[edit] Current requests for protection
Place requests for either semi-protection, full protection, move protection, or create protection at the TOP of this section. Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)- Edward Cullen (Twilight) also... Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. Same users are hitting both together. DMacks (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
temporary semi-protection Vandalism. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 21:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. Not overwhelming vandalism rate, and some recent anon non-vandalism. DMacks (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Already protected PeterSymonds (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)- (ec:) Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. DMacks (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Vandalism coming after controversial decision.CWY2190(talk • contributions) 20:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected by Acalamari (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) PeterSymonds (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection of my userpage is requested under the protection policy after a recent really bad spade of vandalism from a single IP, with a history of vandalism by other IPs. My user page attracts vandalism because I do RC Patrolling and this upsets some of the IPs I warn. I recognize the latest incident was one IP, that was blocked, and my justification could be stronger. I just don't want to spend so much time I could be spending on the mainspace dealing with IPs that decide to take out a grudge on my user page like this. I feel that the justification threshold for a user-requested semiprotection of their own userpage is much lower than for a mainspace article, and that my ongoing RC Patrolling combined with the recent and historical incidents of vandalism justify the request. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected indefinitely. user request Tan | 39 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection persistent attacks from different IP adresses but seems to be the same vandal as same incorrect information added. Bevo74 (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of three weeks. After three weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. A long period, let's see if it puts them off. · AndonicO Engage. 19:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection. Numerous reports of vandalism today. Possible sockpuppetry. Willking1979 (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I support this request. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/92.13.23.18 for four IP addresses that vandalized the article today. Yechiel (Shalom) 19:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of three weeks. After three weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. · AndonicO Engage. 19:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Full protection. Page is a re-direct, is constantly being altered by an IP and now a registered user. No reason for this subject to warrant an article, per AfD. Please fully protect so I don't violate 3RR and to end this annoyance. --Endless Dan 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of one week. After one week the page will be automatically unprotected. · AndonicO Engage. 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
indefinite protection High Levels of Vandalism both anon IP and registered users. Page was temporarily locked for a period of one week but it didn't seem to help. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
temporary semi-protection Vandalism, trolls spamming anontalk.Onorem♠Dil 16:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Already protected by Seraphim Whipp (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). I've actually asked her if she wouldn't mind unprotecting already, since it's been nearly two hours since the last disruptive editing, and that page is often frequented by IPs. · AndonicO Engage. 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
semi-protect. Continual IP vandalism. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Declined, vandalism today was from one IP user and has been blocked. Tan | 39 16:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Oops - I missed that it was all one IP today. Thanks for your help with the block. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Current requests for unprotection
If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, consider simply adding {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. See the list of current {{Editprotected}} requests.
If you do want a page that exists unprotected, please try and ask the protecting admin first before making a request here. This is also not the place to dispute a protection.
Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Unprotect. This template has been protected since April 15. The edit war that wast the cause of the protection has long since been settled. --Farix (Talk) 11:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Unprotected Stifle (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Current requests for significant edits to a protected page
- When making requests here, either:
- Provide a good reason for a substantial edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. Please link to the talk page where consensus was reached.
- Demonstrate that there is a clear dispute over a protected page, and that a specific dispute tag would be appropriate to add. Please link to the talk page where the dispute exists.
Note: Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change rather than requesting it here, though most of these should simply wait for unprotection. See also: Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests
[edit] Fulfilled/denied requests
temporary semi-protectionHigh level of IP vandalism today. JNW (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month. After 1 month the page will be automatically unprotected. PhilKnight (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
temporary full protection Dispute, Ongoing edit war. More information is available at arbitration enforcement, but it appears the editors need a time out while that process is underway..Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see much of an edit war going on yet, but I'll leave it here in case one flares up. · AndonicO Engage. 08:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. More uninvolved eyes would be just as helpful. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Declined - no real recent edit warring. While it looks like there are a lot of edits today, most of them are in one string from a single editor. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
temporary semi-protection A number of IP vandals keep redirecting the article to a non-existent page. Channel ® 11:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of two weeks. After two weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. · AndonicO Engage. 12:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
temporary semi-protection User talk of blocked user, User is given a block of 3 months.E Wing (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Already protected by Ryulong (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). · AndonicO Engage. 08:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Unprotect been a year since the drama with no return of the offenders. BJTalk 05:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Unprotected VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
protect - the producers of this show have requested that people shouldn't spoil the series, and quite a few fans (both IP and logged in) have been removing spoilers from all three articles. -Malkinann (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. Note: producer request did not specifically mention Wiki. Tan | 39 04:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- My feeling is that once people work out that I've reverted to the spoilery version, there will be more removal activity. I don't want to get into a revert war, so I should just re-ask for protection if the removal activity happens again? The producer request did not specifically mention Wikipedia, but in the past on the blogs, the producers have said that Wikipedia should not be trusted, as some viewers wrote in to the blog asking for confirmation on bad rumours that were put in the episode summaries. -Malkinann (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- You should revert if the removal happens infrequently. If it becomes disruptive, re-request protection. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Wilhelm meis (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. bibliomaniac15 04:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Film article is vandalized because film is released today and on Friday worldwide. I suggest semi-protecting for a week.Gary King (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
semi-protection, due to plenty of vandalism about the champions of the league involving AEK Athens and Olympiacos. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 03:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting. Tan | 39 03:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
semi-protect. Petty vandalism. Thaddius (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Above user is one doing the "petty vandalism". Edit has been referenced and supported by an article, but he continues to revert the edits and harass me on my talk page. If page is to be protected, please protect it with the correct information, or else nothing will be solved.24.3.180.166 (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fully protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. Metros (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
semi-protection, trolling by vandal. Cunard (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 days. After 2 days the page will be automatically unprotected.Not by me.User:Antandrus carried out request,just adding notice.--Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
protection from creation, repeated recreation after AfD discussion, WP:SALT. Cunard (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done Salted for four months. Tan | 39 02:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Permanent semi-protection. This article was in permanent semi-protection status due to near-constant anon IP vandalism, the template was removed yesterday and here we go again. Can you please restore, or if you think it isn't crazy enough yet, please watchlist--it will be. Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected indefinitely. I agree. It was blocked for six months (not a year as I said in the protection summary; I was thinking of something else!) and released a few days ago. Long-term to permanent protection should now be implemented. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
temporary semi-protection - an ana who changes addresses is edit warring over WP:EL issues, and who has aparent WP:OWN issues with the external links section. Request a temporary semi-protection to encourage discussion on the talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
User(s) blocked Stifle (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- As the user involved has posted from six IP addresses (in the 59.94.xxx.xxx range) over the last four days, and numberous other IPs within that range over the past few months, I'm doubtful that a block will be effective. Should I repost the listing if/when he/she does it again? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- First of all, I goofed. After spending hours putting together Talk:Central Board of Secondary Education/Spam and listing domains at WikiProject Spam, I screwed up and left in the spammy cbse.co.in link by mistake, not the official http://www.cbse.nic.in. There's been a spam war between rival domain owners for several months and one apparently is upset that his cbse.co.in rival came out ahead after the spam purges. That error's been corrected, so that may be enough to calm him down.
-
-
- If not, then I think blacklisting is a better answer. Probably 50+% of spammers give up and go away after their domains are blacklisted. (If they still have domains to use that aren't blacklisted yet, then they tend to come back.) Blacklisting is less disruptive and intrusive than blocking an IP range or protecting a page.
-
-
- Having said that, I think brief protection is a good idea while our anonymous friends are still angry. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. by Hu12. DMacks (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
semi-protection avoid unsourced and biased edits from IPs or new users in at least 1 month. Please look at its History (especially 11 June, 2008) and compare the edits between Raja81 (aka Rahar1981) with other users. He/she is always added these unsourced and fictional entries like this one repetitively [1]. And please leave a warning to this user too. Thank you.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours. After 24 hours the page will be automatically unprotected. Apart from this recent activity, there is not enough activity to justify longer protection at this time. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
