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
Line 276: Line 276:
==Current requests for unprotection==
==Current requests for unprotection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading}}


==== {{Jax Desmond}} ====
'''Unprotection''', I'd like to request that this page be edit-unprotected. Jax Desmond is heavily involved in the Anna Nicole Smith trial among other cases and it would be nice to see an article about him.

==== {{la|Peter Schiff}} ====
==== {{la|Peter Schiff}} ====
'''Unprotection''', I'd like to request that this page be edit-unprotected. It seems a bit odd to have 6 month edit protection. The person is currently running for senate, it would be nice to see more editors participate in the article.
'''Unprotection''', I'd like to request that this page be edit-unprotected. It seems a bit odd to have 6 month edit protection. The person is currently running for senate, it would be nice to see more editors participate in the article.

Revision as of 19:48, 9 October 2009

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

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

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

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



    Current requests for protection

    Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload 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.

    Semi-protection. High level of IP vandalism and edit warring, probably related to organisation seeking to publicise itself prior to demonstration in Manchester on 10 Oct. - [1] Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    After a period of inactivity, revision history and possible edit warring has escalated in the last 24 hours. There is a need to calm things down so that editors discuss edits first. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. Something strange is going on here. He doesnt seem to be a figure in the news but yet there are 70+ IP edits in the last few hours, mostly vandalism. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. MuZemike 19:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-protection. High level of IP vandalism.Chelsea-fan1 (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. MuZemike 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. Waiter who was fired for twittering about celebrity behavior in the restaurant where he worked blames this actress for his firing, and various IPs keep inserting his accusations into the article. Lots of gossip coverage, but no RS support for his version of story, and probably undue weight anyway. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    : Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There's only two edits to the page in the last six months nowhere near the level of disruption that would justify any sort of protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I get it now, you reported the dab page by accident. I only looked at the history. Checking to see if protection is necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You got it, I screwed up and listed the wrong link. Just fixed it. Sorry about that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ok we're all sorted out now... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, Vandalism page re-created six times. MuffledThud (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism. UltraMagnus (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    what exactly is considered enough? it has been vandalised three times in the last week --UltraMagnusspeak 19:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, like so many other things around here, there is no exact answer, but the protection policy advises protecting only when there is "a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism." Three times in a week would not seem to meet that definition. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism, including repeated introduction of spelling and grammar errors, incorrect disambiguation, and removal of images without discussion. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been protected so many times before, I went with Semi-protected indefinitely. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, High profile story that has, and will likely continue to, attract a high number of IP vandals. It'll be hard enough to avoid an edit-war here, but it would be great if we can temporarily knock out silly vandalism. Bfigura (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enigmamsg 16:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, possibly full protection. High level of mostly IP vandalism after article subject, on his blog [2], encouraged insertion of nonsense into the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of no expiration specified, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enigmamsg 16:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Racist comments Alsosun (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of six hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enigmamsg 16:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, Page has been created 3 times already. Contributing user may recreate it. E Wing (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Enigmamsg 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn talk 16:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, This page has been subject to vandalism by multiple IP addresses over the past several days. Examples: [3] and [4] ThemFromSpace 15:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 15:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    48-hour extension of temp. semi-protection — There are still IPs upset about his Auschwitz comments and would like to add material in violation of BLP. Request an additional 48 hours to calm tempers. DKqwerty (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Pages aren't protected pre-emptively, even though you're probably right; if they come back with the BLP violations, I'll protect it (or just resubmit it here). Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 14:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, The Wikipedia article is being targeted by several sites, in particular, Free Republic. . APK say that you love me 14:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 14:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Vandalism by IPs. Laurent (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Aqwis (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Consistent POV pushing by IPs... Adil your (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, this is a content dispute involving both IP users and registered users, not vandalism. --Aqwis (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not pushing a single POV anywhere and there is no content dispute if there was user:Adil yours should use talk page. He/she is committing vandalism [5] I've added information from the most reliable sources you can ever find, clearly stating Muhammad of Ghor died in India, He was Afghan of Turkic descent, brother of Ghyasid-Din, nephew of Ala-u-Din, etc. but user:Adil yours removed all that information completely with references from Dupree, Columbia University, Britannica, and others. Can you please warn Adil yours to stop vandalizing the page. Thanks!--119.73.2.214 (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection Chronic vandalism. JNW (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. All the vandals have been accounts, which can be permablocked. No need for the page itself to be protected. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 15:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Requesting again. Lots of edits today, with continuously changing accounts. JNW (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not 100% on this. As long as they're using accounts, we can block them. If they go to IPs, then it's time for a protection. That's just my opinion, though; I won't object to another administrator protecting it. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect. IP vandalism and edit war. Factsofphotos (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator Stifle. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 15:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn talk 11:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 15:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temprary semi protection Too much vandalism by IPs. Changing sales, sources, removing paras, all types of vandalism going on. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 15:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, User page has been vandalised 15 times already in the space of 1 hour. Arctic Fox 10:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Urgently needed, many IPs adding the exact same vandalism. See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/58.106.155.139 BlazerKnight (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected — Kralizec! (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Vandalizing page and changing things. ---Shortskid (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator Sandstein. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, IP users in edit war. Thanks. LouriePieterse 05:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, offending user has been blocked. --Aqwis (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Too many IPs vandalizing page and changing things. ---Shadow (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 15:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Create protection, Page keeps getting created and speedy deleted. Seems that it could use SALT. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator Abecedare.

    Temporary full protection vandalism, Numerous vandals related to current baseball game. ju66l3r (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator Chris G. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection Persistent unsubstantiated POV edits, possibly libelous, over a period of several years, by a single user concerning the wife of a current elected official. These were reviewed today by another editor, who concluded "On closer review, the sources do not seem to support the POV edits at all, and they should be reverted", and removed the edits which were inserted last week. Some page protection seems necessary to prevent future re-insertion of the POV edits by the same user. RHS (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. AFAIK there has been just one such edit since July. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi=protect. Vandalism by a sockpuppeteer. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. One user and one IP making the disruptive edits today, both have been blocked. Hopefully, that will be the end of the story. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:New York Mets (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite move-protection, no reason to move this page; vandalism only. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected I assumed you meant both the article and the talk page, they are both move protected. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, IP vandalism, apparently calmed down last week but in the past few days it came back. - RUL3R*trolling*vandalism 01:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Repeated insertion of copyvio and/or unsourced content by anons despite warnings. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, the IP's last two edits after the final warning were to self-revert the block of text, and to add a cite to the web page. I will AGF that they've gotten the clue, otherwise please relist. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Constant vandalism from anonymous contributors. -- Atama頭 23:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. LAAFansign review 23:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Excessive vandalism throughout the last two days. 5 albert square (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Oops, was protecting it while you were writing this. ed17, if you completely disagree, feel free to unprotect it. tedder (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No big deal. It's had three/four reverts over the last two days, which I didn't consider to be enough, but it's probably borderline. :-) Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism in lead up to October 24, 2009 UFC title fight. Phospheros (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected until after the fight. That's a long time for a first-time-protected article, but the level of vandalism makes me think it's okay. tedder (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Very few edits, let alone vandalism. tedder (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection Zink Dawg -- 21:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected. tedder (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Ali (t)(c) 21:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. --Izno (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm...must have been a conflict...seconds after he set it for 6 months, I set it for four. Feel free to adjust. Willking1979 (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Four works for me. tedder (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Permanent vandalism. DVdm (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If it starts again, come back and we'll protect it for (progressively) longer. tedder (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn talk 20:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. tedder (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn talk 20:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, lots of edits by ip users. Bihco (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, Deprecated template. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: What's the rationale to salt it? I mean, it hasn't been repeatedly created, vandalism isn't an issue, so I don't understand. tedder (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, The topic is continuously vandalized by IP addresses almost every day. It would be a good idea to protect the page for awhile. Ketabtoon (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Looks like more of a dispute on the outcome than vandalism. If it is vandalism, the levels aren't very high. tedder (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Ceddyfresse (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. tedder (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Ceddyfresse (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Can you post diffs to the vandalism? What I'm seeing looks more like an editing dispute, aside from one IP today. tedder (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Ceddyfresse (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. tedder (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection A lot of ip vandalism for several days now. Richard (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Semi-protection only expired two days ago, the vandals have been going nuts. 2 weeks based on the previous length (3 days). tedder (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. IP vandalism. Urban XII (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: That doesn't appear to be vandalism. Why are you marking it as such? Is it discussed on the talk page? You also haven't given user warnings to the IPs. tedder (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeatedly changing "he was not involved in any combat" to "he became leader of the Waffen-SS" (he was a teenager at the time) is not vandalism? I am marking it as vandalism because it is vandalism, as have other editors done before me. Urban XII (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Urban XII here, that is obvious vandalism. Becoming leader of the Waffen-SS at Age 15 doesn't make sense. Besides it would be very unlikely that he was elected into his first political positions in the 1960s if he'd really had major contributions in the war. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 20:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The recent history is the image change edit war that you (Urban XII) marked as vandalism. Is it the text down in that image change you are referring to? If so, can you give a list of diffs to show that it's ongoing? (I'm having trouble following this without doing a lot of research) tedder (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point I would say decline. The ip who tried to say he was in the Waffen SS is indeed a liar and a vandal, but the straight up vandalism does not appear to be a big enough problemto justify protection. You guys should obviously need to discuss the lead image on the talk page.Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note:Ok, I agree. We should wait how this evolves. I think the changing of the image just came between the vandalisms and was unintentionally reverted by Urban XII when undoing the vandalism. The image can clearly be discussed if it need be, but the Waffen-SS story can not. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 06:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, "Rude word" page that is a natural vandalism target, Has had continual vandalism since the last 3-month semi-protection expired. Pontificalibus (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Protected through the end of the school year. If vandalism resumes outside of the school year, it should probably be indefinitely protected. tedder (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Steady long-term multi-source attack, with no reason to suspect coordination. This just seems to be a vandal favorite. Of the last 80 edits, only 2 were neither vandalism nor vandalfighting. And that takes us back less than 2 weeks, to 26 September. I just caught a bit that slipped through the vandalfighter nets, and happily it was minor. I only spotted it because I was searching back to find any real edits. - Sinneed 19:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, During recent days, IP vandalism by two IP numbers, one of them blocked already. . Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Julian, while you were doing that I Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. because of the high probability that they will come back from yet another ip. Feel free to undo if you think I over reacted. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn talk 18:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. see below Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn talk 18:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It was really bad yesterday, but seems to have subsided today. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Repeated instances of vandalism concerning his upcoming fight. --Xander756 (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn talk 17:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Unconstructive edits by unregistered user who keeps adding name of non-notable people with no articles. Have told him/her to stop to no success.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Many anonymous IP's vandalism The C of E (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The article has only been edited by three IPs in the past 14 days. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at 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.


    Template:Jax Desmond

    Unprotection, I'd like to request that this page be edit-unprotected. Jax Desmond is heavily involved in the Anna Nicole Smith trial among other cases and it would be nice to see an article about him.

    Unprotection, I'd like to request that this page be edit-unprotected. It seems a bit odd to have 6 month edit protection. The person is currently running for senate, it would be nice to see more editors participate in the article.

    I would like for the move-protection to be upgraded to sysop as there is no need for an autoconfirmed editor to move the article. Smallman12q (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see you asked ArnoldReinhold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the protecting admin, on his talk page; let's give him a change to respond. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I protected for 6 mo after a shorter protect failed to stop an IP's attacks. I'm removing all protection now since there will likely be more active editors. While I agree there is no need to move the article, we don't usually protect unless there is a problem.--agr (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, No valid reason given for protection. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you ask the protecting admin, User:Anthony Appleyard? tedder (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the original protecting admins appears to be User:Martinp23. He doesn't seem to be too active so I've sent him an email. -Royalguard11(T) 02:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect. Semiprotected 18 months ago because of "recent vand from anons". Discussion started October 2, no responses either way. Protecting admin notified but not editing since July 2009. I'm watching and I think it's worth a go after all this time. --TS 04:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected tedder (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, It's been protected since mid march, I think it's time to unprotect it. Abaxinol (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

    Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

    • Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
    • Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
    • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
    • If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
    • This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.

    Add document page for writing template usage instruction and move all noinclude text/syntax into the doc. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I'd be happy to do this for you, but could you please prepare the documentation page so I can move it over? This will speed up the process, and avoid possible errors. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the doc page is ready. Thx. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done If I did it wrong, let me know on my talk page. I expect that's what you were hoping for. tedder (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done perfectly. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn talk 16:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection Edit Warring. Content dispute. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    full-protection high-visiblity template, One of the major infobox templates used on hundreds of articles; needs to be protected from random, undiscussed edits that could effect so many articles-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. indefinitely by Garion96. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protection Edit warring, content dispute. Disputing whether or not LaGuardia Airport should be listed as a hub. Snoozlepet (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. semi protection won't stop established editors from edit warring... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Excessive vandalism. . 5 albert square (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn talk 15:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn talk 14:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn talk 13:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection spambot target. UltraMagnus (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Almost no edits over the last few weeks. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn talk 11:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn talk 10:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 13:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, For some reason, this article has become a target of vandalism from what I think are students at the school over the last few days. Recommending 1-week temporary protection edit=autoconfirmed, move=autoconfirmed. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 08:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 12:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It so happens we protected this page at the same time. I gave it 2 weeks as it has already been previously protected for 1 week, and the vandalism has been occurring over a period of about a week though concentrated over the last few days so 2 weeks seems like a reasonable buffer. I would not object to a compromise reduction however. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No big deal - the current period of two weeks is fine with me. AlexiusHoratius 13:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, WP:BLP problems not getting rapidly reverted. --aktsu (t / c) 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, This page has a lot of vandalism. Contributors are removing info. Zink Dawg -- 05:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Does not seem out of control, IPs only make up a small amount of the edits being made and only a small amount are blatant vandalism. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection persistent anonymous IP edits including a large block of text to multiple articles relating to recent acquisition. Most recent version appears to be copyvio but also issues around WP:COI and WP:UNDUE. Have attempted to discuss with editor to no avail. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Continuing vandalism from anon with shifting IP. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Moni3 (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Continuing vandalism from anon with shifting IP. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Moni3 (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    to start article

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=318926677"