Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 9258fahsflkh917fas (talk | contribs) at 20:04, 1 September 2009 (→‎{{la|Steven Defour}}). 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.

    semi-protection vandalism. This is an article about a professional football (soccer) player in the UK. He seems to have changed clubs today and his article has been subject to repeated vandalism from multiple IP addresses. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 20:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, addition of unsourced or unconstructive content resumed as soon as protection expired on Aug. 29 and has always been persistent since August. This album is to be released on Sept. 8. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent and frequent IP edit warring and single-purpose, deliberate vandalism even after repeated requests for dialogue regarding incessant unsourced claims. Tirolion (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Alan (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. IP's keep adding unsourced information about performances. Please semi-protect until September 14th which is the day after the award show airs. ---Shadow (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    full-protect until outcome of RFD is decided. This article was created to bypass protection on Broken-Hearted Girl, which was redirected per WP:Articles for deletion/Broken-Hearted Girl.—Kww(talk) 16:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone take a look at the article Zheng Zhi. The edit history is here. It's been subject to systematic vandalism from multiple IP address. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 16:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for one week. Tan | 39 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite move-protection, As soon as the family announced their 18th child, people kept trying to move it to 18 Kids and Counting long before the show title actually changed. I can't imagine the same won't occur now that they've announced the 19th child. I don't know if it's already move-protected, but I figured I'd throw this up here anyway. 132 16:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In the same vein, could we also get 19 Kids and Counting create-protected? There were a few people who did cut-and-pastes "moves" last time around. Thanks. --132 16:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Border (disambiguation)

    Please, I ask the protection of this page. Editor RafaAzevedo (of pt.wiki) is removing interwikis of ro.Wikipedia and zh.Wikipedia. Thanks. Fred Xavier (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    These are wrongful interwikis, the editor is bringing to this Wikipedia a dispute currently being held in pt-wiki (namely here). I should remind that the editor in question has been criticised (and punished) severely for such behaviour previously. I second the motion for protection in the stable version, previous to Fredxavier's unconsensual edits. RafaAzevedo msg 16:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sysops, please see Talk:Border (disambiguation). Thanks. Fred Xavier (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. tedder (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Currently a target of excessive vandalism and deliberate misinformation. BEVE (talk)  16:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, Consistently being re-created by non-notable subject's agent. ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Create-protect. Repeatedly recreated by more than one user.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected Beeblebrox (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection And this article is getting shitted out with ip vandalism. Richard (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection Hardcore ip vandalism currently going on. Richard (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full-protection. Due to continuous vandalism of sourced information in a sourced list (the original sourced list contains 22 countries, rather than 21). HOOTmag (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection anonymous vandalism from variable IP of this template. Permanent semi-protection seems to be called for.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Mifter (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Persistent and frequent vandals since last protection ended. Don't recall any recent edits which have been contructive, one look down the history should settle this. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Long standing pattern of IP abuse. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Page has not had a contructive edit ever since this meme was started on Australian TV, repeated adding of the one thing by IPs has been persistent enough for previous protection and since it was released it has just begun again. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for six weeks. Tan | 39 12:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Many attempts at vandalism within past few hours. As far as I can tell, the last unvandalized version is that of 27 August 2009. Peter Chastain (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. 1 day by User:Mentifisto. AlexiusHoratius 11:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, An anonymous user keeps on blanking sections of this article without explanation. Bluemask (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - user doing the unexplained deletions seems to have stopped an hour or two ago, re-report if the the same thing starts up again. AlexiusHoratius 11:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. IP accounts keep blanking the table. HOOTmag (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Semi-protected as a sock target for 1 week - no opinion as to the inclusion of the Russell Index. AlexiusHoratius 12:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Indefinite full protection user talk of blocked user, He is a blocked user and the Block Log says he cannot edit talk page. The Junk Police (reports|works) 07:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. (since July). AlexiusHoratius 11:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect for one year. Third request. Continuing IP vandalism and unsourced material. BlueSquadronRaven 05:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. 1 week by User:Tedder. AlexiusHoratius 12:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-protection frequent target of ongoing soapboxing, NPOV violations, NOR violations, and general vandalism. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Need more information- can you give enough diffs to make the request for page protection clear? Especially if there is obvious vandal/soap/npov/nor/etc to prove it needs to be semi-protected for a while. I'm standing on the fence on this; if you can give solid examples of why protection is needed, show them and I'll lock it down. tedder (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One telling indicator is the minor change between the Aug 28th version, and the Sept 1 version - yet 59 intermediate edits are between these due the the need for reverting the vandalism (note: some of the reverted edits are content dispute, but a large number do fall into the reasoning for the semi-protection request): [1]
    For specifics over that same time-frame, here are some diffs:
    • [2] = user blocked indef for multiple edits like those to this and one other article;
    • [3] = IP vandal;
    • [4] = user received 3RR warning over this content;
    • [5] = same user who was 3RR warned, but different edit;
    • [6] = user blocked and tagged as suspected sockpuppet of the other blocked vandal;
    • [7] = user received final warning, including two vandalism edits to this article;
    • [8] = IP soapboxing/NPOV/NOR issue;
    • [9] = user soapboxing, made multiple edits.
    The logic for requesting semi is that all the editors identified above were not -auto-confirmed when they began adding POV and/or vandalising the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks for the diffs. Because of previous blocks, I've extended it to 1 month. tedder (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - vandalism, continuous vandalism by IP users. Gage (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. per BLP. tedder (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-protection recently was given a 1 week semi protect. persistent IP vandalism since coming off the protect. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection, Various random IPs (the same editor perhaps?) have changed the sourced release date of the novel Heartless to an earlier, unsourced date about 10 times since July 1st. — TAnthonyTalk 04:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. High level of IP vandalism. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 03:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Excessive vandalism by multiple anonymous IPs from the 137.219.194.x group. AussieLegend (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good protection decision, Beeb. Not that you need my endorsement, I'm just sayin'. Tan | 39 02:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether Ineed it or not I appreciate it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If this pops up again, it appears that a range block of "137.219.194.64/26" might be appropriate (2 of the IPs come up to **gatcf.ad.jcu.edu.au) Skier Dude (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    jcu = James Cook University, the local University. edu.au confirms it. Students!! oh, yeah, that's me too...ROxBo (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. IP users adding argumentative claims about what type of surgery the subject is/is not and adding text such as "CORRECTION:" with disputative text under the illustration; have been warned in edit summaries and on at least one user talk page, but refuse to bring their issues to the article talk page for discussion. Edits may include 'citation' links to commercial plastic surgery sites. CliffC (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for one week. Tan | 39 03:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, For the last couple of weeks almost every edit has been Vandalism. SMP0328. (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Skier Dude (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. IP addresses resolve to the city hall at the city of Ashland, who have been removing valid, reliably sourced content, and select notable natives that may portray city in a negative light. Has resorted to using a registered account to edit war. seicer | talk | contribs 18:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually have confirmation from a private e-mail that the named account is from the city of Ashland, and can forward it to OTRS if requested. seicer | talk | contribs 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Use DR or WP:3RR as necessary. tedder (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, Created and salted at the name 525r.com. Creation and deletion resuming at a new name. Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    the page has only been created a few times in two days, I suggest temporary protection. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Four creates and four deletes.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stale
    He seems to have given up on it for now, if it happens again re-report or let me know on my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected Salted by Lifebaka, which I agree with. If 525r is salted, and 525R is the new target, there's no reason not to salt the new name. No realistic possibility of a valid article being created here, and there's always WP:RFUP. Tan | 39 03:05, 1 September 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.

    These pages have been protected as "high risk templates", even though they are not: They are used in a handful articles at most (and quite often they're orphans), nor are they used in highly visible articles (just look at the articles that currently use these templates). In addition, these templates never have been vandalized in the first place. I've discussed this with the protecting admin, and he said that I should bring it up here for further review. --Conti|✉ 09:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is highly likely these templates will often be used for short periods of time in highly visible articles - quite possibly WP:BLPs. If the templates were to be vandalized during this time, then the highly visible WP:BLP articles could be vulnerable as well. Unless there is a serious need for high levels of active editing to these templates, there does not seem to be much need to unprotect them - however, I'll defer to review of another administrator here. If they wish to keep the protection, fine, or if they wish to change it, I won't object. Cirt (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not, believe me. I've maintained these templates for a while now, and they are not used on highly visible articles most of the time. And if they are, they are used on one highly visible article at a time, at most, and if a vandal would want to vandalize that article.. he could. By editing the unprotected article. --Conti|✉ 09:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the templates need updating/work? Tan | 39 12:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it matter? Usually they don't. And if they stay protected, they won't get any updates even if they need them. Again, these are in no way high risk templates. --Conti|✉ 14:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Each template currently has less than four transclusions each, around one of which might be medium profile for a time. Semi-protection would be reasonable for this risk. Autoconfirmed template vandals will choose to vandalise something far more high profile with their final edits. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protection would be quite fine by me. --Conti|✉ 15:49, 1 September 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.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

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

    Temporary full protection vandalism, continued vandalism from many different IP addresses. Requesting temporary protection of the page. NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 22:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a few hours. Full-protection is unnecessary when the problem is only from IP editors. BencherliteTalk 23:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Article was recently unlocked having been semi-protected following a string of IP vandalism. Since being unlocked the IP vandalism has started back up again. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, maybe indefinitely. A long-time magnet for repeated insertion of unsourced and usually unverifiable (by reliable sources) information, usually by anonymous IPs. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Very often, some anonymous user makes unnecessary roster changes of uniform numbers and/or players who are not even with a certain team.-DANO- (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, Multiple NPOV edits by IP user. Similar edits attempted on page "Health care reform in the United States". Alan (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.. Sorry it took a while. lifebaka++ 23:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection, Repeated introduction of link to commercial website by IP-hopper. Falcon8765 (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Vandalism by multiple IP's being added. TJ Spyke 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Most of those ip edits do not appear to be vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, IP user committing multiple reversions in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:3RR, then attacking reverting users in edit comments. Also recommend suspension of anonymous edit privileges for that IP. Alan (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Long history of vandalism for months from multiple IPs especially from anon IPs 79.xxx and 201.xxx. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 12:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This looks more like a prolonged content dispute/edit war than simple vandalism. Take these three days to discuss these matters on the talk page, and possibly pursue some form of dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible to have this protection setting reassessed to semi-protection and for a longer time? This is not a dispute/edit war. It's vandalism. Please see long term vandalism on the history article and User: Elockid/notes1 about user 79.xxx. and their vandalism. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 21:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Liskula Cohen is the subject of specific vandalism directed at the person. Cohen is currently suing a blogger and google for the very same claims that are being added here by IPs. In this case I think indefinite semi protection is warrented to protect wikipedia. Martin451 (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. While the number of vandal edits is not that high and it's being caught fairly quickly each time, given the legal risk I'm doing another week of semi. If it starts back up after protection expires, relist it here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "Semi-Protection". This page seems to experience vandalism that comes and goes in cycles, which seems to have been happening for a long time. This article has only recently recovered from a recent attack of vandalism, and I feel that it would benefit greatly from having semi-protection, since that would mean only registered users with some history on wikipedia could edit. For an article this controversial that has continually experienced vandalism, I think semi-protection would help stabilize it.--Devanagari108 (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. No vandalism in the pages recent history, and some good contribs from ip editors.Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection Constant vandalism by unregitered users. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. While there are a lot of reversions going on, much of it is in response to plain old bad editing as opposed to vandalism.Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, The article has been deleted thrice at the same day, and is subjected for fourth deletion per copyright infringement (same reasons beforehand). User-creator is the same. JL 09 q?c 09:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by User:Redvers 19:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Beeblebrox (talk)[reply]


    Semi-protect, maybe indefinitely. A magnet for IP vandalism and BLP violations, including repeated insertion of an unsourced "birthname" and an ongoing feud over whose favorite male pornstar has bigger equipment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protect, for one week. Please lock at this revision; attempts to whitewash the article claiming non-existent talk page consensus. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    These accusations are totally unfounded, there is a consensus for a new version and this editor is sinply attempting to have the article locked up to his prefered version. Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already tried that - I filed an RFC, but the editors trying to whitewash the article aren't willing to let that run, and have reverted it again. I can't revert again for 24 hours without running afoul of 3RR, so I must ask and strongly urge you to reconsider.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I still don't consider this to be an appropriate occasion to use the protect tool. The fact that established editors are up against the 3RR limit in this fashion is perhaps another indication that everyone should step back for a bit. I have no problem if another admin feels protection is warranted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When you have a bipolar dispute and one side is up against 3RR, that makes it rather asymmetrical request for the other side to step back, doesn't it? Still, very well.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=311336257"