Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jinxed (talk | contribs) at 18:47, 20 October 2007 (Requesting full protection of User talk:68.20.36.175. using TW). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


"WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, or Wikipedia:Random page patrol.
    Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.
    Shortcuts

    Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection)

    After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
    Request a specific edit to a protected page
    Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
    this header: view • edit


    Current requests for protection

    Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    User talk:68.20.36.175 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary full protection User talk of banned user, User keeps blanking to hide vandalism warnings and block notices..Jinxed - talk 18:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection Constant unsourced addition of track listings by anons. Spellcast 18:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Sudden influx on anon vandalism. Plus too many nonconstructive IP edits since unprotection on October 10. Spellcast 18:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - The bulletin board system‎ page is getting hit at least once a day by anonymous IPs and has been for the last few days. I'd like to formally reenstate my request for semi-protection so only older, registered users can edit the page. ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 17:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    redirect=no

    Full protection - Marked as a "protected redirect" but isn't protected. ~Iceshark7 17:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Category removed. -- Gogo Dodo 17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. High level of IP vandalism, probably because of heightened awareness due to the new film. PKM 17:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. -- Gogo Dodo 17:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection requested to stem the tide of anonymous reversions that keep restoring a ridiculous "two cows" joke to the article. =Axlq 16:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pax:Vobiscum 16:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, Target for IPs of the banned long-term abuser User:Roitr..Videmus Omnia Talk 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Pax:Vobiscum 16:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Picture of a cloud (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    full protection User talk of banned user, This user recently vandalized his page (see [1].AFUSCO 14:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Page protected by Maxim. Pax:Vobiscum 17:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Dispute, Looks like we're about to have a big meatpuppet problem...see here. Requesting full protection in light of that post (dated 2007-10-16).NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 13:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The post have not caused any problems to the actual article. Pax:Vobiscum 16:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Vandalism, Has been vandalised randomly more or less since it was created, presumably due to personal issues related to the article's topic. Most vandalism attempts are made by IPs, only one registered user. CodeCat 12:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. vandalism has only peaked in last few days. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi protection Vandalism, The news has broken in the media that JK Rowling has said that Albus Dumbledore is gay. Vandals are now taking over the Dumbledore article..-- ALLSTAR ECHO 09:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined There's not much vandalism, and it is being reverted quickly. I don't think even semi-protection is necessary.--chaser - t 09:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you kidding? I'm looking at almost 2 pages of edits and reverts because of this. How is one supposed to avoid 3RR to keep the article in check in a situation like this? Do you realize the importance of this "he's gay" announcement in regards to the popularity of the Harry Potter series? It's going to be nothing but vandalism, especially in the morning when the kids get ahold of the news, for several days. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 09:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Anonymous users keep including the "full retail" track listing, even though it does not include the confirmed tracks from the official website or the label's official website..~~ [Jam][talk] 09:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - registered users are doing the same, and I'd prefer to see dispute resolution before I do any full-protting here. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 09:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection Request SP for up to a week due to a number of anonymous users adding nonsense to the article, changing facts, and removing accurate information. ChrischTalk 07:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pax:Vobiscum 17:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi protection because of similar vandalism by several different IPs over the past few weeks (since the end of August). It may be an organized attempt at vandalism by many individuals. See also: Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 05:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page does not exist. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the typo. ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 07:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: At least one of the IPs involved (User talk:193.188.105.230) is registered to Manama, Bahrain, which is related to both of these articles' subjects, suggesting a COI. The particular user mentioned above has previously been blocked for vandalism. The IP users have repeatedly removed sourced material from the articles, despite warnings, providing no explanation other than "rv POV edits" in the edit summaries. ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 07:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    full protection Full protection: User talk of banned user, confirmed sock abusing unblock templates. – ornis⚙ 04:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected User vandalizing own pages after being banned. Dreadstar † 04:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Single-purpose editor adds trivial and/or vanity information with minimal/inconsistent discussion on his own/article's talk page. --EEMeltonIV 04:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Dreadstar † 04:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Bernard Hopkins (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary semi-protection Still under abuse from rotating anonymous IPs that can't be blocked fast enough. This is a persistent problem that's flared up recently and warranted the protecting of other talk pages, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive308#Anon Editor Once Again Causing Problems for background. east.718 at 04:00, 10/20/2007

    Semi-protected, numerous vandalism edits from several different IP's. Dreadstar † 05:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Anon IP (almost certainly a User:JB196 sockpuppet on an open proxy) adding BLP violations back to the article. One Night In Hackney303 02:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. I'll look at it and compare it with known OPs; if it's an OP, I'll hand it to the checkers. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, There is an anon editor, editing from several ips, who is POV-pushing and OR-pushing..—  MusicMaker5376 01:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected--Húsönd 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, heightened.~Eliz81(C) 21:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - due to anon and new user vandalism.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, Significant vandalism various IPs. .NrDg 22:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Also including:

    Both of these articles have seen problems with supposed birthdates. A lot of IP's and new users seem to think "Oh, SpongeBob and Mr. Krabs have their birthdates listed [as they have been mentioned in the show], so why don't I go make up one for Patrick and Squidward?" Discussion on the talkpage has achieved nothing except resulting in a SSP case..NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm recusing from Patrick Star; I clerked a Patrick Star RSE request here; encourage that another admin looks into that. I will check Squidward Tentacles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 00:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Squidward has been Semi-Protected for 2 weeks. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 00:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could another admin please check Patrick Star? If I did this one, my prot could come under fire. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pax:Vobiscum 17:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism going back over a year, --Michael Daly 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, This page is experiencing a lot of IP vandalism. Almost double digit IP address vandalise the page every day. The regular contributors are having a hard time to keep up and revert it.TheHoosierState89 20:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    <Manning>Alright. Here's the plan. Gonzalez, you run out past that tackle, and wait for the ball. Once you get it, run for the touchdown. Don't worry, you're Semi-protected.</Manning> -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. JNW 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, I have this page added to my watchlist and quite often have it appearing on there due to vandalism.RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 20:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. And semiprotect should not be regarded as a preemptive instrumental. --Angelo 21:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Continual Vandalism from Various IP's.Tiptoety 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Continuous, constant and repetitious vandalism acts from numerous IP's and new logged users. All we are doing on this article is reverting it 24/7. Shahid • Talk2me 19:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Continual Vandalism from various IP's .Tiptoety 19:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection The superpowers in the infobox simply CAN'T be left alone. TheBlazikenMaster 19:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protect, High level of IP Vandalisim. 66.93.143.142 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection On-going war over inclusion of non-RS "convenience links". I have set up a discussion on the talk page, please protect pending outcome of discussion. Note that Wikipedia:Article probation is in force which I would think would work toward protecting during this sort of warring. --Justanother 18:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse request. Two Scientologist editors are trying to remove links to websites critical of Scientology without consensus. Justanother, to his credit, is trying to obtain consensus, but his efforts are being undermined by the aggressive edit warring. The status quo needs to be maintained on this article until consensus can be reached. -- ChrisO 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected - edit-warring - Alison ❤ 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection due to edit warring by experienced editors, Oct 18-19 about 5-6 reverts. Possibly tag-team reverts to avoid 3RR. They need to discuss more rather than work thru edit summaries and reverts. (PS I've submitted several protection requests on Isr/Palestine articles recently; nevertheless, I believe each is warranted. Pls double check edit history to form your own opinion here.) HG | Talk 17:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - I'd rather see this go through dispute resolution rather than unilaterally interceding. - Philippe | Talk 21:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection see İzmir below DenizTC 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Ditto with my prot below and CHL's. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:76.178.68.210 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    full protection Vandalism, Abuse of unblock template after being blocked..NrDg 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection see İzmir below DenizTC 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection see İzmir below DenizTC 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection see İzmir below DenizTC 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection see İzmir below DenizTC 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection see İzmir below DenizTC 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection see İzmir below DenizTC 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection see İzmir below DenizTC 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection see İzmir below DenizTC 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection see İzmir below DenizTC 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection see İzmir below DenizTC 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection see İzmir below DenizTC 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection see İzmir below DenizTC 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection constant vandalism (accelerated today) by anons of banned user Sstakis from Macau DenizTC 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Got it for two weeks. Not marking so that if another admin wants to tweak, they know. I'm not going to deal with the rest due to time. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 18:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected (Tagging for bot) -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi protection Vandalism, Short protection please - large flurry of IP vandals throughout today.Tony Fox (arf!) 17:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pax:Vobiscum 19:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection, to reduce vandalism on my user page. Ted Ted 16:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection, Seeking indefinite semi-protection: these pages are incessantly vandalized. In the case of Bee, as soon as semi-protection was lifted recently, vandalism came back immediately (of the last 43 edits, 38 were either vandalism or reversion of vandalism). On the Beetle page, 40 of the last 41 edits were either vandalism or reversion of vandalism. For Coccinellidae, 47 of the last 49. Nearly every vandal was an anon IP. This is very frustrating. You might look at Fly, Insect, and Ant for similar problems. Dyanega 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - all three. Ridiculous levels of anon vandalism - Alison ❤ 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection please to keep off the recent glut of anon vandals. Cheers --Pak21 16:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Target of abusive vandalism from Runtshit sockpuppets; semi-protection will allow established editors to leave messages, but exclude these unpleasant thugs..RolandR 15:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - I'm really sorry. It's not been that bad of late and I consider it highly inappropriate to semi protect a talk page for longer than a a day, other than from unblock abuse. I'll put it on my watchlist, though. Can't believe that RuntShit guy is still at it - Alison ❤ 17:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection I think the reason is self explanatory.Tucats 15:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Newly-registered users are adding unverified information about Mr Nasty's real name and current occupation, despite a warning on the talk page. ... discospinster talk 15:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for one week. I know they're new accounts, but they're about to age, so... - Philippe | Talk 21:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection, before everyone goes insane. Day 97 of a lame edit war over the award title. Chris Cunningham 15:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    - semi-protection For a while now, anonymous users have been adding silly edits like "Winnipeg sucks." Just in this past week, there have been three such edits. • Supāsaru 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, 12 hours. Current and ongoing vandalism from multiple IPs in the same range. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection A large and unencyclopædic block of text copied wholesale from other websites is being repeatedly dumped into this article, apparently by an unregistered editor from IP block 12.73.2xx.xxx. I have — four times now — removed this text with edit summary and talk page explanation; the unregistered editor carries on reverting. There is no evidence s/he is interested in WP policy regarding wholesale text grabs from other websites. --Scheinwerfermann 14:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pax:Vobiscum 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Since September the entire history of this article seems to consist of IP vandal edits and their reversion. Typically four bad edits a day are occurring, but there were 14 attacks on October 10th. This article has been semi-protected in the past; I suggest 28 days this time. EdJohnston 14:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pax:Vobiscum 19:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Gavin.collins (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection This user's talk page has apparently been targeted by assorted IP vandals, possibly in response to user's AfDs in the last few weeks. IPs seem to vary over various ranges, implying a concerted attack. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 12:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Confirmed concerted attack. --Kizor 13:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite Semi-protect. This page has been the target of constant and repeated malicious vandalism. The most recent edit stated the alleged names of the children of a businessman. How is this relevant to the article except to harass the subject? But of greater importance was the edit that stated that the subject's wife wanted a divorce. No attribution. No reliable sources. This is the kind of vandalism which makes a bad name for Wikipedia. Mag6afe 11:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. You may want to report the article to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead. Pax:Vobiscum 13:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. An IP user keeps hitting this page (along with the now semi-protected House, ER, and Grey's Anatomy) with unsourced OR paragraphs. He's been blocked a couple times now, but keeps changing IPs between a wide range (so admin's can't keep up with the blocking). --Maelwys 11:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pax:Vobiscum 13:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Had some ip vandalism before. Would like to prevent that for the future. Thank you..Carter | Talk to me 10:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - your talk page is the only way for new users or IP's to discuss issues with you, semi protection would make the page inaccessible for their good faith requests so as present, there isn't enough activity to justify protection. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call. My mistake. Didn't mean to request it for my talk page as well. Thank you for my user page though. Have a good one. Carter | Talk to me 10:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Had some ip vandalism before. Would like to prevent that for the future. Thank you. .Carter | Talk to me 10:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Ryan Postlethwaite 10:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Under constant attack from both malicious and silly vandalism - so much that the bots can't cope and miss a lot. Fed up with sorting out the mess.--John of Paris 07:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed request to show links; will check. -Jéské(v^_^v) 08:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If they come back and cause trouble when the block expires or they start using sleepers, come on back. -Jéské(v^_^v) 09:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protect This page has been subject to persistent silly vandalism for months on end, especially during the school year - bored students passing messages to each other. --John of Paris 07:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed request so that it has article links; will check. -Jéské(v^_^v) 08:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If things worsen, come back here. -Jéské(v^_^v) 09:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-protection Edit-warring, and a discussion is currently underway on the TP. -Jéské(v^_^v) 20:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Potential vandalism, subject was target of FBI raid and possible rape allegation that might be career-damaging.--Msr69er 02:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Come back when the vandalism actually starts, please. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:21, 20 October 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 overeagerly by an admin, because of an unsolved edit dispute. One party of this dispute has not reacted to talk page discussions since then. Vandalism has not been occurred. The page should therefore been unprotected again. If protection is still uphold, the tag/template should be converted to a discreet (invisible) form to avoid distraction for the readers. Thanks in advance Lear 21 18:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected* after edit war, one faction has been blocked indefinably so editing should be able to resume as it was before the fighting broke out. (*The article is actually not really protected, but an admin may think or mean it to be and this seems more considerate than simply removing the tag and going back to editing.) Anynobody 05:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Note: Aleardy done Done by Alison Mercury 12:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect Give me a break. "The i heard you liek mudkipz" have got to STOP, it is just as popular as Yu-Gi-Oh the Abridged series. Anyways, It has been protected for weeks now, and SIHULM may have stop spreading toward this article. PrestonH 04:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected for many months, requesting unprotection. 68.39.174.238 03:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - give it a shot - Alison ❤ 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection The vandalism levels are slowly decreasing. I think it's safe to unprotect this page. 69.181.140.6 01:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed template to point to the actual article; will check. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined - History shows sleepers. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection , I politely request unprotection of this page. In my opinion, the necessity for semi-protection of this page has ended. The last delinquency dates back to 17 August, more than three months ago. This page should no longer be protected, certainly since i have valuable information (from reliable sources) i wish to add. --Brent2 17:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 18 Oktober 2007[reply]

    Unprotected - two months have passed now. See how it goes - Alison ❤ 17:52, 18 October 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.

    There was no edit war, hence no need for protection. Muntuwandi 06:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined so long as there is a DRV in progress requiring the article in question. The article was not locked because of combat; it was locked for a DRV. -Jéské(v^_^v) 09:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please leave him the following messages, in order for some of his images to be deleted he must first be warned, however I can't warn him because he is indefinitely blocked and his talk page is protected. 

    {{subst:idw|Image:Fjc4.jpg}} ~~~~
{{subst:di-no fair use rationale-notice|1=Desktop Widgets.jpg}} ~~~~
    Declined, [2]. – Steel 16:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment that was blanked (not by an admin) before the page was locked should be included again as the references needed are already provided in the "external links" section of the article page .- 192.54.144.229 09:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Please establish a consensus on the artilce's talkpage for the restoration of this content. WjBscribe 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, on 10-Oct an editwar started on the Herbert Dingle article. After a few complaints about disruptive editors and the usage of sock-puppets, admin Isotope23 blocked the page in a state somewhere half-way in between controversial edits.

    Details and pointers in administrator intervention requests here and here.

    Request: as suggested by Isotope23 here and here, could someone please restore the last stable and agreed upon version of 2-Oct and subsequently keep the page protected until we reach an agreement on the talk page about how to go ahead?

    Thanks and cheers, DVdm 09:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that the allegations of mal-practice made against me were all made by DVdm himself for the exclusive reason that I was the one he was arguing with.
    DVdm wants to impose his own POV on the article. On my part, I just want to state the basic facts. The existing article contains the basic facts. DVdm wants to overstamp it with his own strong opinion that Dingle was wrong. I would advise protecting the article as it now stands (Brigadier Armstrong 11:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)0[reply]

    Also note that Brigadier Armstrong is under investigation for checkuser, as stated above, for sock-puppeteering, using special purpose accounts and talk page disruption in general. - DVdm 12:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just a point of clarification, I was not suggesting "restore the last stable and agreed upon and subsequently keep the page protected...". I was suggesting that any party interested in modifying the page to a different version should come here to request an unprotection and review by another admin as I am personally not inclined to unprotect at this time due to the continued contentiousness of the discussion at the article talkpage. In any event, I would not support any effort to unprotect an article just to go from one wrong version to another wrong version and then protect that. If this is unprotected it should be because it is clear that the parties discussing this are committed to working within the process and not edit warring.--Isotope23 talk 12:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined See m:wrong version. --DarkFalls talk 06:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, This page had been vandalized numerous times in the past few days and should be protected..Spitfire8520 05:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. - Philippe | Talk 06:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism also page has recently been semi-protected. †Poison the Well† 01:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for two weeks. - Philippe | Talk 06:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary full protection. User attempting to change licensing of image and remove rationale. Edit warring. aNubiSIII (T / C) 04:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

    Fully protected w/o set expiry because of the combat. Come back when the edit war has abated. -Jéské(v^_^v) 05:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection. Edit warring over image. Anubis3 04:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC) aNubiSIII (T / C) 04:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

    Fully protected No Nobel Peace Prizes here. -Jéské(v^_^v) 05:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Vandalism.SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 03:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Full-protection locks out non-admins as well, and barring an edit war, office actions, OTRS ticks, and the like, shouldn't be requested or performed. -Jéské(v^_^v) 05:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    indefinite semi-protection , Don't want IP editors changing or vandalizing my page.Tiptoety 04:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Tiptoety 05:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Continual vandalism from various IP's.Tiptoety 04:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.

    semi-protect. Permanent or long term if possible. Continuous drone of anon IP vandalism. Occurs several times every week, sometimes daily, sometimes hourly. Kids behind school IP's seem to like to use it to pass notes and converse. Semi-protection in the past has stopped all this. --James52 04:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Gogo Dodo 04:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we look at this request again? It was vandalized a couple of times again, today.

    --James52 05:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Continual vandalism from various IP's.Tiptoety 04:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - much vandalism right after expiry on the 15th. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection. I request protection because it is the original email. I received it personally on 19 October, 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Test-me0 (talk • contribs)

    Declined - And page deleted. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for storing chain letter emails. -- Gogo Dodo 04:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. JNW 04:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary full protection Vandalism.SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 03:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Kolindigo 03:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - much vandalism right after expiry. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection , Don't want IP editors changing my page..NrDg 03:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Done -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect page is currently being cluster-vandalised by random iPs HalfShadow 02:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected[3] by C.Fred . - auburnpilot talk 03:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, Significant vandalism and reverts lately. Suggest some cool-down time and they might go away..NrDg 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 16 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Full protection. This user isn't taking his one-week block too well. He's replacing the various messages with personal attacks. Taking away his soapbox would be best. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected user vandalizing his own page with offensive language and personal attacks. Dreadstar † 03:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=165891883"