Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs)
22,377 edits
Line 151: Line 151:
Total Drama Action has been protected by an unknown user since february of 2009. He/She is always adding false info or adding un need stuff. I ask that this page should be unprotected.
Total Drama Action has been protected by an unknown user since february of 2009. He/She is always adding false info or adding un need stuff. I ask that this page should be unprotected.
:{{RFPP|d}}; in fact, I'm about ready to full-protect that mess. -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jeremy]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Tear him for his bad verses!]])</sup></font> 22:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
:{{RFPP|d}}; in fact, I'm about ready to full-protect that mess. -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jeremy]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Tear him for his bad verses!]])</sup></font> 22:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The [[Total Drama Action]] page should definitely be protected, people are always putting up false claims of certain characters returning to the show (I suspect they only claim a certain person returns because they really enjoyed that character and couldn't stand them not competing in it, there was one instance of someone putting up a bunch of statistics about nonexistent people who had absolutely nothing to do with anything related to the show, even worse, it was displayed on the discussion page(it appeared to be a imitation of the series itself)).--[[User:Chikinpotato11|Chikinpotato11]] ([[User talk:Chikinpotato11|talk]]) 05:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


===={{la|Republic of Gilan}}====
===={{la|Republic of Gilan}}====

Revision as of 05:36, 16 July 2009


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

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

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

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



    Current requests for protection

    Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    Temporary semi-protection: recurring deletion of a political alumni by different DSL IPs. No constructive IP edits in 3 months. Celestra (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for two weeks. Tan | 39 05:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: vandalism. Page has been a magnet for vandalism in the past couple of month, including the past three days, with a glut of vandalism vs. essentially no productive edits. At least one individual has a clear and persistent agenda against the article- see this talk-page message —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Enigmamsg 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the most recent 25 edits to the article, more than 50% constitute vandalism, with the vast majority of remaining edits constituting reverts. Doesn't that seem excessive? The article seems to meet every single criterion listed here.—Notyourbroom (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that those last 25 edits are spread over the course of 3 months. Its hardly so bad that you can't keep up with 1-2 vandalisms per week. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 04:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Jayron. Note the recent. If there are few recent examples of vandalism, we generally don't protect. I can find you plenty of articles where the % of IP edits that are vandalism is higher than 50%, but the edits are spread out. This is an example. Also, I blocked one of the recent IPs for vandalism, and that should help. Enigmamsg 04:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, With an upcoming change in format, there is a good amount of vandalism coming into the page including some COI problems from the owner of the station. Requesting temporary protection for a week, please. NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 02:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Enigmamsg 03:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, With an upcoming change in format, there is a good amount of vandalism coming into the page including some COI problems from the owner of the station. Requesting temporary protection for a week, please. NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 02:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Enigmamsg 03:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection and move protection, vandalism, extreme vandalism over recent name change. Gage (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. I blocked 67.210.78.94, the IP that was doing the vast majority of the vandalism. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I request for a temporary semi-protection. User:Witchy2006 and a possible IP sockpuppet keeps taking away very important information in the article as seen in [1] and [2]. Please put a temporary semi-protection in that article.

    Thank You. GMA Fan 7:35PM July 15, 2009 (UTC)

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Enigmamsg 03:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. Not really sure about this - the subject is the target of online campaigns to save jobs, and various IPs have been adding external links to various campaigns. I've been removing them per WP:SOAPBOX (and WP:EL, WP:SPAM). The activity is low-level, so you may feel it doesn't warrant protection - your call! Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 22:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 23:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. Steady IP vandalism, mostly inserting false claim that subject was born in Dubai. Justine Bateman semiprotected against same vandal earlier today. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 23:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent semi-protection For years, article has suffered from ongoing...
    1. Vandalism by wide range of anonymous "drive-by" IP-users (ironically, both anti- and pro-JW, apparently)
    2. Stupidity by poorly informed one-hit-wonders
    Both groups fail to understand their mark will last about ten minutes. Semi-protection would make them think twice and would make their trails more obvious. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tentative decline: while the problem is obvious from a quick review of the history, I'm not sure that semi-protecting is the answer here. Second opinion, anyone? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's not enough recent vandalism to warrant semi-protection and a good portion of the IP edits from the last week were made in apparent good faith. Enigmamsg 21:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but some of those good-faith efforts... *wince* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that many anonymous "good faith" edits are not exactly vandalism. ...Still, the majority (perhaps vast majority) of such newbie edits are unproductive and must be reverted.
    Even if only overt vandalism is examined, the article's edit history seems to meet the 5% vandalism threshold.
    Is it relevant that the article just last month came off a week-long lock? See diff --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, recent protections are definitely a factor, although that one was from a month ago. This is the longest RfPP discussion I've seen lately, and it's a good one, because while a case can be made for protection, I think most admins would decline for now. Enigmamsg 21:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined, to make it official. What's this "5% vandalism threshold"? Tan | 39 05:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Ongoing IP vandalism. Hate to request protection, since the movie just came out, but it's getting ridiculous. Vicenarian (T · C) 19:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, An entirely reasonable request, but there is a substantial number of constructive anonymous edits as well. I'm inclined to allow the Hugglers keep watch over it, and I'll help for a bit too. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Roger wilco. Like I said, hate to see it protected, but the edit history made me a bit queasy. Thanks! :) Vicenarian (T · C) 19:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - 3 or 6 months plus indefinite full move protection Repeated insertion of unsourced statements; repeated blanking of content and vandalism. This article was protected in April 2009 until today, and the vandalism started up again today, so this article should be protected for a lengthened period of time. The indefinite full move protection should be placed because the article was page-move-vandalized in February. Cunard (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Persistent IP vandalism after mention of the biographical subject and the article on The Jim Rome Show. A few hours should do. 76.230.10.71 (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Done by another admin. Enigmamsg 20:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection (second request). Persistent IP vandalism, blanking and edit-warring. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Maxim(talk) 21:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Getting hit with a high volume of vandalism, plus lots of undocumented speculation from lots of IP's and new accounts about a possible pending transfer. For the last 3-4 days, other editors can't seem to keep up. Suggest semi for 2-3 days, until transfer goes through or doesn't go through. Then hopefully the vandalism will die down too. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enigmamsg 20:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, anon i.p. constantly adding content that doesn't belong. maybe semi-protection for a few weeks will stop it. -shirulashem(talk) 13:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. [only one (IP) edit in 3 days] Plastikspork (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protect. Repeated acts of vandalism by an ip-user. There is consensus on the talk page. Ip-user has not responded to repeated requests for dialogue. Joakimekstrom (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked: 2 weeks (talk · contribs). (by User:Camaron) Plastikspork (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect dispute, Pretty messy edit-warring. 2 editors have already been blocked and anon IP's also taking part. I recommend that only established editors can edit this article for a period of 48 hours to allow for a cooling off period and to avoid any socking. HighKing (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. I forget for how long William M. Connolley (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. (protected by William M. Connolley) Plastikspork (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protect. A return of nonsense vandalism. This article had been semiprotected for a month previousl.y Edkollin (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 07:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, please. A recent wave of anonymous IP-address "editors" has posted nothing but nonsense and vandalism. This isn't the first time this has happened to this article. No issues with named editors. --AuthorityTam (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Vandalism seems to have died down, so I'll keep the block short. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 07:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. A new champion was crowned two or three weeks ago. The episode in which that change will be shown is Thursday. Judging from the activity from ips and new users when a new TNA Women's Knockout Champion was crowned last week, I see alot of activity coming Thursday regarding this one. Normally I wouldn't care, but the article is currently at FAC and this could cause a stablity issue. The article failed a FAC once before do to the samething, and I don't want that to happen again. For a period of a week at most should do. By then all the ips will not care anymore. At the very least it should be protected till Friday night.--WillC 04:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined We do not protect pages preemptively. Enigmamsg 05:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we make an exception in this case? This would cause instability right away.--WillC 02:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi protection for a longer time At least one month of protection. The article was recently protected for 3 days, but as soon as that expired massive level of IP addition of fake tracklisting, removal of warnings and references have started. Please help. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Plastikspork (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi protection vandalism, Massive wave of constant IP vandals many of which were previously blocked. We definitely need about month of protection. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 03:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 07:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Article is a vandal magnet. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request protection due to anon users adding unsourced information to the article regarding the English vocal cast. Despite two previous protections and notices from an Admin on the page itself warning about unsourced information, nothing about this has changed. The Clawed One (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After one month, the game will be released and there'll be no need for speculation then. Thank you. The Clawed One (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Due to being roumerd to be on his way to Juventus F.C. several IP nr. and a few users moves him from ACF Fiorentina to Juventus based on unreliable roumers claiming the move is done or soon will be. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 21:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection, As this album is to be released on August 18, anons/new users keep swarming this article with unsourced/fake tracklists, covers, and other info. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 18 August 2009, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

    • To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
    • Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
    • Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
    • If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.

    Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    Unprotection, protection came after only one instance of IP vandalism. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Tan | 39 01:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Vinkegnr

    Vinkegnr I need to edit the names of the players that are in red. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinkegnr (talk • contribs)

    Malformed request. Neither that template nor your page have been edited, your only contribution is here. What page were you asking about? Syrthiss (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Henry has been semi- indef protected for over two years I believe. I think it's time for unprotection. protecting admin declined to weigh in on the matter, directed me here :) Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection, fully protected against the protection policy. Otterathome (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Total Drama Action has been protected by an unknown user since february of 2009. He/She is always adding false info or adding un need stuff. I ask that this page should be unprotected.

    Declined; in fact, I'm about ready to full-protect that mess. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 22:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Total Drama Action page should definitely be protected, people are always putting up false claims of certain characters returning to the show (I suspect they only claim a certain person returns because they really enjoyed that character and couldn't stand them not competing in it, there was one instance of someone putting up a bunch of statistics about nonexistent people who had absolutely nothing to do with anything related to the show, even worse, it was displayed on the discussion page(it appeared to be a imitation of the series itself)).--Chikinpotato11 (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected by a sysop (Alex Bakharev) that violates the rules of Sockpuppety, who unfairy violates the privacies and opened the access of a blocked person banned by compromises Here[3] and here[4].
    CreazySuit is a sockpuppet of Pejman47 as well as Alefbet, who are consistently making edit wars by new accounts (Evidence [5] Accured 17th of June, 2 years ago).
    Please unprotect it, Since it's real name is Republic of Gilan, As well as it was the first title of this article, Simply try a google search, Thank You --Parthava (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If I were you I'd not call admins sockpuppets. From reading the above, I get the impression that you have no idea what the heck you are talking about other than an admin protected the article. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 22:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined A quick check of the public move logs for each page (PSSR, RoG) show that the page was originally at PSSR as the first move was from there. Please use the Request Move page to request a page move. The protection is valid. -Royalguard11(T) 01:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    These three templates are not used in any project banners anymore as they have been superceded by the {{impor}} template. Template:Top-importance td, Template:High-importance td and Template:NA-importance td are already unprotected and so should these other three. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done -Royalguard11(T) 01:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

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

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

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

    Move to User talk:Sceptre/Archive58 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs). My talk-page is move-protected to prevent move vandalism/harassment. However, this causes problems come move time. In three steps:

    1. Move to the archive page and full protect.
    2. Replace redirect with {{User talk:Sceptre/header}}.
    3. Semi-edit and full-move main user talk. Sceptre (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, I believe. (Give me a heads up if I messed that up)   JJ (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    An unkown editor keeps editing Millars Page to say that he was born in 1972 even though the source given clearily says that he was born in 1969. He/She refuses to explain themself on the talk page. I request that the page be protected from unregistered users. annoynmous 19:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected; no expiry set. If he comes to the talk page and you get a consensus (and a source for the '72 BD) there, come to me and I'll unprot. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 22:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, COI Safeguard. Yeah dude, PowerUserPCDude was here (yeah) (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined; last edit was June 24th. Administrators are not permitted to protect articles pre-facto. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary create-protection, Article has been speedy recreated after multiple speedy deletes for G12 copyright infringement. I request temporary create-protection for both Oregon business plan and Oregon Business Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected in re Oregon business plan [sic]; Declined on Oregon Business Plan because its last (and only) creation was on July 1st, making a full prot there preemptive. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 22:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Today I had to revert 3 IP's already. Given that Drake has a couple songs topping charts in the U.S. and has an upcoming album it's not really wise at this moment to leave this page unprotected. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, Repeated recreation over a series of years. Vicenarian (T · C) 19:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done - The earth hath been salted. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, COI Edit Safeguard. Yeah dude, PowerUserPCDude was here (yeah) (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. And you haven't provided any context that might even warrant an exception. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Several IPs keep removing links to active tropical cyclones so i think it might be a good idea to semi protect it for a little while. Jason Rees (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —EncMstr (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Ongoing problem with random IPs inserting vandalism, unsourced statements or violations. The information contained herein is invalid and i have been authorized by the company executives to take care of that. We are suspecting either competitors or dissatisfied employees to post false statements in an effort to discredit Ramco's business. Also, there is possibility of proprietary & confidential information being posted by unauthorized and unidentified users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiupdaterrr (talk • contribs) 17:19, 14 July 2009 UTC

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. —EncMstr (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Ongoing problem with random IPs inserting vandalism, unsourced statements or violations of WP:BLP. Subject of article is figure in the internet and tech community, making her especially vulnerable and prone to this problem.Legitimus (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —EncMstr (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Lots of unsourced, speculative IP additions about this footballer who may or may not be transferring from Gremio to Manchester Utd. Dancarney (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. And, you should start issuing warnings to the IPs. Thanks. Plastikspork (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection dispute, Article is currently under mediation. This has happened before at a mediation last year, and worked well. I, the mediator, will ask an administrator to make changes to the article, or drop the protection back to semi, once changes have been discussed, and have consensus. This seems the best option for the time being. Once the mediation is over, I will ask for the protection to be lifted, but this could take some time, so I'd suggest no expiry be set. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 08:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected without expiry. I trust you to request unprotection as soon as mediation has ended. Regards SoWhy 12:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    There has been what I saw as a relatively minor dispute with Systemizer (talk · contribs)'s attempts to make major changes to the article (please look at editor's deleted contributions and AfDs to get a flavor for the sort of edits he/she writes). This appears to have been against consensus and after I reverted his last major change user:Rootology protected the article for a month. I asked Rootology why on his talk page and by email and have had no reply. As Systemizer had had warnings for edit warring on the article, including a 48 hour block by Nishkid64, I felt that dealing with the editor was more appropriate than protecting the article (right version so far as I'm concerned). Although Rootology has been posting regularly he's blanked his talk page with a Wikibreak notice (after being asked to remove an earlier one because he didn't seem to be on a break). I'm not going to unprotect the article obviously, although I don't think anyone should protect an article while on a Wikibreak. Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection dispute, Anons and new editors keep on adding unverified speculation that the website shut down with no hopes of relaunching, although the site's official Twitter profile states that the "network should be back online within the next couple of days". Blake Gripling (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Personal speculation and blatant crystal balling is not a dispute, it's disruption. Regards SoWhy 07:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Recent vandalism target... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Smashville (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). SoWhy 07:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection Vandalism. Was declined some 30+ hours ago, see below. --aktsu (t / c) 04:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enigmamsg 06:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=302364663"