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 User talk:75.72.171.191. (TW)
Line 128: Line 128:
==Current requests for unprotection==
==Current requests for unprotection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading}}

===={{la|Liza Fernández Rodríguez}}====
'''Unprotect''' - Could you please help the protecting admin [[User_talk:Zscout370#Liza_Fern.C3.A1ndez_Rodr.C3.ADguez|reach a decision]]? An admin [[User_talk:Zscout370#Liza_Fern.C3.A1ndez_Rodr.C3.ADguez|also asked]] him to unprotect, but no action followed. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/124.86.51.185|124.86.51.185]] ([[User talk:124.86.51.185|talk]]) 03:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

===={{la|Uniform display case}}====
'''Unprotect''' - There was not enough disruptive activity at the time to warrant a semi-protection, let alone an indefinite one. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/124.86.51.185|124.86.51.185]] ([[User talk:124.86.51.185|talk]]) 03:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


===={{la|Dennis Rodman}}====
===={{la|Dennis Rodman}}====

Revision as of 03:51, 7 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.

    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]

    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]

    Long-term semi-protection persistent vandalism. Five hours after the padlock disappeared[1] 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[2]. (Note that the main Ku Klux Klan article has[3] 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]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, recent IP vandalism. foxyma (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Attracting abuse after being linked from a football forum. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, High IP exposure and vandalism of BLP. Wikidas© 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term semi-protection. False information regarding air dates and episode summaries continue to be added to this current running TV season, I request it be semi-protected for at least four months. 117Avenue (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, ip's removing positions, moving info around, inflating certifications and sales. Mister sparky (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Requesting temporary semi-protection due to BLP-related vandalism. . Cirt (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    permanent semi-protection Copious vandalism, teenage fantasies projected whenever unprotected. 99.168.83.177 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. High level of by i.p. vandalism, tagteaming with User:Sulmues who is under civility supervision the last months. The article concerns a living person.Alexikoua (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Second that. Per the related thread at the BLP noticeboard, [4], a group of IPs is tag-teaming to commit a BLP violation. The 92.75 IP is almost certainly User:Keep it Fake (edited the same articles in the past, e.g. Gjin Bua Shpata, uses hostile edit summaries). Athenean (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given warnings to two of the IPs (one had already been given a warning). However it's probably easier for a short? semi protection rather then trying to block the IPs. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Target of same continued silly vandalism edits by another sockpuppet of a BANNED editor → 23prootie (talk · contribs) on both the article page and discussion page, plus trollish comment on both the previous mentioned pages. Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Western world and Talk:Judeo-Christian

    Semi-protection Both these talkpages are plagued by an anon troll revert warring to keep his ethnic hate rant there. This has been going on for a very long time and brief semi-protection (usually a week) doesn't seem to be doing the trick.--Ptolion (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. Nothing but vandalism since the last semi-protect expired. f(x)=ax2+bx+c 15:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TNXMan 17:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. pauli133 (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 18:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    permanent semi-protection Redirected per WP:Articles for deletion/Remember December, redirected continually being undone, generally by anonymous editors.—Kww(talk) 14:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected caknuck ° needs to be running more often 18:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IPs removing cited information about their relationship and (on occasion) replacing with uncited claims of a breakup. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection. A herpetologist who specializes in taxonomy and prevention of taxonomic vandalism. and his IP address is repeatedly using the article to promote his own original research. He is also very rude to reverting editors. WWGB (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection. Page is involved in active RFC on Talk:Incidents at SeaWorld parks regarding content, and while conversations are still on-going and not resolved, would like to have page locked to minimize disagreeing editors from making their points via page updates (resulting in 3RR edits) instead of participating in the conversation. SpikeJones (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, This is just a dispute between two users. Further edit warring could lead to blocking, as an alternative to page protection. Rjd0060 (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection. Along with Incidents at Disney parks, page is involved in active RFC on Talk:Incidents at SeaWorld parks regarding content, and while conversations are still on-going and not resolved, would like to have page locked to minimize disagreeing editors from making their points via page updates (resulting in 3RR edits) instead of participating in the conversation. SpikeJones (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, This is just a dispute between two users. Further edit warring could lead to blocking, as an alternative to protection. Rjd0060 (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Fancruft and rumors for the game Ultimate Ninja Storm 2 which is to be released this summer. High target for for this, its been 3 days since the semi protection was taken off. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 18:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, IP adresses continously edit warring over a descrption for an entry on disambiguation, I even left a hidden comment to not change the description yet it's still continuing. GunMetal Angel 05:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only two disruptive edits in the last week. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 18:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. IP vandalism. Examples here and here. This article has been prone to vandalism in the past. — Hunter Kahn 04:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only two disruptive edits in the last week. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 17:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Excessive vandlism. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 03:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rjd0060 (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism - the guy had a seizure on the court, and vandals are already reporting him dead. adavidw (talk) 02:05, 6 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 02:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, the page is being vandalized a lot by IP users. ..::Abb 615::.. 01:51, 6 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 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection Repeated addition of spam. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Content dispute still unresolved. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 23:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    JamieS93 has protected. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The protection has already expired. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 02:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined Edit warring has not continued after the protection expired. If it does, please report again. Pages are not protected pre-emptively. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 09:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:35, 6 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 - Could you please help the protecting admin reach a decision? An admin also asked him to unprotect, but no action followed. Thank you. 124.86.51.185 (talk) 03:51, 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]

    I think after a year of semi-protection that we could probably let this one go back.--Adam in MO Talk 06:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Have you asked the protecting admin, Jennavecia (talk · contribs), to unprotect. Also, the protection will expire on 10 April automatically, so will you be able to wait? GedUK  10:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I haven't contacted the protecting admin. It says on the user's page that they are on a break and probably won't respond. I certainly can wait till protection is up. Thanks for the help.--Adam in MO Talk 15:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Done No disrespect intended to my colleague, but Lara doesn't currently have the bit so she can't unprotect, and while I agree w/ her BLP stance, the subject is sufficiently well-watched to give unprotection a chance. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:57, 6 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]

    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, Requesting temporary semi-protection due to disruption from sockmaster using multiple IPs and open proxies. Cirt (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:206.176.84.3 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary full protection user talk of blocked user, User talk page vandalism. Blocked for 1 year. E Wing (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined There doesn't seem to be enough recent activity. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, repeated vandalism by IPs. 24.176.191.234 (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    create-protection, Repeatedly recreated. Click23 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined IronGargoyle protected it on Feb 28. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    create-protection, Repeatedly recreated. Click23 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined No activity since Feb 26. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Chronic heavy vandalism by IP editors. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Many IPs have trolled this article in the past, but not to a very regular extent. However, I just had to revert vandalism that took place nearly a month ago. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 20:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cool map on that one, BTW. AlexiusHoratius 20:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Ultra high profile terrorist attack. GoneAwayNowAndRetired 19:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

    Already protected. one week by User:Alison. AlexiusHoratius 20:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, One IP user deletes vast sections of text, and almost all pictures, as they are not related to the sections where they are. Tadija (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 19:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection, >90% of IPs and new accounts' edit to the page consist in removal of notable plot information which consensually stays by WP:SPOILER, despite talk page alerts etc. Pattern is constant month after month and temporary semiprotection didn't help -therefore indef semiprotection seems appropriate. Cyclopiatalk 18:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. AlexiusHoratius 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Misinformed edits from IP-accounts, it's lasted for ages now. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 18:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, There's been high levels of vandalism over the last couple of days from anon users. Yowuza yadderhouse | meh 17:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. AlexiusHoratius 20:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Excessive vandalism. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 20:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-Protection IP accounts speculation. TbhotchTalk2 Me 17:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    create-protection, Repeatedly recreated. Falcon8765 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected Willking1979 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, This page is suffering from an IP vandal who has engaged in 3RR. Temporary portection requested for an hour until admins can block offender. Cutno (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.. If they come back dynamically, we can always block the IP range. JamieS93❤ 15:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism in the last couple of days. This has probably to do with the NFL Combine and the upcoming NFL Draft. Therefore I suggest to semi-protect the page until after the draft, which would be April 24. bender235 (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 20:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinte Semi-protect. The current rate of vandalism is an unacceptable 50%. There have been 32 edits this year and 16 of them were vandalism. It is not just recent vandalism, it is persistent vandalism. -- Bejnar (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. AlexiusHoratius 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. High level of IP vandalism from those attempting to change the article from its previously protected form. 88.106.117.168 (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of vandalism. Individual with the name SoxFan999 has repeatedly edited and now out-rite removed article to create an entirely new article on a different subject. all POV changes. Had same problem with him and user Omarcheeseboro This is obviously a personal attack by both who have also nominated and deleted related articles. Please protect long term. See SoxFan999 Edit Log and notice that all his time is spent changing the Florida Whig Party article and those associated with it.Rigga101 (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined If the issue is with one user, better to warn and block if necessary them. No need to protect the article. GedUK  10:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though others and myself have warned him repeatedly and this takes place over a long period of time? Omarcheeseborois also involved. Just look at his response on the talk page.Rigga101 (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.133.78 (talk) [reply]
    Yes. Semi-protect won't stop a registered editor anyway. GedUK  21:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-protection IP's are adding "unconfirmed rumors/unconfirmed reports" about the channel's dispute with DirecTV being resolved without citing reliable sources. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-protection The only edits being done recently are the same POV-changes, even though these are against consensus and Wikipedia policy. A short time of semi-protection should hopefully discourage this, and stop it. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection vandalism, POV pushes This page has a nasty history of vandalism, and, more recently, someone putting in misleading statements and all-out POV statements. I'm wondering if the protection, if granted, could be made either permanent, or at least longer (if temporary)? J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 06:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection This page has been vandalized many times for a few weeks. I suspected all five vandals were the same, based on the pattern. I reported it here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Newcastleman7/Archive. That shows the diffs, except for the most recent one. The closing admin suggested requesting (semi) page protection if it continues. (A couple of the IPs have since been temporarily blocked.) About a half hour ago, one of them vandalized the page again. I am requesting semi-protection as the admin in the sockpuppet ares suggested. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 06:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Sorry, but there's nowhere near the level required for protection. In the last week, there's only been 2 IP edits. GedUK  09:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But it has been going on for a month (14 times starting Feb 4), and the sockpuppet admin said to get the page protected (see above). Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please unprotect this user talk page. It is problematic communicating with this user as it is protected. The user himself also requests unprotection, see User talk:Onevalefan.

    70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Stifle (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection vandalism, This page needs full protection due to vandalism/edit warring from a blocked user who insists on creating sockpuppets and incubating them for a few days to bypass the current semi-protection. See the page history and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jonathansamuel. Not much content has been changed in the past few weeks besides the edit warring so I don't think full protection for a week or two would be very disruptive. ThemFromSpace 06:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. if the SPI concludes sooner, it can be unprotected. I've not time to look at the individuals in this case at the moment. GedUK  09:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism pro-Conan anti-Leno Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Nothing but Conan O'Brien supporters who hates Jay Leno all the time. Editor 410 (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Nothing but Conan O'Brien supporters who hates Jay Leno all the time. Editor 410 (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Nothing but Conan O'Brien supporters who hates Jay Leno all the time. Editor 410 (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Continued IP vandalism, apparently in the form of personal attacks. Swarm(Talk) 05:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It seems to be one IP, who's been warned and appears to have stopped. If it starts again, block the IP. If it's a different IP, bring back here. GedUK  08:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Big name in the free agency that starts today; there are a lot of IPs placing incorrect information. 24 hours should suffice. –Turian (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Are we going to get lots of these today? GedUK  08:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection excessive vandalism - F!ERCE (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  08:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. 5 albert square (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  08:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Endless reverts to non-sourced nonsense. This has been going, on and off, for many, many months as can be seen from the edit history.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  08:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Repeated vandalism by Juliohfv (see history page). Zhang He (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I can't quite see how removing unsourced content can be called vandalism. As the content has been added by an IP, hopefully it won't get put back in without a source. I will watchlist the page as well. I also note that the discussion page hasn't even been started yet. Try to discuss the issues first rather than edit warring. GedUK  08:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection edit war, dispute, Users are reverting each others edits without attempting to reach consensus on the designated talk page. Full protection is suggested until consensus can be reached. SoCal L.A. (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. House1090 (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. it seems to be IPs that are edit warring, editors aren't, as far as I can see. Hopefully a short semi-protection will encourage them to use the talk page. GedUK  08:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semiprotection: current event still getting much news coverage; all the IPs that edited this today were vandals. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Since this request was made, there's been constructive IP edits too. Additionally, this is quite a highly watched page, vandalism is reverted very quickly. Bring back if it picks up significantly. GedUK  08:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection, unconstructive IP edits resumed as soon as protection expired yesterday. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  08:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. The Alastair Campbell vandals appear to have found a new target. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. and a load of blocks handed out. GedUK  08:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection vandalism, Persistent vandalism and test editing is occurring, and greatly detracts from the quality of the page, which should be expected to be very-high quality, if this is the page we want our new users to look at. . Immunize (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This page is often the first one found by new editors, and those who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia but have heard that it is editable by anyone will want to try this out for themselves. The page is frequently "cleaned" by a bot and does not need the attention of editors to keep vandalism out; why would full protection be necessary? Note there is also a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Introduction#Query, at which discussion is ongoing. I would urge admins reading this request to not protect the page without a clear consensus in favor of it on the thread on the talk page. —Soap— 15:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined I think this is one of those special cases. The bot looks after the page adequately well, and the discussion is ongoing. If consensus falls to protection, bring back here, though I'd be surprised if it did. GedUK  08:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=348243556"