success. meco (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Long term disruption by anon IP:s (most probably a single user). The page has been protected previously, in September. Recently the vandalism rate on that page has intensified. Julius Sahara (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 08:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Repeated vandalism by anons. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 05:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Húsönd 05:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=176321398"