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
→Current requests for protection: edit warring and vandalism, repeated ignoring of Consensus and attacks on other editors.
Nilocia (talk | contribs)
205 edits
Requesting full protection of Total Drama (series). (TW)
Line 9: Line 9:
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}


==== {{la|Total Drama (series)}} ====
'''Temporary full protection''' ''dispute'', This article is subject to ongoing attempts of adding unsourced and unconfirmed information every day, and I am becoming sick of it. '''[[User:Nilocla|<font color="Blue">Nilocla</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Nilocia|<font color="green"><big>♈ ☮</big></font>]]</sup> 15:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
===={{la|Generation X}}====
===={{la|Generation X}}====
'''Semi-protection''' This article has previously been semi-protected. I submit a request for semi-protection again, and if necessary, later '''Indefinite semi-protection'''. There have been 2 editors who have been warned several times about disruptive edits, and one has vandalized the page with profanity. At least a few times a week, there is date changing despite repeated warnings about a consensus reached on wording of the article's introduction and sources - for precisely this reason. In addition, anonymous users go in and also change the dates in the section for Strauss and Howe book ''The 13th Generation'', which is backed up by the book (source) itself. I don't think a week or two protection is going to cut it, but I will leave the decision administrators about the length since this has been a problem in the past. [[User:CreativeSoul7981|CreativeSoul7981]] ([[User talk:CreativeSoul7981|talk]]) 14:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
'''Semi-protection''' This article has previously been semi-protected. I submit a request for semi-protection again, and if necessary, later '''Indefinite semi-protection'''. There have been 2 editors who have been warned several times about disruptive edits, and one has vandalized the page with profanity. At least a few times a week, there is date changing despite repeated warnings about a consensus reached on wording of the article's introduction and sources - for precisely this reason. In addition, anonymous users go in and also change the dates in the section for Strauss and Howe book ''The 13th Generation'', which is backed up by the book (source) itself. I don't think a week or two protection is going to cut it, but I will leave the decision administrators about the length since this has been a problem in the past. [[User:CreativeSoul7981|CreativeSoul7981]] ([[User talk:CreativeSoul7981|talk]]) 14:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:00, 5 September 2010

"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 full protection dispute, This article is subject to ongoing attempts of adding unsourced and unconfirmed information every day, and I am becoming sick of it. Nilocla ♈ ☮ 15:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection This article has previously been semi-protected. I submit a request for semi-protection again, and if necessary, later Indefinite semi-protection. There have been 2 editors who have been warned several times about disruptive edits, and one has vandalized the page with profanity. At least a few times a week, there is date changing despite repeated warnings about a consensus reached on wording of the article's introduction and sources - for precisely this reason. In addition, anonymous users go in and also change the dates in the section for Strauss and Howe book The 13th Generation, which is backed up by the book (source) itself. I don't think a week or two protection is going to cut it, but I will leave the decision administrators about the length since this has been a problem in the past. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Article subject to vandalism at various times by Anon IP users. I have just reverted vandalism 3 times in the last hour . ttonyb (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Other than the few you reverted it's largely free of attention. · Andonic Contact 10:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending changes (Level 1) Good IP edits as well as some vandalism/unhelpful edits. Red Flag on the Right Side 05:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I warned the IP; relist if it happens again. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Staffwaterboy Critique Me 04:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection, The article is a list that has been verified. It is of association football players who took part in the 2010 FIFA World Cup of soccer and lists the teams for which they played at the start of the event. It has been the subject of misunderstanding and could stand for permanent and full protection since the list will not change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Pages shouldn't be indef full-protected, also there's not enough vandalism, even for a semi. TbhotchTalk C. 03:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I left a comment and everything and got conflicted, but I said basically what Tbhotch said. Airplaneman ✈ 03:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    temp semi - normally I wouldn't list this one as the vandalism has been spread across a few days rather than a single day. However, every time I look at this article, I'm picking out more vandalism. Frankly, he's a long term target as he's one of the top individuals in the sport and there haven't really been many productive IP edits at all recently. Admins' discretion, as I believe this one isn't as clear cut as usual, but I think it's borderline protection-warranted. Any thoughts? Paralympiakos (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe pending changes would be the best option, as there are constructive IP edits, but frankly, I'm confused as to wether admins are still allowed to deploy it. Airplaneman ✈ 23:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't actively searched out the answer, but all I've known was that it was a trial. I hadn't heard anything about it being deemed successful and taken on. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I've seen it deployed for a couple of my requests this week, but I'm honestly not a fan. It's tiresome seeing "there are pending changes to be reviewed" every time I look at my watchlist. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 00:49, 5 September 2010. Airplaneman ✈ 03:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, This album is the target for 'Tremanshoe' and 'DrakeandCiara Fan' sock puppets. Everytime protection expires it recieves a flood of edits from IPs and un-autoconfirmed users. I think the most sensible thing to would be to protect the article for an extended period of time until it can be proven that the article won't suffer from vandalous or sporadic editing. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 02:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. That was incredibly quick, I barely had time to blink LOL -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection - Blocked User:InkHeart is using different IPs to make the same edit to the headers (the same reason the article was semi-protected last month). oncamera(t) 02:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 02:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi protection dispute, Edit-warring IPs adding a new but lower quality definition. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 02:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-protect. Very high level of IP vandalism at the moment, BLP issues. HaeB (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2010 (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.

    PC protection Let's see how they work. TbhotchTalk C. 05:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:PCHS-NJROTC (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semiprotected without mitigation for anonymous users as required by WP:Protection policy. Notified protecting administrator, who counseled user, but no response from user. Notified protecting administrator again but no response. --Bsherr (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected I don't see anything so urgent that it can't wait for you discuss it with the editor and the protecting admin. There may be a perfectly good reason or it may just be an oversight, but neither is a good reason to unprotect the page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide guidance as to how long without a response from the user would warrant action? --Bsherr (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Give them a week if their contributions show they're active, then if you don't get a response, let me know and I'll have a word. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been sixteen days since the user was first notified, without response. I thought I was being conservative. Is another week necessary? --Bsherr (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comment above. Oversighters have had to suppress an uncountable number of edits to the project that were directed at harassing and outing this account. Opening this page up to IP editing will only facilitate that harassment. Risker (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care if it's unprotected; it was protected to reduce drama, but it's not big deal if the trolls return beyond the annoyance factor and having to oversight any troublesome edits. But it's better there than elsewhere on the project if it's going to happen at all. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Already unprotected. for the bot. TbhotchTalk C. 03:39, 5 September 2010 (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

    Indefinite semi-protection, repeated insertion of unsourced gossip. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 00:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Elockid (Talk) 00:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    temp semi - far too much IP speculation about the contract status/club status of this person, none of it sourced. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 7 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Skier Dude (talk 23:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection Buckets of vandalism, deletions. JNW (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Protected until after release of game. Skier Dude (talk 23:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, this redirect is often vandalilzed. if this were an article, the level of vandalism would not warrant protection, but since this page is a redirect and there is little any IP can contribute as it is, protection may be warranted in this case. . PinkBull 21:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Airplaneman ✈ 21:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, This is a candidate in the 2010 Brazilian elections, and has been subject to large changes of content by unregistered users, as well as some edit warring. I believe it should be semi-protected until the elections are over by mid-october, or longer. Uirauna (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Recent IP edits appear to be good-faith edits focused on removing or rewriting material that does not appear to be supported by cited sources. The article as it stands now may be a BLP violation. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, A number of IP addresses are changing listed names back and forth without regard to the authoritative sourcing. This needs some temporary discouragement. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Apparently pointless protect. Only two reverts (you need to ignore the User:Scibaby socks) and the issue is being actively discussed on talk William M. Connolley (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears you haven't contacted the protecting admin, John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Airplaneman ✈ 14:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. I did indeed contact JV, but he promptly hid it in an archive. He hid it at User_talk:John_Vandenberg/Archive_10#Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. This has also been brought to light on my talk page. I'm not comfortable unprotecting the article, as I am not sure what good that would do. I'll wait for another administrator's opinion on this one. Airplaneman ✈ 20:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not hide it. see these two edit summaries on the talk page you pointed out: [1][2] John Vandenberg (chat) 23:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined, Let's see what ArbCom decides. For right now, the protection seems like a good idea while the Arbs hash it out. Courcelles 21:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, don't understand your reasoning. Your opinion is that 2 reverts make an edit war requireing page protection? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semiprotected without mitigation for anonymous users as required by WP:Protection policy. Notified user and protecting administrator but no response. --Bsherr (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd prefer to wait a little longer for Rebecca to respond before taking action. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Will that be within the six-hour purge time for this request? If not, and action is expected of me, could you be more specific? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebecca's talk page has a long history of disruptive editing, so I would prefer to wait. I have left a message at their talk page. If this request is archived, I will bring it back until the issue is resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It inevitably gets vandalised any time it's unprotected. Considering that, there's no good reason for unprotecting that. If some anonymous person is desperate to contact me, they can either create an account and email me or post on the relevant article talk page. Rebecca (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about the late response, but from what I remember, at the time of protection no such guidance about a mitigation page was available on WP:PP, and due to the fact that Rebecca had protected it herself many times before (when she was an admin), there didn't seem to be any issues. Having said that, Rebecca, is there a reason why vandals target your talk page in particular? Regards, The Helpful One 10:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's truly continuing severe vandalism, the page may remain semiprotected (the policy says for short durations, but I'm not bothered with that), but the required mitigation must be provided. Anons need a mechanism to reach you personally. --Bsherr (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but that's not a reason to unprotect the page, thus, this belongs elsewhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unprotected Per ^ HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand. Why is the remedy for page protection in contravention of the protection policy not unprotection? Does this really have to go to WP:AN/I? Or did you mean another somewhere else? --Bsherr (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You can take it to ANI if you want, but I would suggest discussing it with Rebecca. The protection is not in contravention of the policy, the only complaint is that she (assuming from the username, apologies if I'm wrong) doesn't have an alternate, unprotected talk page where she can be contacted by non-autoconfirmed editors. The remedy is to ask her to create such a page, not to unprotect this one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that. Hypothetically, what is the remedy if a user is asked to create such a page and does not, or does not respond? --Bsherr (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hypothetically, it could be escalated to ANI or an RfC/U, but discussion is always preferable and those should be considered a last resort. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But even for inactive users, it must go to WP:AN/I instead of here? Could you could document this at WP:Protection policy? --Bsherr (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, my own talk page is indefinitely semi-protected as well, for much the same reason, as is Alison's, and neither of us have the "alternate page". The reason is that the type of vandalism we receive tends to be privacy-violating, suppression-level stuff and, as I recall, the same has historically been true for Rebecca's page. While the advice to have an alternate page is all well and good, what minuscule benefit there may be is significantly outweighed by the disruption such pages cause in some cases. Now, if people think for a few minutes, they may also see another pattern there between Rebecca, Alison and myself, and may want to ponder for a moment about the disproportionate inappropriate attention that is directed to three highly visible female editors, and what kind of impression that makes on other female editors of the project. Risker (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Its very sad that its likely sexist :(. However what about having a link to WP:ANI for admins with a protected talk page and no alternate page. At least that way if an IP user has a legitimate reason to contact you they have the ability to do so. Because actually they can't just 'create an account' they have to wait several days for the account to be activated as well as making some edits. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You may indeed be recognizing an important issue. The right way to go about it is to amend, not ignore or arbitrarily enforce, the WP:Protection policy. Would you be willing to raise the issue there? --Bsherr (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Email this user" works from the moment of account creation. Simply put, there is nothing that an IP can want to talk to me about where I am the only person on the entire project who can help them. Seriously, can you think of an example of where I would be the single, solitary editor on this project to whom a query would be appropriately directed? The same goes for Alison or Rebecca. If it's article content, it should be on the article talk page. If it is concerning some discussion on another page, that is where the query should be. The policy says "should", not "must", for a reason....and this is the reason. Do you really think it necessary to flag up in a policy that IAR may be applied for user talk pages that are subject to repeated harassment, outing and suppression-level vandalism, or should we figure that it's just plain common sense? Risker (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can think a few instances; I expect the most relevant to anons would be when an administrator speedily deletes a page. If harassment and PI violations prompted the block, I think that should be included in the log entry. Otherwise, there's no way of knowing when a user needs to be reminded about the mitigation, or when there's justification for avoiding it. But these issues should be brought up in a discussion on the talk page of the policy. To answer your question, I think it's necessary to explain the issue in the policy, because I don't think it's necessarily obvious (For example, I guess that 1% of registered users know what suppression is). --Bsherr (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems perfectly reasonable that any editor (including an IP editor) would want to discuss any action by the given admin. And while I accept that the email this user option exists, I've wasn't really aware on how it worked before - and I have getting on for 10k edits - because I've never seen a need for the feature. I see no reason why a link to WP:ANI wouldn't solve that problem and allow the given user to keep their page protected.
    And lets face it if users are harassing people on their talk pages if they knew about the email thing they'd likely send lots of email harassment too - so assuming that isn't happening it fairly clearly isn't obvious enough for new users. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I have to admit it's kind of refreshing to see such a positive mindset; I sometimes forget about the genuine optimism that brings so many people to work here. I'm not putting any links on my page; any page I'm speedily deleting is being deleted because it contains a massive privacy invasion or something similar, and any IP who knows enough to ask me a question about it also knows enough to go elsewhere to ask the same question; blocked users are already provided with multiple options to contact the project. I will add a line to the policy stating that some user talk pages, due to highly disruptive repeated harassment, outing and other privacy violations, may require long-term semi-protection without a forwarding link if you feel it is extremely necessary. I'll note that this also applies to the request below this one; oversighters have had to remove an uncountable number of edits to the project in relation to that account. Free communication is an ideal, it is not a criterion for the success of the project, and no policy requires that users leave themselves (or others) open to harassment. Risker (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that sounds like a good idea as at least then the policy matches reality. I still like my idea about linking to ANI (because while society in "the West" is sexist, it isn't generally openly and explicitly sexist and I think that posting stuff on ANI would be in the latter case). However if it doesn't work then your way is definitely the way to go - so lets do that and I'll bring up the ANI thing in due course with the idea of trialling it.

    FWIW I also want to be clear that I'm only commenting as I think that free communication is worth doing if it can without too many problems and I'm not remotely tolerant of sexist abuse towards others. Although its sad that its happening unfortunately I'm not totally surprised. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary create-protection, Three deletions within a 1.5-hr period. Also requesting create protection on Arash ashkar. E Wing (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection vandalism, An excessive level of vandalism has reoccurred since the article's last protection period expired. The subject attracts both silly and sneaky vandals, typically of the middle school variety. HarryZilber (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection, Recreated several times.
    - Sarrus (Danish talkpage) - 19:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected Connormah (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Off2riorob (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, I have no reason to suffer the disruption that accounts created on a single day cause, please semi protect for as long as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Beyoncé Concert live in: "Knokke (West Flanders)"

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, I have no reason to suffer the disruption that accounts created on a single day cause, please semi protect for as long as possible. Jackywackyxd (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=383067758"