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
Will Beback (talk | contribs)
112,162 edits
→{{la|Bristol Palin}}: unprotect pending
Line 8: Line 8:
==Current requests for protection==
==Current requests for protection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}

==={{la|Levant}}====
'''Temporary semi-protection''' There has been a slow simmering edit warrings over the past couple of days over the states of the Levant and whether or not certain countries or territories, specificaly Palestine (which I conclude is not an official state and should not be listed as such), and the removal of Israel several times. Maybe this would settle everything down. [[User:Drlcartman|Drlcartman]] ([[User talk:Drlcartman|talk]]) 01:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


===={{la|Carbon dioxide}}====
===={{la|Carbon dioxide}}====

Revision as of 01:14, 14 May 2009


"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.

    Temporary semi-protection There has been a slow simmering edit warrings over the past couple of days over the states of the Levant and whether or not certain countries or territories, specificaly Palestine (which I conclude is not an official state and should not be listed as such), and the removal of Israel several times. Maybe this would settle everything down. Drlcartman (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent semi protection Persistant vandalism and no positive edits made by IP users. An obviously controversial page due to global warming that needs to be protected. Smartse (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent semi protection Page came off 3 month protection today and has already been vandalized with gay hate speech and foul language twice from a high school IP. I have also reported them on AIV. This is why i think Wiki needs a no one under 18 policy. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Kevin (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, A lot of people putting unsourced and useless crap that doesn't belong and people vandalize it. P-Real DA deal (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, For some reason, possibly a school project, there has been an escalation in the number of IPs vandalising this article. Suggest a week's semi protection. WebHamster 20:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Looks like the page was seeing some rather heavy and regular vandalism, upped it to a month rather than just a week. AlexiusHoratius 20:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection Page is undergoing a lot of POV editing and they're not taking no for an answer... HalfShadow 20:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. by Nja247 (talk · contribs). -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but this appears to have been going on for a bit. I wouldn't have posted it here if it were just one person. HalfShadow 20:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi'ed for a week against IP and new user account edits. Consider opening a WP:SPI against accounts used. Further request full protection if autoconfirmed users start to significantly disrupt the page. Nja247 20:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, A new editor along with around 4-5 IP are currently very active adding inaccurate information and plain vandalism to this page. IP's seem to switch rather fast, so my guess is that WP:AIV would do little to stop this. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 3 days. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 20:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect School-IP page; currently blocked, is now using talk page to make a nuisance of itself. HalfShadow 19:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Blocked edited to prevent talk page use. Nja247 20:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Michael Jordan (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. High level of ip vandalism maybe due to the semi-protection on the main Michael Jordan page. Thanks —Chris! ct 19:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Vianello (Talk) 00:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Recent vandalism on high. Probably a school doing a report on it. I recommend semi-protection for one - two weeks, if possible. Thanks. blurredpeace ☮ 19:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Alliance_of_Free_Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[reply]

    • User(s) blocked.: schoolkid vandalism, offending IP has been blocked for 24 hours. If new IPs appear, or if the same IP starts vandalizing the article again, just leave a note on my talk page and I'll take care of it. MastCell Talk 20:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-protect. Article is prone to being created when no details have been announced and will not until around May 2010, like previous years articles. WP:CRYSTAL, suggest an expiry date of 20 May 2010  [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 19:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Are you sure this is the right title? I can't see any history of that article being created. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That is because there hasn't been, but as stated like previous years it has been created without any details. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 20:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Policy is pretty clear on this; sorry. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Full Protection edit warring going on between Guyan46, Nagadeepa and some other users since May 4. Jasy jatere (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PhilKnight (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you create a wikipedia page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Indefinite create-protection, Only been created twice, but there is never going to be a reason for a page of this name... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected. —Jamie☆S93 18:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, Deprecated and invalid template. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection vandalism, Repeated vandalism with profanity and homophobia. . Portia327 (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Let's go with semiprotection for a week and see what happens. The article's never been protected before. If that doesn't help the problem, we can escalate from there. MastCell Talk 20:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, IPs and new users that act as trolls are constantly getting in edit wars about one characters death. A consensus was had never been reach even after many arguments and yet still the articles only edits are changing how one character dies at the end of the game. It is very annoying to see this while I'm looking for data to add for the article and then constantly being stopped by edit conflicts. --(NGG) 11:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note Logged in users appear to be involved in this on both sides of the dispute as well. I've already attempted a full protection, to which the reporting user objected. –xeno talk 12:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved out of fulfilled/denied requests, my note was meant to leave this to another admin to review. –xeno talk 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Xeno attempted to fully protect this page with is different. His comment should have no say in the verdict.--(NGG) 22:01, 13 May 2009 (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.

    Demote to unprotected or semi-protected (from full protection) so that it can be changed from a redirect page into a full article in light of her current and former escapades, and the proposed deletion of boyfriend Levi Johnston...would also note has heavier protections than either her mother, her father, or her president (that's probably not an effective argument, but throwing it out there). Anyway, please change. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I will drop User:Gwen Gale a note about this request. --GedUK  12:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Following WP:BLP much care should be taken with this topic and it should not be unprotected unless a consensus to unprotect has been gathered at Talk:Sarah Palin (her noted mother) and whenever this may happen, I'll unprotect. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: I am reopening discussion over this because I believe that it has already happened...the lack of consensus is over what should happen to the article after it has been unprotected, not that the article should be unprotected or semi-protected. I would also note that the main reasons for the protection of the article in the first place (her age and the divisive environment of the 2008 election) have been largely abetted. I would request that another, more impartial editor, other than Gwen Gale, take a look at this.
    Where is the consensus? Wlink please. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gwen, what is the logic behind requiring a consensus of editors at Talk:Sarah Palin before permitting the creation of an article? As a policy matter, we usually don't give a veto over page creations to editors of a single talk page. They don't represent the larger Wikipedia community. The usual model on Wikipedia is to create articles and then delete them if necessary rather than to decide preemptively that they shouldn't exist. As a practical matters, those editors can hardly find a consensus about the most basic matters. Insisting on a consensus among them means inaction. It's fair to ask for an explanation of this long-term protection. Absent a demonstrated history of policy violations regarding this article, unprotection may be warranted.  Will Beback  talk  10:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue was here before (and declined) and is currently at Wikipedia:BLPN#Bristol_Palin. I think the discussion should be kept at BLPN and not split here and the talk page. Regards SoWhy 10:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gwen Gale isn't participating in that discusison, which doesn't appear to heading towards a consensus either way. If there's no good reason to maintain protection then it should be lifted. I'd be happy to hear from Gale as to why a nine-month old block is still required.   Will Beback  talk  10:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Further: I see the article has been protected since September 2, 2008, when it was protected as a "high traffic news item".[1] Nine months is a long time to preemptively lock a potential article about a "high traffic" topic. If this were a private person targeted by an Internet meme then it'd be different. However B. Palin is at least a limited public figure and has sought publicity.   Will Beback  talk  10:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not posting to the discussion because I'm neutral on it. I'm more than ok with protection being lifted if there is a consensus to do so at Talk:Sarah Palin. So far, there is not. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response. You may have missed my questions above regarding why we are giving editors of the talk:Sarah Palin veto over the creation of an article. Can you explain why a nine-month protection has been necesary, considering this isn't a private person? Is there a current (not potential) reason why article creation should still be blocked?   Will Beback  talk  11:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of CANVASS are you missing, Will? The page was protected as a result of numerous discussions which established a consensus that there should not be a seperate article on BP. Gwen Gale has stated if and when consensus changes, she'll happily unprotect. Consensus has not changed. Harassing GG about consensus she didn't participate in, and is remaining steadfastly neutral towards, cannot possibly help the encyclopedia. Really, I thought I was the only one you badgered like this. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever discussions occurred back in August 2008 about Bristol Palin are not really germain anymore, and there is clearly not a consensus to retain full protection now, in May 2009. If there's not a current, ongoing reason for full protection, nine months later, then the protection should be lifted.   Will Beback  talk  11:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP and WP:BIO haven't changed much in the last 9 months. So gather a consensus? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Really? Please link to the discussion where consensus was formed to split Bristol Palin off into a separate article. As I watch the Sarah Palin articles, I find it hard to believe that I missed a discussion about splitting off BP into her own article. Where was the new consensus formed? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    <-BLP applies to every living person, yet there aren't many high-profile living persons who've had their article titles protected for so long. Is there a current reason why this particular BLP needs to remain under full protection?   Will Beback  talk  11:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As I recall, there was a consensus to protect indefinitely owing to the subject being a minor child whose notability stemmed wholly and utterly from her mum. WP:BLP. There are clearly worries that the article could be used for political smears, which would be unfair to the child. Once again, I'm neutral on this and will lift the protection if there is a consensus to do so. Please take this to Talk:Sarah Palin. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject is no longer a minor child, and the parent is no longer involved in a political campaign. The editors of "Sarah Palin" don't agree on much, so making unprotection dependent on them isn't a doesn't make sense. Those editors don't get a veto over Wikipedia ocntent on other articles. Worries aren't sufficient reason for a nine-month block.
    So far I haven't seen 1) any current reason to retain full protection 2) any recent consensus to retain full protection 3) any reason why we are giving a veto over article creation to a few editors at Talk:Sarah Palin.
    Regarding the worries, if actual problems do arise then we can address them through normal procedures and with normal policies. This nine-month long indefinite protection is out-of-policy.   Will Beback  talk  12:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the last time I will say this: Show me a consensus to unprotect and I will swiftly and happily do so. Moreover, if this protection is beyond the bounds of policy, gathering a consensus to unprotect should be a snap. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do we get this requirement that we need a consensus at Talk:Sarah Palin before we create an article at Bristol Palin?   Will Beback  talk  12:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    <- The default for Wikipedia is open editing, so the burden is on those protecting articles to justify continued protection. Longterm protection is the exception, not the rule. Some editors say that there is still a consensus to retain the protection from last September. I don't see it. Here's a suggestion for moving forward. Let's poll or RFC the editors of Talk:Sarah Palin and see if there's a consensus keeping the article title protected. If there' no consensu then the article should be unprotected. That's not how protection decisions are usually made, but it's a compromise. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  12:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion. B Palin isn't utterly dissimilar to L Johnston, and indeed some might say that their celebrity/nonnotability are very alike. Johnston's article is right now undergoing a (curiously protracted) AfD This may succeed and it may not. Whether or not it succeeds, its fate may inform and help anyone wondering what to do about a B Palin article. Even those who sincerely believe it's very wrong to prevent the creation of the latter might agree that a few days' continuation of this prevention will not harm WP, Palin, or anything or anyone else. So I suggest putting this on hold until the Johnston AfD is resolved one way or another. -- Hoary (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm fine with that suggestion. If the Johnston article is kept then it makes sense to unprotect the Bristol Palin article. Let's see how that AFD turns out and then decide this protetion matter in that light.   Will Beback  talk  19:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me reiterate why this has been reopened, and all previous arguments. Some claim there's no consensus, but I agree with the above comment that the vast majority of people on this talk page, the Bristol Palin talk page and the Sarah Palin talk page think that the protection should be downgraded and/or lifted, if not what should be done after (and, as far as I can tell, they don't need to for the protection to be lifted). Why? Because this full protection has been going on for OVER EIGHT MONTHS, during which the presidential election ended, her majority was gained (turned 18), and she has become a spokesperson on teen pregnancies. Some claim that this will lead to vandalism, but I'm sure a temporary or indefinite semi-protection would mostly resolve that. We don't need a poll or a consensus, we just need a neutral editor to do the right thing. Thank you, Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So far there is no consensus about this either way at Talk:Sarah Palin or anywhere else that I'm aware of. The Sarah Palin articles are under behavioural probation, Bristol Palin was used for political smears and attacks before it was redirected and protected by consensus, following meaningful worries under WP:BLP. It does look as though some kind of consensus on this will show up very soon (and this indeed may be to unprotect), but the article (redirect) should not be unprotected until such a consensus to do so can be cited. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gwen, the problem you described happened over eight months ago. There is no consensus to retain protection. In any case, let's see how the Levi Johnston AfD turns out. If it's kept then there's little reason to keep Bristol Palin protected. Whatever "political smears" turn up can be handled through normal editing or through probation enforcement. Indefinite page protection of a bio of a public figure isn't the answer.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There seems to be disagreement about where to discuss this. I don't have a clue why _this_ isn't the place, but in any case, I think she's clearly notable meeting WP:N and passing 1 event due to continuing coverage (based on one thing, but not solely about that one thing anymore) and not having a low-profile. So unprotect (or better, semi-protect) and allow creation. (posted to the SP article also.) Hobit (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The AFD for Levi Johnston has been closed as "Keep". If he is notable then it's hard to argue that Bristol Palin is not notable. Unless I see a reason based on WP:PROTECT I'll go ahead and unprotect the article.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a request for unprotection but one for consideration. In brief, I protected it and it's me who's sitting on it; am I doing the right thing? Please see the talk page and comment there rather than here. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both articles have been indefinetely semi-protected by User:Nightscream in an effort to enforce a very strict interpretation of WP:V and WP:BLP. The offending material that has been reintroduced by IP users has in both cases not been sensitive info. In both cases the protection has been triggered by a dispute over date and place of birth. There has been no sign of persistent or heavy vandalism preceding the protection and the articles have never been under protection before. I have requested twice[2][3] that Nightscream lift the protection, but without success.

    Peter Isotalo 19:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I think that there is no reason for protection here per WP:PROTECT but I would like another admin's opinion. Regards SoWhy 08:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with SoWhy, I don't think these need to stay protected. henrik•talk 10:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This in particular would have prompted at least a 3 month protection from me. The date issues are also clear WP:BLP violations that warrant protection. I suggest asking Nightscream again in 2 or 3 months. Kevin (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2009 (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

    Indefinite full protection vandalism, Repeated vandalism.

    Should this be The School of Athens (which is the main article)? Either way, I am going to say Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. TNXMan 17:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Article was linked to, and featured in the top articles, of Reddit, due to a ridiculous citation needed. Subsequent vandalism count is very high, with it being edited, added to, taken out etc. 62.56.94.8 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TNXMan 17:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection vandalism, There's been a lot of vandalism on the article lately, most recently approx. 10+ revisions worth over the past hour. Multiple IP's and accounts are perpetrating this; ClueBot missed several spots because of what I think just might be sock vandalism... Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 15:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I will not need the protection on my user page anymore, could an administrator remove protection, thanks Arctic Fox 10:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. Vandalism edit-warring goes on years, reversions by IP addresses (including in the past COI), so asking for permanent or continued protection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.


    A one-week dispute protection to bring disputing sides to the article discussion page to interact, find a solution that works for all parties. A nationalist edit-war is brewing, and nipping it in the bud seems wise. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined You and another are engaged in a content dispute. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong, you know to use the talk pages rather than revert war. If that doesn't work then report them at WP:AN3 and consider dispute resolution. Nja247 08:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but you are incorrect. I am stopping two others who have been going back and forth on the article for almost three weeks, Sheesh. Maybe actually read more than the simple article history, wouldja? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection An edit war is going on about what some users see as a blatant BLP evalution. All editors to the page should be commenting at the Noticeboard, but they are not doing so. The Squicks (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Nja247 08:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    User talk:69.140.203.207 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary semi-protection user talk of blocked user, Abuse of talk page, sockpuppet of banned user. Also using talk page to disparage editors. CardinalDan (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done No need. Reblocked to disable ability to use talk page instead. Next time, ask the blocking admin to do that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full-protection; edit-war between editors and an SPA who seems to be playing the Children card. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The furries are trying to convert our children?! Oh Dear God!!!! /sarc
    Seriously, I support this motion. The Squicks (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined - Disruptive parties warned. I will block if they continue. Also, the edits are not stale. Tiptoety talk 04:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Numerous vandalism due to her recent jokes at the White House correspondents dinner. Vandalism has said she died among other mean comments. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism has been done by IPs, diffs are here [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. The IPs keep adding wrong info such as when it was recorded, and what albums it is being released off of. It does appear on two albums, but as a single it is only from one. ---Shadow (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Move Protection. Please, to prevent edit warring, this has happened before, page had to be re-created.

    Thank You!, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined There isn't an "edit war" over page moving, but replacing the article with a redirect. It appears someone has tried to engage in discussion on your talk page about it. I'd recommend that you try that first before requesting protection. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Long term semi-protection If you look at the edit history, you see a year-long tug-of-war with the same anonymous editor, blanking the same sections of the article over and over. Leatherstocking (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Steven Walling (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term semi-protection If you look at the edit history, you see a year-long tug-of-war with the same anonymous editor (probably Mordechai Levy,) blanking the same sections of the article over and over. Leatherstocking (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Steven Walling (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection Abce2|Howdy! 00:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected By Tiptoety. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=289789614"