Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HumanZoom (talk | contribs) at 01:12, 28 March 2007 (→‎Current requests for protection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



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

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

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

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


    Current requests for protection

    Place requests for new or upgrading 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.

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

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. HumanZoom 01:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-Protection - Heavy vandalism. Lakers 00:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined User(s) blocked. --Deskana (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-Protection - Anonymous vandalism. Lakers 00:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of five days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Deskana 00:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protect for at least a few days. Repeatedly being vandalized mostly by anons and newbies. Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 00:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Some vandalism, but current level does not justify protection. Revert+warn+WP:AIV suffices for now.--Húsönd 00:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protect IP users keep reverting new info concerning living person that's properly sourced. I've had to revert 3 times in the past 4 hours. It's getting tiresome. Chevinki 00:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There was a period of over a month not so long ago where the article wasn't edited. If specific IPs are a problem, try reporting them at WP:ANI or WP:AIV. --Deskana (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-Protection - Consistent I.P. vandals. Lakers 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Alison☺ 23:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Republic of Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protection. Recommend long-term semi-protection for this article. It's constantly vandalised by anonymous nationalist vandals who focus on deleting the country's name and official languages (basically, nationalists in all of the RoM's neighbours hold grudges about those issues). The article is currently on long-term move protection for the same reason, as it's more of a vandal magnet than any other page on a European country that I've ever seen. -- ChrisO 23:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - report for vandalism / 3RR where appropriate instead - Alison☺ 00:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected Sorry Alison, I had already protected. The name disruption on Republic of Macedonia-related articles is in need for some brakes.--Húsönd 00:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - this has been going on for a very, very long time. I semi-protected the article for a trial period of 1 month from 12 February to 12 March, which greatly cut down the amount of vandalism. Unfortunately, since the protection expired the vandalism has been frequent and persistent. -- ChrisO 01:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-protection. I believe this article was protected before, but I think it needs to be protected again because of vandalism that goes on several times a day. Anthony Rupert 23:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of five days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lots of vandalism there. --Deskana (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:24.57.69.217 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection +expiry 1 day, Semi-protection: User talk of banned user, This banned IP is continuously blanking their talk page. Will (aka Wimt) 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of four days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I figured that this was the length of time before the user could create an account and vandalise it anyway. --Deskana (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! That's great. I merely suggested one day because I couldn't work out how to not specify a time with twinkle! Will (aka Wimt)

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

    Permanent semi protection Ever since the last semi-protection was removed the article has been daily vandalized Cloud02 21:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. But it's not too far off. If the level of the vandalism increases please request protection again. --Deskana (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi protect edits and vandalism of banned user Afrika_paprika--Giovanni Giove 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It has only been vandalised once by this editor, and that was six days ago. --Deskana (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Giovanni Serafino Bona‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi protect edits and vandalism of banned user Afrika_paprika--Giovanni Giove 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It has only been vandalised once by this editor. --Deskana (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi protect edits and vandalism of banned user Afrika_paprika--Giovanni Giove 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It has only been vandalised once by this editor. --Deskana (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Republic of Ragusa‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi protect edits and vandalism of banned user Afrika_paprika--Giovanni Giove 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It has only been vandalised once by this editor. --Deskana (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi Lakers 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. --Deskana (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protection +expiry 1 week, Semi-protection: Spambot target, AOL based spambot target Versageek 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    done by User:Shadow1, thanks Shadow1! --Versageek 20:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected. --Deskana (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Battles of Lexington and Concord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi protect Longstanding problem of persistent (daily) vandalism from anonymous IPs. The sheer number of different IP address involved and the content of the edits, along with the lack of any discernible pattern in the vandalism itself, suggests that the article is the target of many schoolchildren nationwide, acting independently of one another. It would be great if editing could be restricted to logged-in users, especially with April 19th approaching. Venicemenace 19:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Alison☺ 20:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi protect large amount of steady juvenile IP vandalismSammyj 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. John Reaves (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Full Protection edit warring going on. Bmg916 Speak to Me 19:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected John Reaves (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi protect This article is being maliciously reverted, scourged, and vandalized by a host of anonymous users. In the meantime, information is being mismanaged and wrecked, while unsourced claims are continually being added in. Specifically by users: 60.234.242.196, 68.82.82.248, and Jwad. Needs moderation, until some order can be obtained. - Nwdavis 19:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi protection - constant vandalism by IPs --AW 15:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Alison☺ 20:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Meet the Robinsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protect constant reverting by user with multple IPs. Rhindle The Red 15:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected John Reaves (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    From 1 September 2006 to 6 December 2006, I completely rewrote the article, replacing the fancruft-filled mess with well-written, encyclopediac information. After I stopped working on the article, and semi-protection (due to a vandal who loves Sean Whitton) was lifted on 31 January 2006, the article has once again degraded into a fancruft-filled mess. All anonymous edits to this article have been vandalism, trolling or insertion of fancruft. Another user has posted a semi-protection request on the talk page. Please semi-protect the article to prevent it from detroriating further, so I can restore it to its former "glory". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. John Reaves (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2007 (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.

    Diana, Princess of Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Protected since 4 March 2007. Can we try unprotecting it? Hbdragon88 23:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - good luck :) - Alison☺ 00:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ben Avery Shooting Facility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Has been speedied a number of times for various reasons. I am undergoing a mini-project of improving (or creating where necessary) the Phoenix Points of Pride articles and request that this one be unprotected so it can be created (properly of course!) Arkyan • (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected I deleted the page to make way for the new article. If the article fails to meet notability standards the page will be reprotected against creation. --Deskana (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There was apparently a spambot attack on this talk page 3 months ago. It's over. No need for long term protection. --Xyzzyplugh 14:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done --Yamla 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It was protected due to edit wars and unsolved disputes. The disputes have been settled and there is normality about this article now. --Deibid 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected John Reaves (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Esperanza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}}

    Edit war occurred a long time ago, and I wish to propose my changes again. Opposing party in the debate has not responded, probably due to a lack of interest in the essay. Request at WP:VPA has returned no replies.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

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

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

    Wikipedia:Verifiability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Wikipedia:No original research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Both need {{Mergeto|Attribution}}. See WP:AN on the issue - even the defender of the page protection appears to have yielded on the entire protection issue, though someone dealing with WP:PER removed the {{Editprotected}} tags without installing the merge tags, believing the issue to be controversial. I allege that there is in fact no controversy at all about these two minor twiddles; the controversy has been about completely unprotecting the pages, and that controversy has itself largely concluded. I have yet to see anyone say "no, these pages should not have merge tags, because [reason]". I've been trying to resolve this silly issue for three days, almost four, and even tried to take it to informal mediation (WP:ATT proponents declined the mediation). This is just getting weird at this point. PS: I am not requesting unprotection of the pages (though I believe this would be perfectly fine at this point) as no one I am aware of is suggesting content changes to either policy page, and the only content "change" made to the (now unprotected) RS guidelines was to restore deleted material that made it no longer agree with ATT. I don't understand all the WP:PANIC about this stuff. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: At WP:RS someone's put up a customized, more informative merge template that is perfect for WP:V and WP:NOR as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Fact (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Add the date to the "title" field of the citation needed link - allows determining how long an unsourced statement was present without viewing the source. An implementation is found on User:Sigma_7/Sandbox1 - it seems to be okay from my initial tests. --Sigma 7 14:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - I've updated the section header to make editprotected a bit more visible (which should help route some requests to a more appropriate page.) --Sigma 7 14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Attribution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) {{Disputedpolicy}} tag, restoration request

    Proposed on its talk page, and resisted (soley, I believe) by same party removing the {{Protected}} tag (see below). This is very straightforward: The {{Disputedpolicy}} alternative to the {{Policy}} and {{Guideline}} tags exists for precisely this sort of case, namely that policy/guideline's status as a policy or guideline is disputed, and this is certainly the case with WP:ATT, from pretty high up. The current situation is that WP:ATT claims to be a policy, and so do WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR; Jimbo (acting in official capacity, not just as a random user - this is not a case of "argumentum ad Jimbonem" here) restored the Policy status of V and NOR and Guideline status of RS, and has said (also in that capacity) that WP:ATT requires more consensus-building to be considered a Policy. So, this seems like a non-brainer to me - there's a lot of confusion right now with WP:ATT remaining labelled a policy pending the community discussion and poll about it, which are no where near resolution. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: After multi-party discussion to add this template (several in favor, one opposed for reasons that do not address what the template is for or says), it was added. It was then unilaterally reverted with simply an incorrect (with regard to what {{Disputedpolicy}} says and exists for) rationale, by one of the pro-WP:ATT parties to the disputes, as with the repeated {{Protected}} reversions below. I understand their defensiveness with regard to the merits of WP:ATT, but this template has nothing to do with those merits, but only about the fact that WP:ATT's existence and nature are the subject of a dispute (and a community discussion page, and an official revert by Jimbo, and a poll, and...) I.e. "disputed", which is a simple fact that carries no pro or con implications. This partisan template deletion pattern is bordering on wheelwarring. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined. And I'd rather we didn't wheel war over a silly tag. – Steel 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for it has grown: new thread. There's nothing silly about this tag; it will alert Wikipedians that there is an important debate they may wish to participate in, and for now to rely on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR, which was the intent in restoring them from historical to active status. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done I cannot see consensus for it there. Majorly (o rly?) 19:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I rescind the request; there is a new discussion ongoing about a custom Disputedtag/Protected combo template, that seems to be gaining traction. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Attribution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) restoration request

    Put {{Protected}} on it for as long as the protection lasts. I'm filing this here because the protecting admin is part of the dispute at the page in question, so I would prefer to bring this to neutral parties instead of generate any controversy at WP:ATT with new {{Editprotected}} requests at that page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Majorly (o rly?) 23:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gracias. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Req. for restoration of this template. Someone deleted it. Either this template should be there or there is not WP:PROT-recognized reason for the protection and it should be lifted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Majorly (o rly?) 12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-request. Another party to the dispute has removed the protected tag, replaced it with its invisible cousin {{protected2}} and has added a note which is conspicuously missing the "protection is not an endorsement of the current revision" language. Supposedly this is a compromise, but it looks exactly like the page did when SMcCandlish made the last re-request. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 17:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. A POV is being pushed here, and that's not appropriate for something that is about to be subject to a poll to see if it will even continue to exist. The normal {{Protected}} template belongs on WP:ATT more than on any other page I can think of. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I'm not even one of WP:ATT's opponents at this point (I like "the Jimbo compromise"), so I'm not pushing a POV about this myself; I think the template is simply accurate, and that what has replace it isn't. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've twiddled the heading here to make it clear that what was done has been undone, twice, in a way that pushes a particular point of view about the ongoing disputes (namely that they do not exist), so this request remains open. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done (again). Majorly (o rly?) 01:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, this is looking more like a revert war, aka 3RR. Xiner (talk, email) 16:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    New discussion at talk page about a custom combined Protected/Disputedtag template is gaining traction so this is probably a moot issue at this point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    List of Doctor Who serials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    It was semiprotected to prevent additions of rumoured upcoming episode titles. All titles have now been confirmed by the Radio Times so protection is no longer needed. --GracieLizzie 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected WjBscribe 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Repeated blanking of one section has stopped, nothing deleted since March 8. Cornell Rockey 16:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Later vandalism was after protection anyway. May as well try unprotection. WjBscribe 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Digital on-screen graphic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Page has been protected for a month now, due to a brief burst of IP vandalism, not a controversial topic, no reason to assume heavy vandalism will continue. --Xyzzyplugh 15:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected WjBscribe 17:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page was semi-protected 4 months ago due to edit warring with sockpuppets of a banned user. All of this appears to be long over with. --Xyzzyplugh 15:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected WjBscribe 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page has been protected for 3 months, I see no reason for permanent semi-protection of this page about a Bollywood film. It is a popular enough topic that it will at times be vandalized, apparently, but we don't permanently semi-protect all popular articles. --Xyzzyplugh 15:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected WjBscribe 17:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Craig Roger Gregerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There was some vandalism on this article 3 months ago, no evidence it would continue if unprotected. In fact, has had virtually no edits at all since semiprotection. --Xyzzyplugh 14:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected WjBscribe 17:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Burlington, Vermont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This has been protected for 3 months due to some IP address reverting which is long since over, no controversy of any sort is going on here, no need for protection. --Xyzzyplugh 14:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Seems long enough. WjBscribe 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This has been protected for 3 months due to an edit war between a couple IP addresses, which is long over. No controversy of any sort going on there, nor has there been for a long time. --Xyzzyplugh 13:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Been protected long enough. WjBscribe 17:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Semi protect If you look at this history diff there are over 100 edits in the past 1 1/2 weeks, and only 2 minor constructive edits (one removing an image, the other wikilinking a word). Vandalism is primarily by anonymous users, and seems to be ramping up lately. - Ciotog 16:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Alison☺ 16:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Wikibreak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    full protection Full protection: High-visible template, I think it's high risk. IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Alison☺ 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This has been protected for 4 months, due to a minor bit of vandalism from an IP address then. Not a controversial subject, no reason for long term semi-protection. --Xyzzyplugh 14:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - Alison☺ 17:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Semi-protect. Just look at the page history. A massive pack of IP editors (all from 58.71.*.* or 202.163.*.* -- the only good IP that's edited the page recently is the 76 one...) have been engaged in a massive edit war, making major changes to the page with no consensus. Furthermore, they have also been introducing deliberate typos into the article. This isn't new: they've been doing this since July of last year. The page has been semi-protected once before (look at the date: the IPs have been at it for that long), and the IPs started back up once it was unprotected. Said IPs have also been making the exact same kinds of edits to Choujuu Sentai Liveman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Chikyuu Sentai Fiveman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Kousoku Sentai Turboranger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Choujin Sentai Jetman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Choudenshi Bioman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but the edit warring is the worst on Choushinsei Flashman. jgpTC 15:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. →AzaToth 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This page was protected because of edit disputes, it seems to have gotten calm. No edits to the talk page for a few weeks. It's time to deal with the article. Branson03 14:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected →AzaToth 14:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    semi-protect vandalised by IPs. Krystian 13:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. →AzaToth 13:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protect until holiday has passed. High level of IP vandalism.Dogface 13:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. →AzaToth 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This has been protected for 3 months, whatever IP vandalism was going on then is clearly long over, the talk page is barely used and nothing controversial is, or has ever, gone on there. --Xyzzyplugh 13:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected →AzaToth 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Semi-protection A large section of the article repeatedly gets deleted by anonymous users, without any obvious reasons. Teo64x 12:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Majorly (o rly?) 12:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    German Shepherd Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protection Daily, multiple repeat vandalism by anonymous editors or editors with new accounts. It has become more tedious to remove the vandalism than it is to improve the article. --Tom 12:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Majorly (o rly?) 12:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Todo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Permanent semi-protection -- In light of this, it makes sense to protect this commonly-used template. -/- Warren 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's hardly bad is it? Majorly (o rly?) 12:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about the vandalism, this is about the fact that's a high-use template, with over 6,000 transclusions, so such vandalism does have noticeable impact. {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} was fully protected despite having no vandalism. -/- Warren 12:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-protection Gets a lot of annon vandalism, perhaps by kids doing homework assignments. Onco_p53 11:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Majorly (o rly?) 12:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-protect. Persistent linkspam problem as a single editor who keeps adding the same link to the article - 10 separate edits made since March 12 (full list can be see at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing_anon_linkspam_problem), but the IP address used is different each time. Semi-protection also requested for Lani Todd, Mason Marconi, Monica Sweet, Nicole Voss, Rayveness, Sydnee Capri, Tera Bond and Tiana Lynn where a similar pattern of edits have been made. Tabercil 22:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Majorly (o rly?) 12:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Konstable/Other accounts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    If this stays protected I can't edit it any more can I ;-) --Konstable 12:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Majorly (o rly?) 12:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=118410580"