Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SigmaX54 (talk | contribs) at 07:23, 19 November 2007 (→Current requests for protection). 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.

    {la|List of Rugrats characters}}

    Full Protection repeated, persistent vandalism This page is notorious for its history of vandalism. To my knowledge, it has been semi-protected twice due to repeated vandalism, and the second time, vandals were subverting the protection by registering as users. This problem has been going on for months. --SigmaX54 (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi' sindbadsforty is only the latest incarnation, I believe, of 195.230.73.2, who never discusses any changes to the page, and also has vandalized in the past the Moscow Times page. Please forgive my incorrect request form, but maybe it would be possible to protect the page from anonymous and recent users, one-hit wonders like Sindbadsforty?? Thank you!!!Dietwald (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi Ad's being placed constantly, might be good idea to protect. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full - Indefinite protection. Indef blocked user, being disruptive on talk page; I've reverted 2 edits already. Rjd0060 (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism; frequent cases in the past of aggravated vandalism. I'm not entirely certain what kind of protection this garners, if any, but from experience, the students of this school have a tendency to vandalize the page. Yrbanys (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. east.718 at 06:50, November 19, 2007

    full protection It has to be protected right now 6:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. east.718 at 05:12, November 19, 2007

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Arion (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 72 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. east.718 at 05:12, November 19, 2007

    SALT This "article" has been deleted and recreated 4 times over the course of about 25 minutes. I don't see much potential for any future articles under this title. Icestorm815 (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done.  :-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Pcj 82 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Protection This user has been blocked indef. for vandalism and is blanking their page. They are an established user (more than 4 days), so semi wouldn't cut it. Icestorm815 (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected indefinitely. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Vandalism, especially from IPs who are predicting the "end of the world".-Goodshoped 02:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The end of the world is not nigh yet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. -Goodshoped 03:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Daler (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, especially from IPs. Someone just reverted two revisions id'd as vandalism! -Goodshoped 02:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Sorry! Just report the users at WP:AIV. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    indefinite full protection User talk of banned user, Actually, just an indef blocked user (not "banned"). User being disruptive, adding requests for unblock, when unblock has already been denied twice..Rjd0060 (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected indefinitely. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection, Vandalism, Continual vandalism by anon IP .Muzzamo (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Oxymoron83 02:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. SilentAria talk 01:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Oxymoron83 02:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. A very high and regular level of IP vandalism (more vandalism edits here than constructive contribution). Everything from Ricky Hatton masturbates [1], to wanting to fight his new opponent was the worse decision of his life [2]. Also, an unusual amount of test edittors seem to use this page to High level of IP vandalism [3]. Talk page seems okay. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Húsönd 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - in light of recent edits, I'm going to protect this. Feel free to revert me! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection - Blocked user continues to revert block notice. No reason anyone would ever need to edit this again. Would recommend protecting talk page as well. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected indefinite --Oxymoron83 00:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Frequent vandalism lately, with sock puppets vandalizing after other accounts being banned..Mlouns (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. We can't indefinite semi-protect without extreme - really extreme - levels of vandalism. Remember - "anyone can edit"! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! This latest vandal seems to be playing games by jumping around various accounts in the past week, so this hopefully will help cool things down. Mlouns (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has been unprotected for less than 24 hours and it's been vandalized non stop since then. The article should probably be (again) semi-protected indefinitely. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. east.718 at 22:48, November 18, 2007

    semi-protection Vandalism, Heavy IP vandalism.Oysterguitarist 22:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Today's IP vandal has been blocked as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting long term semi-protection due to heavy and persistent anon/Ip vandalism. --Neon white (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. east.718 at 20:59, November 18, 2007

    Multiple vandalism today, has been reverted at least 13 times. -- Roleplayer (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of five days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. east.718 at 20:56, November 18, 2007

    Wide range of vandalism from people claiming to be named Teresa and adding them selves to the list of people named Teresa or page blanking. Samuell (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. east.718 at 20:56, November 18, 2007

    Semi-protect: The article faces regular vandalism: removal of sourced version and replacement by a grammatical wrong, unreferenced version by anon users who all claim to User:Vishal1976 (different IPs, all of which can be traced to the same building: VSNL Tech, Prabhadevi, Mumbai. Note VSNL is major internet provider in India and the user who claims to be Vishal1976, may be takes advantage of working in the company or frequently uses its facilities -can be a internet cafe etc.) The vandalism started once again when the semi-protection granted earlier on 6 Oct was removed on 22 Oct. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect: Like Khandoba, The article faces regular vandalism: Expressing of personal views of hatred and WP:OR by anon users who all claim to User:Vishal1976.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect regular removal of large sections of text by unregistered and newly registereed users in order to "protect the secret" against the consensus established on the talk page - this has occured several times recently (for example [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect please protect this page as revert war is currently onghoing between myself and an annon user. Please protect the page to end the revert war, please also note that the anon has voilated the 3rr rule.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected - Semi-protection is not an option here, as that would eliminate one party (i.e. the IP) but permit the other (you) to edit. The page will be automatically unprotected in 6 weeks. Anthøny 16:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protect Protection expired before discussion was complete; edit war has resumed. --Strothra (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection has been granted to this page at least three times so far (most recently a little over a month ago) to protect the page from persistent and extreme vandalism, which takes the form of replacing the entire page with objectionable content. Unfortunately, each time the month-long period of protection expires, the vandal returns. I guess another round of semi-protection is in order, but does anyone know if there's a more permanent solution to this problem? The vandal creates a new account for nearly every occurrence, so I'm not sure how to go about blocking him. Any assistance/guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Huwmanbeing ★ 14:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect My page is daily being blanked with only a brief crude message being left at the top. This is probably being done by one editor, but, since it is done each time from a different IP there is no way to leave a warning or to report them to AIV. Any help will be appreciated and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 14:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Bizarrely, this request was previously denied by a user named Alison who stated there was no vandalism, though if you do a basic check of the History of the page, it is evident that is not the case. I am shaking my head here, wondering how somebody could do such a poor job. Here are just a few cases of vandalism:

    • 10:53, 31 October 2007 168.102.135.9 (Talk) (14 bytes) (←Replaced page with 'lol, buttsecks')
    • 17:21, 24 October 2007 Arthurrh (Talk | contribs) m (25,570 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 72.221.99.252 identified as vandalism to last revision by Bathrobe. using TW)
    • 10:53, 31 October 2007 VoABot II (Talk | contribs) m (25,147 bytes) (BOT - Reverted edits by 168.102.135.9 {vandalism} to revision #168278419 by "SmackBot".)
    • 04:32, 2 November 2007 Faithlessthewonderboy (Talk | contribs) (25,476 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 68.212.45.30 identified as vandalism to last revision by 82.194.108.69. using TW)
    • 12:35, 3 November 2007 Triwbe (Talk | contribs) m (25,927 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by 76.118.7.173 identified as vandalism to last revision by Hut 8.5. using TW)
    • 12:37, 3 November 2007 Triwbe (Talk | contribs) (25,883 bytes) (rv vandalism)
    • 09:13, 18 October 2007 Easrefsa (Talk | contribs) (361 bytes) (←Replaced page with 'is what derek does Category:Anal eroticism Category:Sexuality and religion bg:Содомия ca:Sodomia de:Sodomie es:Sodomía [[fr:Sodomi...')
    • 09:11, 18 October 2007 Easrefsa (Talk | contribs) (286 bytes) (←Replaced page with 'IS GAY! bg:Содомия ca:Sodomia de:Sodomie es:Sodomía fr:Sodomie it:Sodomia he:מעשה סדום nl:Sodomie no:Sodomi [[...')
    • 17:53, 16 October 2007 72.83.119.113 (Talk) (25,389 bytes) (vandalism taken out)

    And those are just a few. Much of the vandalism was not tagged as such. I have to recommend that other administrators review the user or admin who declined this previously and cited an obvious false reason. I don't have any personal animosity, but I don't believe this person is doing their job. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 12:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Alison was correct in her decision - just keep reverting, it's only a few edits per day, if that. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If Alison had stated that "We only protect pages that are vandalized 50 times a day, then you would be correct. However, she said that there was no vandalism whatsoever and that pages are not pre-emptively protected. And so, I do not believe that she did any basic research. I will have to ask for a new change in policy that protection extend to pages such as this that are obviously vandalized frequently. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 21:28, 18 November 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.

    When will this article be unprotected? It's been protected the whole time it has to be unprotected once. Qst 7:00, November 2007 (UTC)

    Unprotected -- Flyguy649 talk 06:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like somebody from outside the arguing community to at least give this protection the once over. It's been a week, and the edit war that caused it was only 11 edits, and 1 of those was self-reverted. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 04:51, 19 November 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.

    Page was protected with IP vandalism still in the article. The diff of the IP edit can be found here. Please remove this from the article immediately due to its blatant defamation that could cause trouble for Wikipedia. —Viriditas | Talk 13:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This column was protected and there has been no activity in over a month.

    Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please replace the featured picture tag with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/Cartoon Villain}} as its featured status was revoked per Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Cartoon Villain. MER-C 05:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done east.718 at 06:11, 11/6/2007

    The current revision restored blatant vandalism. This is presumably a mistake from the user that protected it. Just64helpin (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually I'm sure it is an error, since the admin reverted the same vandalism in an earlier edit. Just64helpin (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, someone got it. Just64helpin (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Permanent semi-protect. This disambiguation page should be very stable but unfortunately gets a lot of puerile IP vandalism. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, Requesting temporary soft protection against repeat vandalism..Newtman (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I thought 12 vandalism edits in one day was enough to justify a request. The offending vandal was finally blocked, hopefully no sockpuppets will appears and start this all over. Newtman (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder what counts as enough vandalism to this admin. Perhaps 30+ edits daily? How about some other completely arbitrary number? - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection. High level of IP vandalism recently. 'Net (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 7 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Flyguy649 talk 06:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection Vandalism.— E talkBAG 04:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. east.718 at 05:32, November 18, 2007


    SNOW This has been used four times from the same user for vandalisim. Marlith T/C 01:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm...do you mean WP:SALTing? bibliomaniac15 02:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected indefinitely. Has been left blank with my signature. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That probably wasn't the right way to do things. Fix it up and tell me off, chaps. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Creation protected east.718 at 02:11, November 18, 2007
    Sorry. Confused the policies. Marlith T/C 04:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection.High level of IP vandalism. There has been a lot of vandalism regarding the article Firebending. Because of a leaked episode. Various anonymous users have starting an editing war.Boywonder18 (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - see how that goes for a start. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection.High level of IP vandalism. Same as above.Boywonder18 (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Any useful information from IPs should be discussed on talk before being added. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. High level of vandalism recently Rtphokie (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Sorry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full Protection it was agreed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namek saga that the link would be merged. Several users keep editing the established redirect and there is constant reverting. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected indefinitely. Any more edits will have to go through a redirect discussion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    indefinite semi-protection, approaching 20% IP vandalism by edit count, all pretty egregious, to a BLP page. --- tqbf 23:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. east.718 at 23:31, November 17, 2007
    Semi-protected for one week. I disagree with east718, and have left notification on their talk page to that effect. I'm a bit more aggressive about page protection w/BLP issues, and this one makes me nervous. I have also informed east718 that if they feel strongly they should feel free to revert me without issue. - Philippe | Talk 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite move-protection , Actress recently changed legal name. Protect against moves from common name to new legal name..NrDg 23:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indefinite not required. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested by a user with a {{helpme}} request on their talk page. The articles has been protected for about three months now, I think it is safe enough to unprotect. Qst 17:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Anonymous users keep adding unverifiable results - over twenty different edits (and corresponding reverts!) in the last 15 minutes! ~~ [Jam][talk] 22:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, the article is now suffering from just general vandalism of the results section. ~~ [Jam][talk] 23:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. east.718 at 23:08, November 17, 2007

    indefinite full protection Vandalism, This page has been vandalized too many times with various phrases, calling them homosexuals, the list goes on and on. People obviously have something against them or something is going horribly wrong here. Like the Green Day article, a band highly controversial for no good reason..Fishdert (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Indef full is a bit much, especially when some edits will be positive ones! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection reverting is kind of getting out of hand. I removed all of the superfluous genres per WP:MOS-ANIME and unsourced data per WP:V but there are users who still revert the article to the same cruft revision it was before. I'd like for the page to be fully protected until all disputes are solved on the talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=172445935"