Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SelfEvidentTruths (talk | contribs) at 04:47, 15 December 2008. 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 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-protect. High level of POV-motivated vandalism from sockpuppet who calls himself HonourOfficerMcPhaill (and tomorrow may go by another name he creates solely for the purpose of vandalizing this article). Despite warnings to identify himself properly and suggest changes in the proper way pursuant to WP policy, he continues to hide behind sockpuppets. Request protection from sockpuppets and other newly-created accounts. User:SelfEvidentTruths (talk - contribs) 04:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection IPs keep adding unsourced information about him possibly switching teams and making it seem like a daily sports news place. – BlueRed – 03:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Currently describes an ongoing event that is taking place live, and the article is subject to heavy vandalism wars by IP users. At the least, the information being added is unsourced until an official press release is released. Request semi-protection for 12 hours, until the event is over and an official release has been made..Matt T. (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Ryulong. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 04:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection Edit warring by IPs. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I came here to request it as well. Seems that Silly Rabbit beet me to the punch. But it goes more than a simple 3rr edit war, it's a slow attrition war. The IP(s) edits against consensus, and refuses to engage in productive discussions, time and time again over the course of many months. See [1] [2] and [3], etc... Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full-protection Heavy vandalism. JNW (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Jayvdb. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 04:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create protection To prevent recreation under CSD G4 per AFD discussion. The protection was expired five hours ago. ApprenticeFan (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Constant vandalism from multiple anonymous users.–  LATICS  talk  02:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 30 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hopefully this will get us through the vacation season, and we'll see how it goes. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Any level of protection whatever keeps the vandals away. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Considerable vandalism has been going on for the past few days, especially within the past one. .BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. CIreland (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Too much vandalism from IP addressed users.Mark Chung (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect. new editor using socks to avoid discussing borderline vandalistic edits. This would force him to use discussion. -Thibbs (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Can you explain (for one not familiar with the subject) why his edits are "borderline vandalism"? You may wish to consider putting a case together for the edit-warring noticeboard if this is a good faith content dispute. CIreland (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection, due to usage in 2000+ articles. Opting for semi only right now, as there have been no prior cases of vandalism and none of the maintainers wield sysops. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Nickname often being changed.Sdkochman (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. CIreland (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:70.176.12.26 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi protect. Blocked user repeatedly posting nonsense on their Talk page. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done by User:Jac16888. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temp semi-protection: repeated addition of youtube links failing WP:EL by anon. Kaini (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The Helpful One 00:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full-protection: Edit war. A few days off might help. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temp Semi protection:Persistent vandalism from IP address 137.30.109.75 and othersToddHowell (talk)

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The Helpful One 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temp Semi protection:Persistent vandalism from IP address 137.30.109.75 and othersToddHowell (talk)

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. You need to warn the IP before it can be blocked. The Helpful One 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    long-term semi-protection Almost all contributions are vandalism by students, going back for months. JNW (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, re-created spam of non-notable made up holiday.Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected GbT/c 21:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, AV bot, so attracts vandalism from time to time. I'm the owner of the bot..Pseudomonas(talk) 20:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. The Helpful One 21:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Recent silly vandalism. Attempts to rectify said vandalism by multiple users have not been fruitful. Ian Glenn (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Grr! Protect conflict! I've reverted back to your time, Cirt. The Helpful One 21:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah okay, no worries either way is okay by me. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Lynch9000s (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary full protection user talk of blocked user, User is vandalising page instead of making unblock request..JS (chat) 19:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 31 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GbT/c 20:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect: Commonly comes under vandalism by the Current Events board on GameFAQs. ShadowUltra (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --fvw* 19:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection, Article creater keeps removing redirect and "recreating" non notable article despite requests not to on his talk page..JS (chat) 17:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for three months. Tan | 39 17:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection: Persistent removal of well-sourced and notable content (lengthy investigative article by a notable journalist at a major newspaper) without discussion. Attempts to engage other editors unsuccessful. Possible sock puppets (new accounts that only edit out this content). --ThirdSide (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for one week. Semi-protection should be sufficient. Tan | 39 17:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temp Semi protection:Persistent vandalism, BLP violations, edit warring over the singers name (even though it's sourced *shrug*), most probable sock puppetry and general addition of unsourced information. — Realist2 17:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The Helpful One 17:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection: edit-warring. Revert-war involving multiple editors over the use of non-free images arising from a debate at WT:NFC. (Full disclosure: Although I have not edited the page, it is currently on my preferred version). CIreland (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The Helpful One 17:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, IP's are going to continue to add Alexandra Burke's version of the song! Her version has its own article and does not need repeating here. I suggest a few days of semi-protection until the hype dies down and the anon editors realise that the other article exists. Thanks.JS (chat) 15:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Linked to Hallelujah (Alexandra Burke song) in the protection message. The Helpful One 17:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection, userspace sub page.need semi protection.-- Tinu Cherian - 14:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Alexf(talk) 15:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect - tendentious editing, similar in style and content to that of banned User:HarveyCarter, and originating from same IP range. Rossrs (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for one week. Tan | 39 17:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection - Adding too many examples and vandalism of computer pranks, making article adding more "example spam". KingScreamer (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2008 (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.

    User talk:194.72.9.25 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    I requested this page to be unprotected earlier. Perhaps I did not explain the reasons for this properly. This talk page was protected, because another user had blanked the page. When an administrator found this, they took this to be a disruptive edit, or an attempt to remove previous warnings and barred the page. This means that anonymous editors cannot communicate with administrators using the IP-address given (which as you may be aware is being shared).

    The reason I'm asking for the page to be unprotected, is that, I've previously had my own anonymous edits to my own talk page reverted (with a warning) from an admin., so I'm surprised that making edits on 'someone else's' talk page (when logged in) would now appear to be allowed. I hope you can make a decision. (Kreb (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Declined, with no prejudice towards another admin's review or actions. I was involved in this hoopla (and was the initial blocking admin for this IP address). Perusing the talk page history, you can see that it is full of unblock requests (all declined), vandalism, "grandstanding", protests, and nonsense. All the information that a user needs is in the banners and associated links. There is very little, if any, constructive or helpful edits that an IP can now make to this page. Tan | 39 22:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Granted. Does this, however, mean that the bar could be lifted in the future, once the current incident has ended?? It would be disappointing for this ban to remain indefinitely. (Kreb (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    I would say that that depends on if various ISPs maintain the block on the contested image. I don't fully understand how the technical aspects of this works, but it is my understanding that thousands of users were "funnelled" into this particular IP address due to IWP and the associated IP blocks. As ISPs lift the blocks now that IWP has backed down, I think the problem should quietly go away. Perhaps I can change the current protection to, say, two months? That might be long enough for the problems to dissipate. Tan | 39 22:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I guess that's the most feasible outcome we can hope for at the moment. (Kreb (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Protection length changed from indefinite to two months. Tan | 39 22:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, Somehow when I was creating the page, this Jerry guy has to delete everything and when I try to edit it again he protects it. I mean, seriously, I think I know about my school better than him. I used to go to Oak Knoll! It's been around for 50 years! Thanks a million. Bubba Chilukuri (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Tan | 39 17:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It was deleted last year as it was non-noticable. Now, it is the biggest shopping mall in Boon Lay & Jurong West which a 2nd building was launched on 14th Dec 2008 with more new shops. Yongjianrong (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Please create a referenced article in your userspace, then re-request unprotection with a link to your page. Tan | 39 17:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was reviewing edit requests on these pages and am bringing them here instead, because I think that the lack of any actual editwarring on them warrants the lifting of their protection. See also my discussion with the protecting admin at User talk:Grutness#Category:Kosovo stubs.  Sandstein  07:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, seems like the reason for protection was that the user requesting the edit now was adding this. There is a controversy about the status of Kosovo and I do not think adding it to Category:Serbia stubs will serve WP:NPOV as there will mostly likely be edit-warring about it. I would strongly suggest to reach consensus first before unprotecting these categories or making changes. Regards SoWhy 13:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that is a fabrication. If you will note this, it was created and then instantly locked by the admin, with the edit summary "(Protected Category:Kosovo geography stubs: pre-emptive protect after problems in the past with the template and similar cats [edit=sysop:move=sysop])". I have edited Category:Kosovo stubs ONCE, and the same admin also locked it. As you will notice, I added to Category:Abkhazia stubs, Category:Georgia (country) stubs in the interests of WP:NPOV (NPOV doesn't just extend to articles as you very well know). If you notice here, Grutness claims there has been substantial edit-warring, and as you can see from the history of both of the Kosovo categories, there has been ZERO edit-warring, and he even claims Whether the edit warring would move to the category is difficult to tell. So please don't make it out like I am the one responsible for this being locked. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 16:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I have never said you were responsible, just that you added the same edit before protection. Protections are never punitive but always to prevent disruption that has already happened and it is fair to assume it will happen here as well. My point is just that there should be some consensus whether your edit is to be added or not, seeing that it has been reverted before. Regards SoWhy 18:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you will notice, the admin who removed and then locked, has linked to discussions which don't appear to give him consensus for removal and then locking, but it appears it is somewhat a unilateral move on his part. To keep such things locked under those circumstances is not quite on, is it? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Making another mistake because the protecting admin made a mistake (if so) does not make it better. If you think the admin made a mistake, you should have raised it at WP:ANI. With the WP:ARBMAC ruling in mind, I think there is a likely possibility that others will remove any allegations that Kosovo-related articles are part of Serbia-related topics. I do not see where the problem is with trying to reach consensus before making an edit you know will be reverted (as it has been before). SoWhy 20:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had a couple of hundred spare hours to spend, I could hunt through all the places that this discussion has been mentioned and track down the actual places where consensus was reached. I do not have that much spare time, so instead provided pointers to the easier to find previous discussions which referred to the earlier consensus, which I hoped would be enough. I also left information of User talk:Sandstein as part of the discussions he has initiated over this subject which I hope will fuurther explain matters. As to the protection of the category itself, the problem is not so much edit-warring on the category as edit-warring on all the articles contained within it. Given the history of articles which have had references to Kosovo being part of Serbia repeatedly added and removed, any change in the status of the category is very likely to be reflected in changes across a large number of individual pages. Personally, I have no beef with either side in terms of the actual political status of Kosovo, though the stub-sorting project does tend to favour the (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) rule of not creating stub types for putative nations unless there is wide international recognition for them, and then splitting them completely. There are historical exceptions of course (e.g., when a nation is recognised but is also seen as being within a larger nation, or where a national subdivision could be interpreted as a separate nation. The latter case is the problem here - is Kosovo independent (as recognised by over 50 other countries), or is it a recognised subdivision of Serbia? Grutness...wha? 21:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the answer to your last question, which is all that really matters at this point, is BOTH. It is both a recognised subdivision of Serbia and an independent nation, depending on which side of the fence one sites. This in essence is what WP:NPOV is all about. It isn't about discounting the views of 150 countries all because 50 countries recognise it as independent, because not only is that arrogant, but it is also POV. I see no reason why an admin is able to be judge, jury and executioner on such an issue. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - and no admin does. An admin does have the duty to ensure that edit conflicts are kept to a minimum where possible, however, which is what I did in this case. As I pointed out, I personally couldn't care less whether Kosovo is regarded as independent or not - all that matters to me is protecting this category in the form less likely to produce edit conflicts for the pages contained within it. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having been asked for a second opinion, and having looked through all this, I concur with SoWhy's view - there's no evidence that the edit warring which lead to the articles being protected in the first place wouldn't recommence, and the edit being proposed is one which formed part of that in the first place. Get consensus on the talk page and then bring it back here for a protected edit request (in the section below this). GbT/c 20:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you look closer, because there has been no edit-warring. Category:Kosovo geography stubs has a total of two edits; both by Grutness, and then locked. In a period of two months, Category:Kosovo stubs has had Category:Serbia stubs added twice by two different editors, and both times they were removed by Grutness, and then locked by Grutness. Please stop pushing the line that there is edit-warring, or any potential edit warring which is going to occur, because that is not the case, nor will it be the case as far as I am concerned. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 21:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out, change to a category or template causes cascading edit-warring on the articles contained within that category. if you look at the history of changes in articles using {[tl|Kosovo-geo-stub}} and {{Kosovo-stub}}, and similar controversial stub types e.g., Cyprus-geo-stub) when they had their wording changed, you will see some indication of the reason why some stub categories are pre-emptively protected, to prevent the same thing happening with any changes to them. Grutness...wha? 21:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to Kosovo categories I can see no evidence of sustained edit-warring on Kosovo categories. On articles yes, but that is usually done by IP's, as the majority of articles have settled down. The solution is not to lock such things so that established users can't edit, but perhaps semi-protect them instead. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, most of the edit warring is done on the articles, so we seem to be in agreement there. However, much of that editing was done by established users - even long-term well-established users like Dbachmann have become involved in them before now. In the past it has been the case that edit-warring on the articles was at least in part the result of changes in category information. So the best solution is to ensure that any changes to the category can only occur if there has been considerable discussion beforehand. That will not happen if the protection is reduced from full- to semi-protection. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 14 December 2008 (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.

    File:Ambox button.png Would it be possible for Image:Ambox_content.png to be replaced with Image:Ambox_button.png? The second image is redone from scratch following the original design points. Although the original image is on Wikimedia Commons, the reason I think this image would be better is because it would provide a less-goofy feel to the bunch of Wikipedia pages tagged with templates holding the old image. Mikco (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    I need neutral admin to take a look at this article and see if it should be unprotection or semiprotect. I changed a semiprotect to a hard protect because users continued to add information that was not official. Although Ibáñez seems to have signed with the Phillies, it is not official yet. Please review my decision, and if change the protection level how you see fit (if need be). Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Changed down, as I see only one user doing so. Per protection policy, that user should be warned and/or blocked instead. Regards SoWhy 13:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, This article is the target of recent, regular vandalism..Wikipedian2 (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, all the vandalism stems from one static IP which has been blocked now. SoWhy 13:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please Indef-Salt. This is a most unlikely title for a page, only notable to vandals. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, Used for vandalism, no meaningful purpose.Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 12:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The template hasn't been created in over three years (since August 2005). Why do you think it needs protection right now? either way (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Declined, The last creation was back in 2005. Therefore I can't see a reason for protection, as pages are not protected pre-emptively. —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection — Vandalism. Article has be subjected to vandalism for the last two weeks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The Helpful One 12:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection — Vandalism. All 20 or so edits for the past week have been IP-sourced vandalism, and reversals. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There has been a lot of vandalism since the protection expired, so now 2 months. The Helpful One 12:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, Article has been created and Speedy Deleted 5 times since 12/07. This is persistent, undeterred vandalism..Digital Mischief 08:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected The Helpful One 12:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, There are two anonymous edits that are persistently adding non-notable products here (looks spamming their own product, although they don't put external links). They have been warned, but they still add it. They have been asked to create the page first, but they didn't. This leads to an edit war. Please read through the history of the page and the discussion page..Dekisugi (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, always the same IP(s), can be blocked instead. SoWhy 13:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Test page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Unprotection, Redirect to Wikipedia:Sandbox.Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 12:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined we don't allow cross namespace redirects like that. See Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects for thoughts on it, either way (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection dispute, Please full protect until he officially signs..Enigma message 22:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Cirt (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The last 100 or so edits have been edit-warring over his status and this has been going on for days. Enigma message 08:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism Article has been subjected to constant stream of vandalism for the last two weeks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Until at least December 15. The page only just got unprotected and already got vandalized. WWE and TNA PPV articles tend to be victims of vandalism until the day after they air, so it only needs a couple of days of protection. TJ Spyke 22:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Cirt (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Heavy vandalism over the past few hours; request semi-protection for a couple of days or so. .BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection Heavy IP vandalism to page of person involved in controversial current event in a subject where passions run high. TheMolecularMan (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Test page (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite full protection, Create protect, just like Test page. This will prevent users from using Talk:Test page to make test edits..-- IRP ☎ 03:25, 14, December 2008 (UTC)

    Fully protected Cirt (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=258057514"