Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tautologist (talk | contribs) at 23:27, 13 October 2008 (→‎{{lat|Wasilla Assembly of God}}). 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.

    Saints Row 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Page is constantly getting vandalized by people using IP addresses. .MOOOOOPS (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Thanksgiving (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary one-day semi-protection continuous IP vandalism since today is Thanksgiving Day in Canada. Please semi-protect this 24 hours. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined This is effectively a featured article due to Google's holiday-themed graphic. Extreme or insistently complex vandalism is needed for protection. At this point, the article hasn't reached that level. —EncMstr (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pat Nixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary full protection. Lots of vandalism from both registered and anonymous editors. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, A lot of recent vandalism by 6-7 IPs. Semi protect for a week or so..Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This article has a long history of petty vandalism. I've given an extended protection period to reduce the overall hassle. —EncMstr (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Omid Kordestani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection High amount of vandalism, few constructive edits.--84.208.214.118 (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I don't see any vandalism in the last 3 days. If it is semi-protected, you'll no longer be able to edit the article or revert vandalism. —EncMstr (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Quantum of Solace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism. David Pro (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —EncMstr (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    temporary semi-protection High amount of vandalism, few constructive edits. JNW (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. —EncMstr (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    full protection needed due to edit warring by POV pushers. A section of the article that has been there for four years is being virtually eliminated because the Republicans have started mentioning ACORN in their criticisms of Barack Obama. About eight reverts in the last few hours. 300wackerdrive (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Protected until dispute resolved. I'll watch the talk page for consensus. —EncMstr (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Magna Carta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Attractive vandalism magnet--they must be hitting this in history class. JNW (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It doesn't look like there's really that much vandalism relative to the number of people interested in this article. I've grudgingly semi-protected though. Hope it helps. —EncMstr (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism..TN‑X-Man 21:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 21:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    LaDainian Tomlinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, High levels of IP vandalism..TN‑X-Man 21:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 21:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bob Mills (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Ongoing IP vandalism and additions with WP:BLP concerns.William Avery (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. لennavecia 21:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chowder (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protect. Lots of anonymous vandalism, probably the third time this article has been req'ed for semi-PP. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 21:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    3TG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    protection from creation — has been created six times. Goodvac (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Was protected on October 1. لennavecia 21:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony McPartlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism.Jackaranga (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one day. Tiptoety talk 21:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Barack Obama, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary full protection Dispute, to stem warring over name suffix until consensus arises.\.emerson7 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Ongoing discussion on talk page. Requester to be advised about 3RR rule.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Several different anonymous users vandalizing it every day for a rather long time now..Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 19:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three months. Tiptoety talk 20:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vladimir Zografski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protect Vandalised by sockpuppets on my IP. Vandalism every day. AlwaysOnion (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been vandalized twice in total. Just revert the vandals :-) -- how do you turn this on 19:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's been vandalized twice since being re-created. It was vandalized several times before it was deleted - but I'm not sure why it's been re-created. Something is amiss here... —Wknight94 (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said on AN/I, I'm guessing it's schoolfriends mucking about. -- how do you turn this on 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tagged it for speedy. Gwen Gale deleted it as non-notable, which I agree with, but I'll let another admin make the call on deleting it for recreation of deleted material. It still fails to assert notability, so I don't think there will be an issue. لennavecia 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Recreation of deleted material is typically reserved for stuff that was deleted via an AfD discussion. Things that have merely been speedied in the past cannot simply be speedied again solely on that basis. However, I do agree that it should be speedy deleted. Since it was taken to AfD, I commented there. Enigma message 20:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, HDYTTO cluesticked me a reminder on my talk page. I'm not sure what I was thinking, haah. So much stuff going on. لennavecia 21:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Full-protect Dispute regarding nationality (British vs English). I have removed the nationality completely and recommend that this version be protected as a "neutral" version. This would force the parties to discuss the issue properly rather than reverting back and forth. Jameboy (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Checking to see if protection is necessary. لennavecia 19:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined Dealing with dispute without protection. User warned. لennavecia 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Darren Sproles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protect anonymous Ip's continue removing info from the article - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. One or two every 10 days, appear quickly handled and/or could do user-blocking for specific IPs. DMacks (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LukeTheSpook (edit | [[Talk:User:LukeTheSpook|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Indefinate Semi-Protect No need for anonymous IP's to edit my userpage anyway... - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Policy on indefinite semi-protection: "User pages, but not user talk pages, when requested by the user after vandalism." No one has edited your user page but you. لennavecia 19:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been vandalised alot in the past; but has since been deleted and restored; so the edit history doesn't show it. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 19:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Six vandal edits in the deleted history (unless LTS-sLither is you, in which case only maybe three). One IP fixed a typo. I see no need, but perhaps another admin will disagree. لennavecia 19:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protect IPs (all on the same range) keep disruptively removing the AFD template. -- how do you turn this on 18:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined There's not much recent activity, and only one revert today. Also, none of the IPs, as far as I can see, have been warned. The most recent has a redlink talk page. This is a situation of needing to deal with the users, not protect a page up for AFD that could possibly be improved and kept. لennavecia 19:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one user, who knows very well what they are doing (see the edit summaries). In any case, the article was protected by another admin. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 19:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Are we looking at the same page? One today, but part of several-days' pattern including many IPs that is pretty disruptive and no evidence of anons helping to fix the page. You have my permission to unprotect if you really think there is hope for useful anon edits here. DMacks (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A week is a bit long, considering the AFD will be over much sooner than that. -- how do you turn this on 19:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Was getting timeouts trying to access the AfD and article history to see the AfD timestamp, took a SWAG until my network healed:/ DMacks (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What is up with the admins on this page? Semi'd for a week because of one problem user when there's scant recent activity and one revert today? Unreal. Oh, and note the contributions of 98.192.44.39. [1][2][3][4][5] are all productive. لennavecia 21:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just continue to revert, as necessary. It's not a problem. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 22:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected IP vandal talk pages should be blue. Warn and request blocks appropriately. لennavecia 22:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle of Trenton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protect-There has been considerable vandalisim by ip vandals the past few weeks. I would like for it to be protected for a few weeks, to see if the vandals go away.-Kieran4 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only three (maybe four) vandalism reversions in the past week. Otherwise constructive edits, including from at least one IP. لennavecia 19:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    First Lady of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protect. Excessive vandalism within the last couple of minutes. 77.177.140.229 (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Spurt of vandalism appears to be over now. Otherwise, not enough recent activity to justify protection. لennavecia 19:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is likely to be temporary due to the page being linked from somewhere high profile - see today's FA. -- how do you turn this on 19:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi protection requested (once again) due to persistant IP vandalism. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. لennavecia 19:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pat Nixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Tan | 39 18:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's not actually protected I'll provide the link to WP:NOPRO. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake; I took a month Wikibreak, during which the protection screen was changed - I am still getting used to that. It has been moved protected, not edit protected. Of course, NOPRO states an exception of "extreme vandalism"; and while I would call this heavy, I'm not sure what constitutes extreme. Tan | 39 18:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Walter Raleigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism target, always popular with the kids. JNW (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Satori Son 18:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jefferson Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Indef semi-protection This article has been semi'ed before, but it seems to be a constant low- to moderate-level target for vandalism, most generally by detractors, but today by promoters. Given the historical nature of Davis, the attention he attracts is not likely to go away at any point, hence recommending indef semi as if he were a current politician. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for two weeks. Tan | 39 17:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Prilep-Bitola dialect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    full protection please. This is, I think, the third time I've asked for this during the last few weeks. This article has seen a slow edit war since the end of August, all over the stubborn re-insertion of an off-topic POV sentence. The article has had some 75 or so edits since 29 August when it was first introduced [6], almost every single one of which was a revert. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Checking to see if protection is necessary. لennavecia 14:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. لennavecia 14:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Click [show] at right for subsequent discussion.
    What do you think we've been doing??!? There's a solid, massive wall of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm lost here. If this isn't a case for protection, I honestly don't know what is.
    (And, honestly, "consider dispute resolution", said to an experienced administrator, after two minutes (!) of checking on the case [7], comes across as more than a tad patronizing. Have you even formed the vaguest of ideas about what this issue is about?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse Jennavecia's decline. Tan | 39 15:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fut.Perf, I'm sorry you felt I was being patronizing. That wasn't my intent. There have been 15 edits to the article this month, averaging less than two edits per day. In these situations, it's better to deal with users rather than the article. Take it to RFC or AN/I in order to get assistance with the users, but there's no need to protect the article for such a slow moving content dispute. لennavecia 16:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RFC? On such an esoteric topic? Waste of time. No use even trying. RfCs never, ever, succeed in getting truly outside attention to such a minor issue. And what would I want at ANI? They'd tell me to go seek page protection. I'm requesting admin attention here. If you don't want to protect, do something else. Slow or not, this article has seen a straight sequence of 70+ reverts of the goddamn same stupid sentence, among <80 total edits in the last 2.5 months, not the slightest sign of progress in dispute resolution, and zero productive editing activity apart from that. And I, for one, have been trying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation you describe (and that I verify on the page history) is not a special case. You are right, this is a "minor issue" - so minor that reverting a few vandalism edits a day is preferable to protecting the article. We appreciate your vandal-fighting efforts, but your attitude here is certainly not appropriate. Tan | 39 16:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Do I take this as a license to treat this content disagreement as vandalism? Wow, I'd love to. I'd have blocked them all by now if I knew that. Only, I have a feeling some people will call for my admin bit on a silver plate if I follow your advice. How come you first endorse the advice to seek dispute resolution, and then tell me to just do vandalism reverts, are you maybe a tiny bit confused about the situation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't endorse the advice to seek dispute resolution; I endorsed the decline. Please point out above where I told you to seek dispute resolution, or maybe your comments were still directed at Jenna? Clearly you are one very angry person about this. I apologize for confusing this vandalism with the edit warring ("goddamn stupid sentence" apparently made me think of vandalism, silly me). Tan | 39 18:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, you had nothing substantial to say about the situation and had no foggy clue about it, neither the first time you opined nor the second. Okay, fine. Yes, I am angry. This is the third f..ing time I'm trying to get some help here. Well, too bad, I'll probably just have to go on revert-warring forever then, since there's apparently nothing else that people are willing to do about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, glad you're mature about these things. Carry on. Tan | 39 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would have been more productive to go to AN/I and ask for outside admin intervention. I wouldn't have responded, because I generally avoid that place for the cesspool of dramamongering it is, but someone surely would have jumped at the opportunity to flex their admin muscle in a content dispute. However, since it's here and I'm here, I'll look into it and issue warnings accordingly with blocks to follow, if necessary. Hopefully, for all of our sakes, you're on the side supported by policy. لennavecia 19:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Columbus Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Dual Freq (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about some more time on that semi protection please. Examples after semi-prot expired: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] --Dual Freq (talk) 18:51, 13 October 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.

    Wasilla Assembly of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Citation number 6 (after "a great deal to learn about evangelical culture and theology") is missing a vertical bar between "Fitzpatrick" and "date=2008-09-05". Also, there are errors in citation number 4. This is why full protection undermines wikipedia. Plasticup T/C 19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I created the article Wasilla Assembly of God. There was a block of information that I had not yet put in until I could verify the source reporting by actually watching the videotapes quoted, even though the sources were respected well known media sources.

    • There have been consensus proposals for three new or modified sections up for weeks now, here[21], here[22], and here[23]. All comments have been addressed regarding them. They should now be added.
    • Wikipedia is the first thing up in a Google search of "Wasilla Assembly of God", where there are about 100,000 web pages on Wasilla Assembly of God. There are about 23,000 web pages about "Muthee AND 'Wasilla Assembly of God'", as well as about 500 news stories for the same in the last six weeks of news alone. If an encyclopedia user were to look up Wasilla Assembly of God at Wikipedia, one would get no information about the well sourced factual direct relationship, and would not see the name "Thomas Muthee" in reading this article.
    • Keeping information out by a small number of people, who can provoke an article admin "protection" through vaguely worded deletion summaries, and inciting edit wars, is a disservice to encyclopedia users. This is especially true given the discussions of religion and writing assignments going on in high schools with the new Bill Mahr film, Religulous, which was in the works long before religion became a factor in this political season. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, with accompanying discussion of religion and government, is being revived as required reading in the high school curriculum. Aldous Huxley's historic text, The Devils of Loudun, about historic witch hunting in France, is also being revived. Admittedly, there may be one editor who still does not want certain information to be in the article, and may continue to delete the information, but that editor is effectively having his work done effortlessly since the page is protected so the information is not getting in the same as if he deleted it.
    • The ability to include properly sourced neutrally worded information should be "protected", as well as protecting the exclusion of information by blocking the entire article. Tautologist (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On a related article, Wasilla Bible Church, members of the church deleted information and put in their own information, citing the church website as a source. I helped make sure that there were no edit wars, and that no netural well sourced information was excluded. I will try the same with this article and monitor it. Tautologist (talk) 23:07, 13 October 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.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Upper St. Clair High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Full protection Bordering on edit-warring. Protect until a consensus has been reached on article's talk page. StaticGull  Talk  16:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for one week. Tan | 39 16:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism.NJGW (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 72 hours. Tan | 39 16:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Bob Please remove the block from the nighttime Wheel of Fortune page. I hate that it is there. Nobody did anything bad enough for you to block the page. And why would you want to block me if I continue vandalizing pages? How do you even know it is me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.114.207 (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is semi-protected. Sometime after you were to create an account, you would be able to edit it. We know your contributions from Special:Contributions/76.224.114.207.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Jade Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Indefinite full create protection. Article recreated 12 times per deletion discussion. ApprenticeFan (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected لennavecia 13:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection , Another outbreak of unsourced assertions that the subject is dead.William Avery (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. لennavecia 13:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kyle Kavanagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Indefinite full create protection. Recreated article of deletion discussion. Having deleted it two times. ApprenticeFan (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected لennavecia 13:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:92.43.64.76 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary full protection User talk of blocked user, IP repeatedly blanks the page..The Llama! (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined "Repeatedly" as in made three consecutive edits to remove information, the last of which blanked the page, was reverted and hasn't edited since? لennavecia 13:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Ridiculous amounts of vandalism, mostly by simply removing the content. — Orion11M87 (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. User was blocked for 24 hours before RFPP request, otherwise no/few other editors have vandalized the article lately. --JForget 22:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Paddington Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Featured on Google's homepage.Kimse (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 06:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Barney Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protect. Very High level of IP vandalism. A few days or a maybe week would be nice.Wallamoose (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 24 hours. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Colt McCoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary full protection Vandalism, Vandalism by same user who is using various IP addresses.BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 48 hours. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protection Vandalism, vandal magnet; long term history of vandalism to this page..EJF (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two months. Tiptoety talk 21:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Shouldn't the Squirrel article be a little nutty? (Wallamoose (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]


    Wheel of Fortune (US daytime game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protection Vandalism, repeated vandalism by User_talk:76.224.114.207.(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 02:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Tiptoety talk 02:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Water-fuelled car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protection. Over the last 24 hours, this article has been the subject of edit warring by several IPs, all of which geolocate to Lexington, Kentucky, and all make the same or similar edits. It's clear this is the same editor, but s/he's got a dynamic IP. Normally I'd take this to WP:AN/3RR, but due to the dynamic nature of the IP, a 3RR block won't do any good. A couple days-worth of semi-protection would, on the other hand, do some good. Yilloslime (t) 00:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur on this request (I'd do it myself if I didn't edit there regularly). Users like this either give up after a few days' protection or else are finally forced to discuss on talk (something they don't do otherwise). DMacks (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for 72 hours. Tan | 39 00:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    George Leonardos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    full protection This article is repeatedly being edited and altered in whole by the person whom it is written about User:gleonardos in a way that does not conform with and raises concerns based on these guidelines. I have brought this to his attention on numerous occasions and he continues on as was. There is also an editor User:NcSchu who because of his disgruntlement with me over a dispute at Virgin America has continued to restore the non-neutral version of the article by gleonardos and make spellings corrections to the non-neutral content so he can blame me for also removing other edits when I revert it back to the last neutral version. Perhaps having edit protection would stop NcSchu, and force gleonardos to start allowing for oversight of what he wishes submit through the talk page as the guidelines specify. Thanks for your help and I suspect doing this for a short time will remedy the problem.

    Declined Tan | 39 00:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=245106152"