Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jac16888 (talk | contribs) at 02:00, 16 May 2010 (→‎Current requests for protection: not done on mono archives). 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.

    User talk:Mono/Archive 7 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite semi-protection, User request. moɳo 01:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Jac16888Talk 02:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Mono/Archive 6 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite semi-protection, User request. moɳo 01:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Jac16888Talk 02:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Mono/Archive 5 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite semi-protection, User request. moɳo 01:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Jac16888Talk 02:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Mono/Archive 4 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection moɳo 01:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Jac16888Talk 02:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Mono/Archive 3 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite semi-protection, User request. moɳo 01:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Jac16888Talk 02:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Mono/Archive 2 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite semi-protection, User request. moɳo 01:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Jac16888Talk 02:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Mono/Archive 1 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite semi-protection, User request. moɳo 01:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Jac16888Talk 02:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Slippery dick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, lots of recent vandalism. i'll provide examples if needed. qö₮$@37 (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    might be better off protecting this one actually, as far as I can see there hasn't been a valid edit to the page in nearly a year--Jac16888Talk 01:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ratanakiri Province (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. moɳo 01:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Catholic sex abuse cases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Full-protection edit-warring, there seems to be a large amount of edit warring going on - which probably also needs dispute resolution, but some full protection would be nice too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If an agreement is reached before the one week expiry time, leave a message on my talk page and I'll unprotect. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shane Dawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protection vandalism, Recent high level of vandalism of a BLP. Airplaneman ✈ 00:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My World (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Permanent-Semi Protection Excessive vandalism, article has been protected many times before, as soon as protection is removed, vandals get right at it. Unregistered IP's and new users adding unsourced information and/or vandalizing daily. ..:CK:.. (talk2me) 01:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:40, 16 May 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.

    Tillakaratne Dilshan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Unprotection, very limited vandalism - indefinite semi-protection seems excessive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think YM may need a reminder of the protection policy, the number of indefinite protections on his protection log is mind-bogglingly high. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That has already been done - I'm just challenging some of his further recent protections that look dubious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This one, I suggest you discuss with YM first. Although indefinite is probably not justified, I do see evidence of vandalism in the history, so I;d like to hear his thoughts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Done FWIW see this -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if a protection was justified, a first protection shouldn't even be an indef one, IMO. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It shouldn't according the RPP instructions an the protection policy, but I'm not a huge fan of unilaterally reversing another admin's actions, even though I;m not remotely territorial about my own, so I;d like to hear YM's thoughts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, that's probably the best idea. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:12, 16 May 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

    Isis District State High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Unprotection 2 years of protection seems excessive for a single piece of vandalism. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Maribyrnong College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Unprotection 3 years of protection seems excessive - especially as the most recent additions look to be in good faith. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: protection reduced to one month from today. There is evidence of vandalism in the history, but 3 years is too long. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:NerdyScienceDude/Archive 6 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite semi-protection, I have all of my archives semi-protected. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 23:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. no significant activity since the 11th. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I just missed that. Thanks for pointing that out. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexander Mackenzie (explorer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protection, IPs are removing tags and ignoring the talkpage. . Tajik (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined IP editors appear to be making some attempt to communicate, so you might want to AGF and keep trying to engage them in conversation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Ongoing event. Chocolate4921 22:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

    Already protected. Correct page? TbhotchTalk C. 22:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eclipse (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary semi-protection Excessive vandalism. (beside IP blocked). TbhotchTalk C. 21:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Amir Khan (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protect. IP user(s) keep posting irrelevant information about someone who shares the same nickname, failing WP:CS, WP:OR and WP:POV. User is not willing to discuss this properly and is an obvious case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I did previously request that this page be protected but previous admin was more concerned about my username and didn't give me any rationale as to why it was rejected. --Jimbo[online] 19:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List of iCarly episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Unprotection, okay, I think we solved the issue on why ip's are vandlizing. I say we can maybe give it another try and take it off early. Checker Fred (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ante Starčević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I cannot see any reason for keeping this article 'protected' further. From the article changes history I see only content disputes where the prevailing (i.e. winning) side is the one that does not like the existing content. The same winning side was not able to elaborate their claims (POV, not true, etc.) supported by valid sources.--71.191.26.33 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Please ask the protecting admin, Future Perfect at Sunrise. He left a note asking that it not be unprotected. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Indefinite create protection. Repeatedly recreated. TbhotchTalk C. 18:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ronan O'Gara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism BLP Article has seen a constant flow of traffic from IP Vandals and non established users over a period of several months. Third time to request protection. GainLine ♠ ♥ 17:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:PEDO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite create-protection, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_15#Wikipedia:PEDO "Pedo" is too inflammatory, perjorative and insulting a word to use as a redirect. Jubilee♫clipman 17:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Houston Riot (1917) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protect dispute for a week while an editing dispute gets resolved with an IP.--Hourick (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Report the IP to WP:AIV if the vandalism continues. -FASTILY (TALK) 17:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Presidents of the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Full-protect until next week. Noynoy Aquino adding him despite him not being proclaimed as the winner. –Howard the Duck 16:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Appeal for full-protect. People are still adding Noynoy Aquino even though he is not proclaimed yet. There's no reason for anyone to edit the article right no so full-protect is an option. –Howard the Duck 18:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected. Okay, full protection added for one week. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Black people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary full protection dispute. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rockstar 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary full protection dispute, The page should be fully protect because it keeps being created even though it is a blatant breach of WP:NMUSIC. There has been plenty of dicscussion and edit warring over it. Please fully protect it until there is sufficient information. Users who wish to create the page should do so on the talk page first and only when information is sufficient should it be unprotected. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Sorry, it seems to be a regular content dispute, Lil, rather than vandalism or disruption. I'm willing to be persuaded, but you'd need to show that the page is inappropriate. SlimVirgin talk contribs 15:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok take a look at the number of mass reverts here [1]. then consider how much information i was able to remove because it was improperly sourced here: [2] to remove information which was added by users to pad the article out to match WP:NMUSIC. The reasons for deletion were set out here [3]. One user Iluvrihanna24 who keeps opening the article previously had a WP:ANI against him here and has a talk page full of warnings about his over-attachment to rihanna articles, WP:CRYSTAL etc. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I'm just not seeing why having an article on it would be a problem. Is there a discussion anywhere about it that I could look at? SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page of the artcile has the best discussion about it. And the issue here is per WP:NMUSIC articles should only be created when there is enough information to justify size. The number of experienced editors who've redirected the article shows exactly why it shouldn't exist. Users are constantly disobeying the guidance given at WP:NMUSIC. i dont know what else i can say.
    Also some discussion hereLil-unique1 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Ike Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Unprotect. Has been indef. protected for over two months. The protecting admin hasn't edited in about a month. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected If you intend to edit it, Everard, please stick closely to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which boils down to making sure you use good sources for everything you add. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sura (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    long term semi-protection Frequent subject of IP edits by fans / foes of the star of the film who add unsourced opinions or remove sourced content. The majority of non-POV IP edits in the last month can probably be traced to my earthlink IP addresses and I am willing to give up ability to edit directly because without the IP vandalism, it wont be necessary to return sources and rem unsourced opinion. 207.69.139.146 (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Flying Spaghetti Monster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary semi protection dispute, Edit-warring IPs removing "parody" and leaving "religion" despite comment in article. . Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. As it seems to be a longer term thing, one month. SlimVirgin talk contribs 15:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right about the length. I just stumbled upon it yesterday. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Connormah (talk | contribs) 15:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin talk contribs 15:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary full protection, sustained warring. Potentially libelous material about living people. Philly jawn (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined for now. It's not clear who added that or when, but it doesn't seem to be very recent. Perhaps just keep an eye on it in the meantime. SlimVirgin talk contribs 15:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    B.o.B discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, constant unsourced ip inflations. Mister sparky (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin talk contribs 15:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Money (Michael Jackson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Indefinite full protection. Repeated attempts by OttomanJackson and her IP socks to recreate the article, despite the consensus for it to be a redirect at it's AFD discussion. WP:DRV would be the correct venue if they wanted the article recreated. Pyrrhus16 13:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Do you have a link to the AfD, Pyrrhus? SlimVirgin talk contribs 15:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure; it's here. Pyrrhus16 15:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks and done. Fully protected SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection, constant ip warring. ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 13:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protection - Extreme IP vandalism. Candyo32 (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. As protection only recently lifted, extending to a month for now. SlimVirgin talk contribs 13:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protection vandalism, An IP is falsifying sourced material; I am asking for a temporary semi-protection of the page. . Tajik (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It doesn't seem that bad. Which are the problematic edits, Tajik? SlimVirgin talk contribs 13:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is falsifying the attached sources. For example, while the CIA World Factbook gives the number "35%", he changes that to "56%". Or he changes the estimated overall from "40 million" to "60 million". See here. A normal reader won't probably see the mistake, but anyone who checks the sources will see that the numbers are wrong. Therefore, I am asking for a semi-protection. If you do not believe me, check the attached sources yourself or compare the number with those in the article Afghanistan. Tajik (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected. I can only see two edits from that IP, which isn't really enough to justify protection, but I've s-protected it anyway for three days. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin talk contribs 15:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ngo Dinh Diem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Unprotection - This is a bit ridiculous. 4 instances of vandalism over an almost month period should never call for a protection, let alone an indef one. Could an expiry time be set on this, or just unprotection alltogether? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    2009–10 Ukrainian Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Too much vandalism on the league table against consensus. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 10:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SlimVirgin talk contribs 13:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Clegg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Indefinite semi-protection Noticing lots of vandalism, some still present, occurring since this person entered into a political coalition which his supporters have seen as "treason", mostly, but not only, from unregistered users. The coalition is supposed to last for 5 years, so I don't know if this will be a long-term problem or not, but it certainly needs protecting for a number of weeks.SE7Talk/Contribs 09:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. One month for now, and we can see how it goes. SlimVirgin talk contribs 09:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobel Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    indefinite semi-protection. vandalism Nobel Prize is a very controversial topic and has always been vandalised by many IP-users. Since the end of April up till now there have been an increasing amount of vandalism and the most work that has been done to the page has been reversions. This is clearly not how it should be, editors shouldn't have to waste their time on just reverting vandalism. Thus I believe this page should be semi-protected for an indefinite period. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 09:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin talk contribs 09:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yusuf Estes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary full protection dispute, Like for Zakir Naik, the same editor/sockpuppets adding POV material despite being objected to by numerous editors leading to a clear case of edit warring. Please restore to consensus version so that contentious and objected to edits can be discussed. Ari (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. See below. SlimVirgin talk contribs 10:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Zakir Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    full protection dispute, Edit warring. A number of POV edits were introduced by a new user and we immediately objected to by established editors. Multiple new accounts were then created (most likely sockpuppets imo) and reintroduced POV and unecyclopedic content.

    Please protect last consensus version so discussions can take places, as they seem to be avoided at all cost: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zakir_Naik&oldid=362233374. Ari (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. I've protected for a week and reverted to the last version by you. It's hard to judge what's going on, but because it's a BLP and the two accounts you're up against have made very few edits, I was reluctant to protect on either of their versions. SlimVirgin talk contribs 10:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rahulchoudhary003 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite full protection high-visiblity template, because its my user page and if people wants to interact with me they can use my talk . Rahulchoudhary 07:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

    Declined Well, besides the fact that you are not a template, user pages are not fully protected unless there is extreme vandalism. User pages are semi-protected upon request and if there is vandalism. You have only been vandalized once several months ago. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=362362699"