Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wavetwista (talk | contribs) at 11:01, 1 April 2007 (→‎Current requests for unprotection). 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.

    Protect Current featured article that is experiencing a large amount of vandalism, majority of this is April Fools' Day related. -- Lima Golf Talk | Contributions 10:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Protect Continued edit warring by anon IP's over major content. also suggest ajudication. VanTucky 07:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Steady stream of IP vandalism. Bmg916SpeakSign 06:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, now its getting more and more malicious edits. -- Hdt83 Chat 06:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Gave it 24 hours of semi-protection. --Allen3 talk 06:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Heavy vandalism due to the resurging popularity of Yo Momma jokes .TNTfan101 04:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- ReyBrujo 04:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Consistant blanking of user page by a number of users (possibly same user editing with sockpuppets). User is currently blocked and is suspected of being a sockpuppeteer. Yankees76 04:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Also, sockpuppets have been indef blocked. -- ReyBrujo 05:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Incessant vandalism from multiple sources. Baristarim 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected--Húsönd 04:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of vandalism as per fan reaction. 64.231.196.30 01:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Daniel Bryant 02:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of vandalism as per a television interview on the Nine Network with Jimbo Wales. Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 01:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Like two minutes ago or something. That vandalism was extreme. --Deskana (ya rly) 01:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. IP vandalism in numerous instances. The Random Editor 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined the last revert was 3 days ago, not enough activity lately to justify protection. -- ReyBrujo 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection +expiry indefinite, Full protection: Vandalism, Repeated vandalism — zero » 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Only one user did commit a large number of vandalism. He has been warned, and if necessary will be blocked. Therefore, we can't justify a full protection of this kind. -- ReyBrujo 23:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotect Vandalism, racism edits Wavemaster447 22:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Not that much activity in the last days to justify protection. -- ReyBrujo 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotect. Continuous ongoing vandalism by multiple users. Valrith 22:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, 8 reverts in the last 3 days is not that much. I will keep watch of the page and protect if it becomes worse. -- ReyBrujo 23:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Permant semi-protection For some reason, Jodie Foster is a magnet for unregistered hit and run vandals. Please don't put they protection tag though, because tags on article pages are such an eyesore. --Wasted Sapience 21:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, not enough activity to justify semi-protection. --Wafulz 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi for 4/5 days, frequent target of IPs within past half-month. --Sigma 7 19:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 20:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection - reverts exceeding throughout the days. Lakers 17:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, only two reverts in the last two days, not enough activity to justify protection. Seems a content dispute instead. -- ReyBrujo 18:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry indefinite, Semi-protection, IP edit war — zero » 17:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. →AzaToth 17:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection due to recurrent and ongoing IP vandalism. The article was just unprotected days ago, but this turns out to be premature. Nick Mks 11:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, only one vandalism today. Let's see how it fares this weekend. -- ReyBrujo 17:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Derek Smart (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Request semi-protection. An anon user who is almost certainly banned by the Arbcom (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Derek_Smart is removing other people's comments on the talk page and making his usual borderline legal threats. The article's already semi protected 'cause of this guy. Ehheh 17:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, the talk page hasn't had enough activity to semiprotect it. -- ReyBrujo 18:01, 31 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.

    This has been protected and no reason given. They've been played on MTV, Radio 1 in the UK, have over 250'000 views on YouTube and have over 75'000 page views on MySpace. Surely that's enough to give them a Wikipedia page? Wavetwista 10:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please unprotect - It is only a stub and needs more info. Cartilageandfluid 10:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC) — Cartilageandfluid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    Looks like an OTRS thing. SPA request. – Chacor 10:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Unprotect- its April fools day, give it a try. Retiono Virginian 09:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been protected since January 31. I don't want to unprotect it myself, as I would like to edit it. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected, two months of sysop only editing is not really desired. -- ReyBrujo 06:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is under long-term semiprotection, mostly because of repeated page blanking by sockpuppets of banned user:Arthur Ellis. The talk page has also been semiprotected due to sockpuppet abuse. An article on Marsden has appeared prominently in Salon.com and the Toronto Star very recently; this is a good opportunity for input from fresh eyes. Please unprotect both the article and its talk page for a few days (maybe a week?). Kla'quot 01:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected, almost two months is enough. Let's see how it fares. -- ReyBrujo 05:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    One anon made a personal attack in an edit summary and the page was immediately bombed. Seems a bit overboard - though I haven't gone through the mass of IP diffs in the weeks before the vandalism, the last five before the personal attack were all generally okay. User:Nlu should probably have requested that the anon with the personal attack be banned, rather than leaping to sprot. I've posted in the article's talk page for an explanation/discussion, but no response after nearly five months. The sprot doesn't really affect my account, but at least one anon has asked the same question that I did - and no response. Unprotect? --Action Jackson IV 23:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected It's been long enough anyway. --Deskana (ya rly) 23:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Article has been protected since early March with little vandalism reported since then.--JForget 14:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected →AzaToth 17:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been protected since November 24, 2006 - so we might give it a shot since little vandalism was reported since then just a couple in March--JForget 14:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already unprotected by administrator [nil by User:AzaToth]. -- ReyBrujo 18:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Has been protected for nearly a month with only a revert edit since - should have calm down though.--JForget 14:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected -- ReyBrujo 17:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This article was locked by User:A_Man_In_Black during a two-man edit war that he was involved in. Other users gave some defence and discussion on the talk page, but so far as I can tell from his user page and contributions, he's since quit Wikipedia in a fit of pique, so isn't going to be responding or unprotecting the article himself. --McGeddon 08:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, it is a temporary lock that will expire on April 1. Just wait until it ends. -- ReyBrujo 18:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    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.

    This article recently fully protected following edit war and vandalism (content deletion under pretense of spam) from Russeasby (now 24-hr blocked for 3RR violation). The deleted content in question is sourced and perfectly NPOV. Third party opinions in Talk:Anchor are against this deletion, e.g. that from Hoof Hearted, and advice from one other solicited third party (Shell Kinney) warned cessation of these edits. Protection fell upon final revert by Russeasby before revision could take place. Suggest this be rolled back. Badmonkey 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a clearly biased portion under the psychological section of that page. There was a set of data offering information about how more male children tend to grow up into homosexuals with an absence of a father figure, and then lists some sources and excerpts. However, they failed to mention numerous issues with population and timelines from the data, and thus should not have made said statement without clarifications. Also, there was no mention of research done by other associations disproving this belief entirely, such as David Meyers compilations, one of which defies this pages statements.

    Yet another person has created JavaScript which includes a line with '{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|>>add cat here<<}}\n'+, causing their page to be erroneously included in Category:AfD debates (Not yet sorted). Could someone please replace the line with '{{'+'REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE'+' WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|>>add cat here<<}}\n'+ so it stops confusing MediaWiki? I placed a request at the project page of where they said they originally got the code to hopefully head off these problems in the future. —dgiestc 04:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done -- zzuuzz(talk) 11:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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]
    Done -- zzuuzz(talk) 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    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]
    Declined then. -- zzuuzz(talk) 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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]
    Done here for now I think. -- zzuuzz(talk) 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    semi-protection As April 1 approaches, there have already been a sudden surge of vandalism from IP vandalism - so maybe a 1 week-protection would be needed for the April Fool's Day Week.--JForget 14:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. →AzaToth 14:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Pre-emptive sprotection is ruled out by the protection policy I will discuss this with AzaToth. --Deskana (ya rly) 14:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've counted as much as 10 reverts in the recent 48 hours, perhaps protection right now is justified? Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 15:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism/blanking Skopelos-Slim 12:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 14:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please unprotect that image page because the image is currently orphaned and should be deleted. Jigs41793 Talk/contribs 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected →AzaToth 14:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I noticed that this article had been semi protected, although there is no mention of this on the page. I only discovered by accident, and was rather surprised. I'm not surprised that people want to add information to the page, because there has just been a new publicity release about the book. I am a little puzzled why this merits protection. The article has recently been fully protected fo a month or two supposedly because of a dispute over the 'meaning of hallows section'. I was rather bemused by this. I do not believe that there would have been outright war on the page had it not been protected at all. It seems far more likely to me that people would have engaged in their three reverts a few times and then settled down as consensus became clear. If a revert war is never allowed to run long enough for a few different people to show where they stand on an issue, then it never will be resolved. In this instance, the article was locked for a month while we argued about it, to no real conclusion, then was unlocked and settled down without the issue having been resolved. Then as a newcomer started another spat, again the issue was never given enough time to resolve itself before the page was locked. This is a high traffic article, with lots of people adding to it, but while their edits may be hasty, it is not clear they are vandalism. As often as not, someone adds something which is already present somewhere else on the page already. It may inconvenience people to keep sorting it out, but surely that is not the point? Sandpiper 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It was semiprotected yesterday, with a two weeks semiprotection. However, if you want to have it removed, I recommend talking with User:John Reaves, who protected it, to see if he agrees with that. Otherwise, I may consider removing it in a couple of days (or wait until another admin gives it a look). -- ReyBrujo 00:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think John Reaves is of the view that the article should be pre-emptively protected. Sandpiper 01:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined While the right solution may have been blocking User:70.253.175.147, he decided to protect the article instead. Per the Wheel war concept, admins should not unprotect the page when an admin protected it recently. So, try to talk with him to reduce the length to 3 or 4 days. -- ReyBrujo 05:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not pre-emptive, was because of an anon user edit war over the cover. Sandpiper should have contacted me instead of presenting long drawn out arguments that subtly accuse me of abusing my powers. John Reaves (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The long drawn out argument was in response to what I saw as the original request by Chrisalbro to have the page semi protected for 4 months. Unfortunately the way this page is structured it is is not possible to respond in the same place that an argument for protection was made. It is also difficult to follow exactly what is happening here, as the page is backed up so fast. The best I have been able to find is that Chrisalbro requested protection, which you declined, but then you semi protected the page anyway. Hard to tell if I have missed any in between requests. Sandpiper 13:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just checked: the page was semi protected indefinitely because one anon made the same vandalistic edits over a whole 15 minutes? Sandpiper 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism and blanking--Britcom 11:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – Riana talk 12:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Please unprotect my talk page as it has been under protection since December 9th, 2006. I would like to become a productive member of the community here and, thus, I would like the ability to use my talk page. Thanks. DasGooch 09:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Here's to a fresh start :) – Riana talk 10:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection Vandalism from many different IPs usually following a warning that I have given them for their vandalism. Request semi-protection with no particular expiry date, as all IP edits to my userpage have been vandalism, and as there is no real need for anonymous users to edit my userpage. Chrisch 08:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – Riana talk 08:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-Protection My userpage, if possible my user talk too. Lakers 06:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Userpage is OK, but I would prefer not to protect one's user talk page. However, another admin may do so. – Riana talk 08:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined I agree with Riana, protecting your userpage (which she has done) is fine but even semi-protecting users' talkpages is problematic - editors without accounts should be able to contact you. I would reconsider if a user was the subject of high levels of sustained harassment, but there have been only two IP posts to your page. You are free to remove comments from your talkpage as you have done. WjBscribe 08:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Adam12901/Archive_3 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    protect Per WP:PROT: User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user. It's an archive so it should have the same status as a user page. --Адам12901 Talk 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: That section of the protection policy is currently under dispute --Deskana (ya rly) 00:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you need? Semi or fully protection? Any reason about why this version and not the previous archives? While at first I agreed with that thought (and the fact that the section is disputed does not invalidate the petition immediately without achieving consensus first), I am curious as to why it is necessary. -- ReyBrujo 06:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to do all, but I wanted to approve one at a time. I'm worried about people mistakenly going in there and adding to past comments when they are archives. I figure it could save a lot of time and confusion. Oh, and full protection. --Адам12901 Talk 08:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I have already refused protection on this page once, user came back again to try and fool somebody else. John Reaves (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as I appreciate you thinking that I'm trying to "fool" somebody, that is not the case. I came back and tried it again explaining my position differently, hoping that a different person would understand it in full. Not just you who thinks "oh nobody's done anything yet" when it's a user page, and doesn't need provocation. --Адам12901 Talk 18:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though I'm the one who disputes the section on user pages, I have no problem with admins fully protecting old talk archives. Archives are suppose to exist as they were when they were created. They don't need to be edited even (unless we need to remove something like libel from them or something). The only qualifier I think that's needed is that it needs to be an old talk archive. I personally fully protect all of my old talk archives (but not the current one, unless we were to grant sysop status the the archive bots of corse). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The intro text of this poll does not need protection, and protecting it has the effect (whatever the intent) of limiting involvement in this text largely to that of the WP:ATT proponents, all of whom are admins, compared to its opponents, most of whom are not. All I want to do with it is convert bold stuff to headings, so that the ToC works properly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined After the page was fully protected, there were two edits to fix the ToC only. The protection disclaimer is that "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version". The fact that there was an edit war in a page included in a very active page confuses users who go there to give an opinion. Unless the admins begin edit warring with a fully protected page, I don't see problem in this specific case. If users can't stop warring, it is necessary to stop it. -- ReyBrujo 05:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Request reconsideration; there is no editwar (that I am aware of) relating to simply cleaning up the /header so that its sections are actually sections that appear in the recently-restored ToC, and the material was forked to a new page and protected by someone who is deeply partisan in the debate, making the action a conflict of interest. If editwarring actually ensues over that sub-sub-page, I wouldn't have any objection to the protection of course, but this move was pre-emptive and inappropriate. The editwarring at the parent page, in other words, is not related in any way to whether this child page needs protection. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There was edit warring there. It's right before the protection. -Amarkov moo! 05:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I excuse myself from the reconsideration, any other admin watching this page can review the matter. I notice the one reverting the template has been blocked due 3RR. I suggest contacting User:SlimVirgin to see if she is willing to unprotect now that the conflicting part is temporarily away. -- ReyBrujo 05:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The requested cleanup of sections in the TOC has been made. This is a "high visibility" page, especially in light of the date and the watchlist announcement, so I don't mind the protection, personally. CMummert · talk 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm actually okay with the results so far, to my surprise. I think the wide WP-public attention on the page is major smoothness factor. NB: The blocked party has been unblocked, and the entire situation has chilled out a lot. Huzzah! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protect High level of attack by various 172... ip addresses. Also consider protection of Pierre Trudeau which is being attacked by the same ip range. --KZ Talk • Contrib 02:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected, both for two weeks. -- ReyBrujo 06:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of disputed and non-compliant material by multiple IP users. Ranma9617 02:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, not enough activity (no edits yesterday, no edits so far today). -- ReyBrujo 06:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of unencyclopedic, disputable, and/or unverified material by multiple IP users(at least one claiming to be a Cinemark employee). Have been reluctant to remove the offending material myself due to the risk of an edit war. Ranma9617 02:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, not enough activity in the last days (7 edits in a week is not a high level of activity to protect it). -- ReyBrujo 06:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection: Dispute, Number dispute has been going on the whole day. Lakers 01:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, I see many edits that improve the article, with an eventual edit and revert. Does not appear to be a content dispute. -- ReyBrujo 06:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. There is an edit war going on that is just out of control, and now editors are attacking each other. Me included; I was told (the last TWO times I nominated this page) that there wasn't enough going on and to just "watchlist and revert", and that's what I'm doing, but now other editors (who happen to ex-members of Zendik) are accusing me of all kinds of ill shit. They're so pissed, they keep calling me "bro" and "dude" and I'm a fucking womyn. - Rashaun 23:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Sorry about the agro. But policy is against semi-protecting pages where there is a content dispute between an IP editor and a regular user as it gives the upper hand to one side. Remember that we have policy against personal attacks and that users are required to assume good faith. Warn the IP editor appropriately if they're breaching those policies. Try to engage in discussion on the talkpage and keep your cool. WjBscribe 06:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=119464707"