WikipedianMarlith (talk | contribs) Requesting semi-protection of Encyclopedia. using TW |
|||
Line 302: | Line 302: | ||
===={{la|R@ygold}}==== |
===={{la|R@ygold}}==== |
||
Should be a redirect to [[Richard Steve Goldberg]], as he was known to many by that nickname. That redirect is no less encyclopedic than most others on wikipedia; the admin who protected the page seems to have done it more out of personal vendetta than anything else (on a related note, he also deleted the entire [[child pornography]] article because it contained that term). No matter how offensive someone may consider the term, [[WP:NOT]] states quite clearly that Wikipedia is to remain ''uncensored''. On top of that, people were given no opportunity for discussion, or for a consensus even to be reached. -[[User:Notmyrealname7|Notmyrealname7]] 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) |
Should be a redirect to [[Richard Steve Goldberg]], as he was known to many by that nickname. That redirect is no less encyclopedic than most others on wikipedia; the admin who protected the page seems to have done it more out of personal vendetta than anything else (on a related note, he also deleted the entire [[child pornography]] article because it contained that term). No matter how offensive someone may consider the term, [[WP:NOT]] states quite clearly that Wikipedia is to remain ''uncensored''. On top of that, people were given no opportunity for discussion, or for a consensus even to be reached. -[[User:Notmyrealname7|Notmyrealname7]] 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
*{{RFPP|d|On the Cascading protection list, lister quotes ArbCom, so you will need to send an inquiry to arbcom-l mailing list. Or, if you wish, contact an Arbitration Clerk to forward your request.}} - [[User:Penwhale|Penwhale]] | <sup>[[User_talk:Penwhale|Blast him]] / [[Special:Contributions/Penwhale|Follow his steps]]</sup> 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Current requests for significant edits to a protected page== |
==Current requests for significant edits to a protected page== |
Revision as of 01:30, 3 December 2007
Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here. | |
---|---|
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 |
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 |
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.
Encyclopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
temporary semi-protection Vandalism, over the last few days.Marlith T/C 01:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ultimate fate of the universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
temporary semi-protection Vandalism. jj137 ♠ Talk 23:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Oxymoron83 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Diatom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
temporary semi-protection Vandalism. jj137 ♠ Talk 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Oxymoron83 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Eidos Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protect Like Kane & Lynch: Dead Men previously, is subject to anon/new user vandalism related to Jeff Gerstmann controversy. Previous protection was also undone by a revert. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Page protection can never be undone by a normal revert. This would be funny. --Oxymoron83 23:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Giant squid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
temporary semi-protection Vandalism Most vandalism by repeat IP vandals, a few vandalisms every day. Iciac 22:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Oxymoron83 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Nickelback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Wow, loads of vandalism within the past three days alone....h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. should do it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
User talk:24.73.23.191 ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
Semi-protect, user has removed warnings and vandalize user talk page numerous times. Also posts threats to mass vandalize Wikipedia and hack admin accounts. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 20:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Already protected. by admin User:Spellcast. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Boyfriend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indefinite semi-protection - High levels of vandalism from IP and new users. Harland1 20:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Semi indef is a bit much! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Goth subculture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection - IP hopping anon editor engaged in a revert war with, well, virtually everyone else who has worked on this page. In the interests of propriety I'd prefer not to protect the page myself since I'm involved in the dispute. And I'd prefer not to do an IP range block due to (a) collateral damage, and (b) the fact that the anon is discussing on the talk page somewhat - he just won't stop reverting at the same time. --Stormie 20:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., to be fair to all parties, IP and registered. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Day care sex abuse hysteria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temp full protection - Constant edit warring for over a month. Lets things cool down. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The Bedlam in Goliath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection - I request semi-protection. Apparently, the album leaked, and a source for said leak keeps trying to edit in a link to the blog that contains the leak. The link has been deleted and re-inserted several times. CerpinTaxt 18:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Already protected., by Irishguy (talk · contribs · logs).
- Note: I have retitled this section, The Bedlam in Goliath (from The Bedlam In Goliath); it appears there was a typo in the filing. Anthøny 20:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Applied kinesiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Persistent violation of WP:CON and WP:CCC by Fyslee. --Anthon01 18:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Absurd request by a newbie. Anthon01 has been vandalizing the page by repeatedly removing extremely well-sourced material, including a whole paragraph. I was considering this a newbie problem, but his actions are beginning to look like an experienced user who is gaming the system. I am trying to get him to use the talk page, but instead he reverts and uses edit summaries. Collaboration happens on the talk page. He is refusing to precisely explain his concerns there. -- Fyslee / talk 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- User(s) blocked. User blocked for edit-warring. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
University of Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Persistent IP reversion that goes against consensus - several editors (User:PaddyM, myself and User:Orangemike included) have reverted these back at least once. I think this may be vandalism.master sonT - C 18:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Attempts to change the disambiguation structure of the university system should go through WP:RM, not cut and paste moves. Kusma (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Somaliland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
temporary full protection Vandalism, This page is getting blanked frequently.Anshuk 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. The person doing the blanking should be blocked if he starts again. Kusma (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
PlayStation Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-Protect This page used to have a semi-protection but was removed, now IP addresses are changing the release date with no proper citation, and is pure speculation. In this edit the person even put a question mark showing that it is speculation. -- Vdub49 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Kusma (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protect (permanent). Constant daily IP vandalism. Recently had 6 month semi-protection removed, but vandalism returned immediately and has continued ever since. The problem is that it is a very high profile subject. It seems many people come seeking the meaning of life and when they don't find it in the life article, they often vandalise it! It needs permanent semi-protection. --CharlesC 17:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected Kusma (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Kane & Lynch: Dead Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protect Is currently subject of anon/SPA vandalism and speculation due to controversy of the Jeff Gerstmann firing and the rumor that his review of this video game may have been responsible for it. Was previously protected by User:KnowledgeOfSelf, but was undone when a revert was done immediately after the protection was applied. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The Bedlam in Goliath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection spam,vandalism 1 or more users are spamming the article with false album leaks in an attempt to get people to dload a program. Zopwx2 05:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- User(s) blocked: [[User:by C.Fred|by C.Fred]] ([[User talk:by C.Fred|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/by C.Fred|contribs]]). Jmlk17 06:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
temporary full protection Dispute, Edit war, even after I warned page would be reported.The Evil Spartan 04:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Fully protected one week. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I realized that I made one edit to this article last week. Given the contention in that article, it would be better that another admin that has not edited that articles makes the assessment about protecting or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fully protected Jmlk17 06:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Full Protect for a week. To prevent an edit war. See the talk page. --Astroview120mm 04:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Edit war. Húsönd 04:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
User talk:24.208.228.112 ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
temporary semi-protection User talk of banned user, only contribs are vandalism and personal attacks..slakr\ talk / 04:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected until the expiry of the block (some 5 hours). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
TransGeneration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection preferably longer-term. Persistent anon vandal evading blocks and switching gender pronouns on this and possibly other articles. Reverting isn't helping any constructive efforts and seems repellent to building a better article. Benjiboi 03:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Associated TeleVision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection requested. For the last 3-4 weeks a number of articles concerning commercial television franchisees in London and the English Midlands between the 1950s and the present have been repeatedly vandalised (sometimes several times a week) by anonymous IP editors in the 75.x.x.x and 76.x.x.x ranges (AT&T, Richardson, TX, USA), to change accepted franchise and transmission dates, and times of switching between one franchisee and another (Thames initially handed over to LWT at 7 p.m. on Friday, later at 5.15 p.m.). I suggest semi-protection for a month. -- Arwel (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 03:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Associated British Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection requested. For the last 3-4 weeks a number of articles concerning commercial television franchisees in London and the English Midlands between the 1950s and the present have been repeatedly vandalised (sometimes several times a week) by anonymous IP editors in the 75.x.x.x and 76.x.x.x ranges (AT&T, Richardson, TX, USA), to change accepted franchise and transmission dates, and times of switching between one franchisee and another (Thames initially handed over to LWT at 7 p.m. on Friday, later at 5.15 p.m.). I suggest semi-protection for a month. -- Arwel (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
London Weekend Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection requested. For the last 3-4 weeks a number of articles concerning commercial television franchisees in London and the English Midlands between the 1950s and the present have been repeatedly vandalised (sometimes several times a week) by anonymous IP editors in the 75.x.x.x and 76.x.x.x ranges (AT&T, Richardson, TX, USA), to change accepted franchise and transmission dates, and times of switching between one franchisee and another (Thames initially handed over to LWT at 7 p.m. on Friday, later at 5.15 p.m.). I suggest semi-protection for a month. -- Arwel (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thames Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection requested. For the last 3-4 weeks a number of articles concerning commercial television franchisees in London and the English Midlands between the 1950s and the present have been repeatedly vandalised (sometimes several times a week) by anonymous IP editors in the 75.x.x.x and 76.x.x.x ranges (AT&T, Richardson, TX, USA), to change accepted franchise and transmission dates, and times of switching between one franchisee and another (Thames initially handed over to LWT at 7 p.m. on Friday, later at 5.15 p.m.). I suggest semi-protection for a month. -- Arwel (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Associated-Rediffusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection requested. For the last 3-4 weeks a number of articles concerning commercial television franchisees in London and the English Midlands between the 1950s and the present have been repeatedly vandalised (sometimes several times a week) by anonymous IP editors in the 75.x.x.x and 76.x.x.x ranges (AT&T, Richardson, TX, USA), to change accepted franchise and transmission dates, and times of switching between one franchisee and another (Thames initially handed over to LWT at 7 p.m. on Friday, later at 5.15 p.m.). I suggest semi-protection for a month. -- Arwel (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Central Independent Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection requested. For the last 3-4 weeks a number of articles concerning commercial television franchisees in London and the English Midlands between the 1950s and the present have been repeatedly vandalised (sometimes several times a week) by anonymous IP editors in the 75.x.x.x and 76.x.x.x ranges (AT&T, Richardson, TX, USA), to change accepted franchise and transmission dates, and times of switching between one franchisee and another (Thames initially handed over to LWT at 7 p.m. on Friday, later at 5.15 p.m.). I suggest semi-protection for a month. -- Arwel (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 03:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
ITV London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection requested. For the last 3-4 weeks a number of articles concerning commercial television franchisees in London and the English Midlands between the 1950s and the present have been repeatedly vandalised (sometimes several times a week) by anonymous IP editors in the 75.x.x.x and 76.x.x.x ranges (AT&T, Richardson, TX, USA), to change accepted franchise and transmission dates, and times of switching between one franchisee and another (Thames initially handed over to LWT at 7 p.m. on Friday, later at 5.15 p.m.). I suggest semi-protection for a month. -- Arwel (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Akatsuki (Naruto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection A near-constant crusade to change the spelling of a particular name by IP editors. The name being restored by users is decided by consensus. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 10 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
HINDRAF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Request temporary semi-protection (length at admin's discretion). Multiple IP users repeatedly replace Hindu with "Keling" (a racial slur against Indians), refer to members of the group as terrorists, replace images, etc, over several days. Example diff: [1] cab 03:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 03:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Southern Colonies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Requesting temporary semi-protection (exact amount of time left to admin's discretion). For some reason, this article is a magnet for vandalism by anonymous IPs, as one look at the history shows. It desperately needs semi-protection to keep it relatively stable before there is any hope of it being developed into a good article. Terraxos 00:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
List of National Hockey League statistical leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article calls for no updates until the current NHL season (2007-08) has concluded. However, anon users (particularly drive-by anons) continue to update the article (either ignoring or simply missing the warnings). Could we have this article locked to avoid further updates, until the 2007-08 (including the Playoffs) concludes? GoodDay 22:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined Till April 2008? That's a bit much. If it gets bad, we can always protect for a week or so with a nice visible template. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, a template may help (it wouldn't hurt). GoodDay 00:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, a template may help (it wouldn't hurt). GoodDay 00:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protect, 24 days - page keeps getting constant speculation added. Will (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 24 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
User talk:65.60.218.222 ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
semi-protection User talk of banned user, Constantly editing own user page after ban.Hiddenfromview 22:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for 1 month. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Superpsychokamikazephsycichomicidalpsycopathicninjaeleflantgorilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Salt per the obvious. Has been recreated after deletion. Icestorm815 21:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Creation protected Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Dorking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. Persistent IP vandalism over many weeks. Second request. BeerMatt 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SkierRMH (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Dolphin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. Recent high level of IP vandalism. In the last few days this article has become one of the favorite targets for vandals. User Doe ☻T ☼C 20:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected 3 months (just taken off 6 months & they were back) SkierRMH (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
List of Family Guy episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Full Protection There appears to be lots of edit warring going on at this article. Icestorm815 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected by Theresa knott for 1 day. Icestorm815 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
USS Liberty incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-Protection. Seems to be quite a few anons coming in and blindly insisting on certain edits (Including 20,000 bytes of unformated quotes) into the article, based on its controversial nature. The article is now covered in random bracket comments while we wait for a revert (my three having run out for the day) Narson 19:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Mostly OR, and thus vandalism AFAIAC. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony Rizzo on the Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IPs in the 24.2xx.xx.xx range keep vandalizing the article..AppleMacReporter 19:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Also blocked a vandal. hurrah! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Dancing with the Stars (US season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
temporary cascading semi-protection Vandalism, we are having an edit war going on between many ip addresses.Jeanenawhitney 19:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Reverted to pre-edit war state, blocked both users, and semi-protected for two days to discourage any socks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Template:ChristianityWikiProject ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Semi-Protection. Intricate, high-risk template. John Carter 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected indefinitely. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As well as:
- Grizzly Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Polar Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Black Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-Protection. Lots of juvenile vandalism from many different anon IPs in the past few days. MrVibrating 18:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Protected some. Not protecting some (just redirects to lightly-vandalized articles). Not protecting some (look like there is also real editorial debate involving anon-IP). DMacks 19:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Flarn2005 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
semi-protect for a longer period of time or full-protect. Extremely high level of vandalism. Recently the last semi-protection expired and the vandalism started all over again. User Doe ☻T ☼C 18:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Presentation College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An anon with a dynamic IP keeps adding material about "controversial alumni" to the article. The people are listed as being members of a non-notable or fictional group. Based on the people listed, I am thoroughly convinced this is a joke. Guettarda 17:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Uranus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi 24 hour, a lot of attention from a few i.p's lately, for obvious reasons (a-la it's called uranus, If that doesn't promote something for idiot vandals to exploit, I don't know what does.. Cf38 16:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Oxymoron83 16:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Seven Blunders of the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi 24 hour, active vandalism and linked from high-traffic website. --Sigma 7 14:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Oxymoron83 16:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection - Recently there has been a surge in vandalizing the page by anons. These I think are mostly results of fundamentalist POVs (Hindu, Muslim and otherwise), as well as patriotic overzeal. A simple semi protection will help it much. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Oxymoron83 16:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection - Recently there has been a surge in vandalizing the page by anons. These I think are mostly results of fundamentalist POVs (Hindu, Muslim and otherwise), as well as patriotic overzeal. A simple semi protection will help it much. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Oxymoron83 16:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
EVE Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection - Article was semiprotected due to a hoard of IPs repeatedly reposting removed weasel words and POV and refusing to discuss anything on the talk page. During that time, the article was stable and was improved. Then, the semi-protection ran out, and guess who came back? ;) —Dark•Shikari[T] 09:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Guess what came back? ;) Semi-protected for 4 weeks. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 09:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Archimedes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection - Problems with time-wasting IP edits again. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~Eliz81(C) 08:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Karyn Kupcinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection - One month - Edit war. Two editors (one newly registered) and anon IP repeatedly removing sourced information because they don't agree with the content. Two editors agreed info was relevant and properly sourced and should remain in the article. Newly registered user and anon IP popped up yesterday to "support" the editor who disagreed with the content. Anon IP has also been reported for personal attacks and slander on the article's talk page and vandalism on other pages. Pinkadelica 08:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 21:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection - Incorrect information constantly inserted by multiple IPs. It is ongoing and persistent. Bucs2004 05:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ~Eliz81(C) 08:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hyperhidrosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection - Persistent spamming from multiple IPs over the last week or so. It is ongoing and very persistent. I have reason to believe IPs are dynamic addresses of a registered user avoiding recognition. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected persistent varied anon vandalism. SkierRMH (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Dust Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection. [2] way too much vandalism. 22 edits... taking up resources. Brusegadi 05:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for 12 days. bibliomaniac15 05:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (second request)
Semi-protection. Seven IPs of the 61.*.*.* range insert unrelated Digimon information into page. The two anime are in fact unrelated. Please act on this ASAP. This vandalism has been done since last night (UTC + 8) and another has occured a few minutes ago. It appears to be the same person. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. east.718 at 04:03, December 1, 2007
User talk:Spantesh ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
Full protection trolling. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeongeunmun Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
full-protection - I request to full protection. some Japanese user edit like this.[3] It is obvious hoax. cite is nothing. see discussion page. nobody prove it. I'm very supprised this fabrication. want eternal full-protection. And see article history. some korean correct rightly, Japanese Pushing POV trolls continuously revert it, too.774townsclear 12:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined Stop edit-warring, or blocks will be handed out like ice-cream on a hot summers day. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Van Halen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection - I request semi-protection. We've been making serious headway cleaning up this page since late July, and ever since the Van Halen reunion tour began the amount of vandalism has increased dramatically. We're getting at least 4 vandal edits a week, repeated ignoring of the talk page (where the genre was debated, if not completely decided) and of the lesser-known history of a band whose history is VERY hard to follow.(The Elfoid 13:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC))
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That's next year. Hurrah! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well the reunion tour is off for 3 1/2 weeks after December 30th, and hopefully that time will mean the initial rush to ruin things is gone. (The Elfoid 17:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC))
Medes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection - I request semi-protection. This article has been for several months under a process of constant Kurdish nationalism from anonymous IPs. They are adding lots of Kurdish POV to the article, such as Medes being a Kurdish people, etcetera. This needs to stop and I'm tired of constantly fixing the article. Also, a warning to 82.173.161.165 might be necessary. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 13:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Although not as vandalism. Looks like edit-warring to me - content dispute, perhaps. Mind you, I'm not too knowledgeable in Kurds and the like. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Current requests for unprotection
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.
Unprotect please. The matter got settled pretty quickly. We may have reached a compromise. --Astroview120mm 05:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unprotected per evidence of compromise on talk page. —Kurykh 05:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Football (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, please unprotect this article - I want to make an edit or two on it, but it seems to be locked to new users. It's been protected for nearly two months. Thanks. -Redrocketboy
- Declined Use the {{editprotected}} template, or wait a few days for your account to mature. Sorry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Articles are supposed to be kept unprotected unless absolutely necessary. What is your rationale for it being kept protected? Redrocketboy 23:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- That it would only be vandalised again. Some articles are permanently protected - ones like George W Bush or the like - to stop vandalism. Unprotecting would just create havoc. It only takes four days for an account to mature, although I'm happy for another admin to unprotect it. Try contacting User:Daniel, the blocking administrator (and chair of the Mediation Committee, at that.) If he says it's OK, I'll happily do it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Articles are supposed to be kept unprotected unless absolutely necessary. What is your rationale for it being kept protected? Redrocketboy 23:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahmad Zahir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has been protected for over 2 months now. I think that has been enough time and it's safe to unprotect it now. -- 64.229.16.84 18:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done down to semi-protected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ironically protected since about June from vandals... request unprotection. 68.39.174.238 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined Why unprotect? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Big Fish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article was protected to prevent an edit-war, but in either case the IP violating WP:AVTRIVIA was blocked. The administrator said on my talke page he/she is fine with unprotecting it, [4] to revert back to the GA-level version. Alientraveller 22:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Down to 'new and unregistered' at least. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Israeli-Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I think we're getting there, resolving the issues and moving towards some consensus. see the talk page history, for last day of edits. --Steve, Sm8900 17:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined Sorry, but you're not there yet, it doesn't seem. Wait for consensus to appear - no-one has agreed with your statements yet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
R@ygold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should be a redirect to Richard Steve Goldberg, as he was known to many by that nickname. That redirect is no less encyclopedic than most others on wikipedia; the admin who protected the page seems to have done it more out of personal vendetta than anything else (on a related note, he also deleted the entire child pornography article because it contained that term). No matter how offensive someone may consider the term, WP:NOT states quite clearly that Wikipedia is to remain uncensored. On top of that, people were given no opportunity for discussion, or for a consensus even to be reached. -Notmyrealname7 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Current requests for significant edits to a protected page
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.
Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls? (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(The category should be edit rather than talk: I'm not sure how to fix that. This article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wrote_The_Dead_Sea_Scrolls%3F_%28book%29) was fully protected today to prevent an edit-war. In its current state, the article includes a photo (the second one, inserted into the section on "reviews") that has no fair use justification (see Eric's comment to this effect on the discussion page) and the intent of which is implicitly defamatory. I have requested either removal of the photo or unprotection from the administrator who blocked it, but he feels that it would not be appropriate for him to take such actions on an article he has already protected. I have no problem with the article being protected, but the defamatory photo should certainly be removed pending a resolution of the matter through discussion.Critical Reader (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
P.s. Please note: the editor who inserted this photo into the article about a book by Norman Golb said of Dr. Golb the other day: "In between the lines one can read and feel the disdain, anger and indignation of the writer, that IMO reflects more poorly on him than the other way around." Now, out of seven or eight editions of this book by Golb, he finds one on which a photo, according to him, was printed upside down, and redundantly inserts it into the "reviews" section of this article about the book, without any fair use justification and without citing a single source discussing this photo. Clearly there is at least the appearance of a defamatory intent here and the photo should be removed.Critical Reader (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Declined, user doesn't have suffrage. east.718 at 07:11, November 30, 2007
- Done Self revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Fulfilled/denied requests
Brazilian Top Team Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism, admin contacted once to restore changes and undo vandalism. Removal of previous attacks started edit warring :(. Amoores (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Declined. east.718 at 05:05, November 30, 2007
GameSpot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
And by association:
- Eidos Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jeff Gerstmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kane & Lynch: Dead Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CNET Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a request for short term (week?) semi-prot in anticipation of potential vandalism as a result of news that Jeff Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot (a CNET company) after giving Kane and Lynch (an Edios video game) a bad review on the site Various forums associated with this topic are afire -while the articles presently have light vandalism, this could get messy as the news spreads. --MASEM 04:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is still not enough activity in those articles, and we don't usually protect articles beforehand, but since I am one of the ones who suggested checking the articles out, I will leave another admin to decide. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Declined per ReyBrujo. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- (ec) Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. for Gerstmann, declined for all others. east.718 at 05:03, November 30, 2007
FUN FRIENDS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- FOCUS program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Friends for Life Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Paula Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Pathways Health and Research Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please salt, that is, after it gets deleted. Created by spammer who keeps recreating sockpuppet accounts similar to promotional name, username still fresh on UAA. -Goodshoped 04:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Declined spam is not reason for salting. Only one of these has been deleted and recreated. The AFD is currently ongoing, with 1 person (other than the creator) in favor of keeping. Mr.Z-man 04:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Flarn2005 (edit | [[Talk:User:Flarn2005|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. Vandalism, mostly from my brother. 'FLaRN'(talk) 01:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for one day. Please report vandals to WP:AIV. - Philippe | Talk 01:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: - can you not just slap him or something? :-D - Alison ❤ 01:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- What about a noogie? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Volcano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. Vandalism. E Wing (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for 50000 minutes, or a little more than a month. bibliomaniac15 01:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Washington Christian Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. High level of vandalism. Carguy454 (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Acalamari 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This answered request was removed and removed further up, as seen here. Semi-protection is still not needed. Acalamari 02:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Vernon, British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-Protect. This article has been attacked by anonymous IP addesses over the last week, and it would easy to stop this vandalism if a semi-protect (no new user edits) were to be placed on the article. Thanks! – Nurmsook! 00:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. bibliomaniac15 01:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Mike Leach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protect for a week or two. Several IPs keep removing the "UCLA rumors" section without giving a reason. It will very likely be clear this Sunday whether Leach leaves Texas Tech for UCLA or not, so please semi-protect the article at least for the next 4-5 days. Thanks. ––Bender235 (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 00:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Bush Derangement Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect, dynamic IP editor using it to attack his grade school enemy. <eleland/talkedits> 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, as the IP is hopping around. Semi-protected for a day. east.718 at 03:37, December 1, 2007
Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection. Six IPs of the 61.*.*.* range insert unrelated Digimon information into page. The two anime are in fact unrelated. Please act on this ASAP. This vandalism has been done since last night (UTC + 8). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
User talk:CheckPenny (edit | [[Talk:User talk:CheckPenny|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Usertalk of banned user. Full Protect. Marlith T/C 01:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fully protected 'Hurrah!' Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
University of Hartford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection Heavy IP vandalism, IP being changed to evade block. NHRHS2010 talk 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Nicola Roxon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Iain Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protect both - most edits are vandalism regarding Roxon's supposed religion or Lee's supposed move to Australia. Will (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can you protect the talk pages too? Disruption's moved there. Will (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- The users are being blocked as they pop up. east.718 at 23:08, November 30, 2007
- Can you protect the talk pages too? Disruption's moved there. Will (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
GameSpot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) & CNET Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Full protection - Because of recent events (Rumored firing of Jeff Gerstmann) T2t2 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fully protected due to anon & new acct vandalism. SkierRMH (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Daniel Pipes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please protect this page temporarily - it is currently subject to an edit war, it is a BLP page, and the editing regards potentially controversial claims regarding the subject of the article (Daniel Pipes). I.e. Islamophobe, anti-Muslim allegatios, etc. AvruchTalk 21:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fully protected I have also reverted the page, due to potential BLP issues. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Clinton campaign office hostage crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sem-protect Current event. Rampant rumors/trolling of Hillary being dead. People trying to be reporters. 128.227.99.189 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Declined. Not so soon after the article has been created, and not while it's a current event. Just keep an eye on things. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: this article has now been semi-protected. (by Swatjester) Hello32020 01:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Celtic F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect High levels of IP vandalism. --Dreaded Walrus t c 20:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Kim Kardashian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
indefinite semi-protect. The article gets a daily dose of heavy vandalism, link spam and numerous BLP violations by IP editors. I believe it falls under the "Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, such as George W. Bush" category. VartanM 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm loathe to semi-protect indefinitely. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Egyptian pyramids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism in the last few days. User Doe ☻T ☼C 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a month. Acalamari 19:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Francis Bacon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect There has been frequent anonymous IP vandalism over the last several months. Arion 19:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Imaginationland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Protection. Ongoing edit war over inclusion of a very long list of fictional characters represented in an episode of South Park. --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fully protected indefinitely. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is indefinite before or after hell freezes over? Not a commment on the dispute, but on the peculiar wording of the above notice. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Saksi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection an anon user keeps on removing pictures and other content in the article without proper explanation. -Danngarcia 18:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of five days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- tariqabjotu 19:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Greek mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection vandalism started again when the old protection expired. Martijn Hoekstra 16:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Declined Only two vandals today so far. As of this time, not enough evidence that this requires protection. Húsönd 17:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Collaboration during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi protection repeated vandalism by newly created socks of banned user User:DavidYork71 Mayalld 15:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Sock disruption. Húsönd 17:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Help desk ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Move protection. Moving this page would cause severe disruption to Wikipedia, and although it's already move-protected, it should be protected so the summary is
- Admin protected Wikipedia:Help desk (a move could cause serious problems [edit:sysop=move:sysop]).
This is also so that it is listed on Special:Protectedpages as well, which I assume it probably won't be, due to the fact it was protected when this site was using MediaWiki 1.5 and the old protection schema. Solumeiras talk 11:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you'd want it [edit:sysop], somehow :) I've re- Move protected it, although to be totally honest I don't exactly understand the rationale for the reprotection. No harm caused, however. Daniel 11:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Samuel de Champlain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection. IP vandals several times a day. Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 10:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Oxymoron83 11:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Mark Twain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. Since the last semi-protection was lifted, the article is under constant IP vandalism - usually offending content - again. Maybe it's time for a really long protection too?Svetovid (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Judith Giuliani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protection Article is target of repeated IP vandal who uses changing IP so blocking probably won't stop it; other vandals as well on this article about wife of Presidential candidate. Tvoz |talk 08:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Declined Some vandalism, but currently not enough to justify protection. Húsönd 17:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yahoo! Answers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
full protection and the banning of page vandals: Three or more users Loeth, MrZaius, and Novangelis have been vandalizing the criticism section on that page making false claims that the references are not valid, one of the absurd ones being that "forum" posts are not references when no forum was linked to. Links were made to the Yahoo Answers Appeals Board in a few instances as evidence that complaints were being made against Yahoo! Answers moderators and other members, not that in and of themselves those posts were evidence of what was claimed. MrZaius and other vandals are refusing to accept that despite that being pointed out to them and keep. MrZaius has also deleted posts critiquing his lack of citing evidence for his page revisions and reversions and he deleted those posts even. Loeth despite being made aware of the fact that the wikipedia member Novangelis is not qualified to revert of edit the criticism section as he is one of the people in it being labeled a Yahoo! Answers troll. Novangelis even implied on Yahoo! Answers in one of his answers that he is the one who was reverting the page. So, I ask that if my last edit made before this point is fully reverted that it be undone and the page locked. Even if those three members are correct (and there is no evidence they cite to back up that they are other than their opinions of wrong doing) they have no business throwing out the baby with the bath water. They have made their bias clear by deleting any reference to criticisms no matter how well documented. They make no effort to improve the criticism section either. Please ban loeth, mrzaius, and novangelis or prevent them from tampering with that page any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiaseduser (talk • contribs) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- User(s) blocked.. Oh sorry, was that you? east.718 at 07:10, November 30, 2007
Talk:Griffith University ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
semi-protect A user from Hong Kong has been vandalising the Discussion Page by leaving rambling, almost incoherent but nonetheless scurrilous messages, complete with links to his own pages. This page has been semi-protected before. The main page might also need further semi-protection, as it expires today. Such is the time on this individual's hands that his vandalising behaviour is repeated consistently. Perhaps permanent semi-protection would be a good idea.
- Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. east.718 at 07:08, November 30, 2007
Evel Knievel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect High level of IP vandalism. 'Net 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Already protected. by User:W.marsh. bibliomaniac15 23:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ron Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Requesting unprotection. This article has been semi-protected since September after a round of vandalistic article name changes. There is little evidence almost three months later that this article would be under threat of heavy and continued vandalism. Indefinite semi-protection prevents new accounts or anonymous users from making legitimate edits. --Newsroom hierarchies 21:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Move protection kept at sysop level though. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong opposition: It disappoints me that this action was taken so quickly on behalf of a new user who has familiarity with the three-month history of this article. While I disagree with the user's assessment, one reason the user may find little evidence is the semiprotection itself! Users like User:Tvoz and I have found it of great value, and the most recent new helpful editor, User:Apartcents, has had no trouble waiting the 4 days. Further, I am entering WP:RCU on "Newsroom hierarchies" because the article has also been (during the three months, no less) regularly attacked by sockpuppets of the same user. Please reconsider. John J. Bulten 11:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I posted this request because I believe that Ron Paul is in desperate need of some new input and should be more open to editing. If there are issues, it can be easily reprotected. We don't just indefinitely protect articles on Wikipedia without good reason and the vandalism that was going on before did not rise to that level.
- Also, I object to your implication above, unsupported by any real evidence, that that I am a sockpuppet. While this is a new account, I have made no abusive edits, only edits that are cognizant of WP policy and with which John disagrees. --Newsroom hierarchies 16:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that "Newsroom hierarchies" is a new account, but FYI, there are COI issues here as regards John J. Bulten's own connection to the subject. See WP:COIN#Moneybomb. --Elonka 18:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Kitchen Nightmares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There was no broad immediate problem at this entry; discussion was going on about a disputed section but there was not an active edit war and the Admin who protected the site was aware of that. Page was protected after the protecting admin claimed continued 'original research' was being posted, but this was incorrect factually.
I attempted to discuss this with the Admin - he failed to reply and removed my request from his talk page.
- Declined. Admin was well within his rights - he could have been slightly more civil, but there was an edit war going on. Create an account if you wish to contribute further! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You are factually mistaken. There was no edit war going on; I had already stated clearly that I would not be putting back the section and I didn't. Further, he didn't even claim to protect the page because of an edit war. You added that part yourself, just now.
What I did do was put up a legitimate citation that he referred to as 'original research' with no explanation then or since as to how it was OR. It's not a matter of civility; it was a completely arbitrary move on his part - and HE was reversed on his OR claim by someone else right away and that still stands. So his reason for the protection - repeated OR - was overturned, but his protection wasn't. Where is the possible logic in that? LeeStranahan 07:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Paris Hilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Per protection policy, and the fact the page seems to be indefinitely semi-protected (no page should be on indefinite semi-protection). If any admins are reading this I would like to know if, next time the page is protected, an expiry time, of say, 1 week or 1 month is used instead of indefinite semi-protection. This is so that "good" IPs, e.g. User:68.39.174.238 and good-faith new users can edit this article. --Solumeiras talk 11:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Declined, this most certainly falls under the category of Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, like George W. Bush. Although the collateral is not desirable, it's a fact of life really — suggest the use of {{editprotected}}. Daniel 11:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls? (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Requesting unprotection. (The category should be edit, not talk, I'm not sure how to correct that.) This article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wrote_The_Dead_Sea_Scrolls%3F_%28book%29) was fully protected today to prevent an edit-war. In its current state, the article includes a photo (the second one, inserted into the section on "reviews") that has no fair use justification (see Eric's comment to this effect on the discussion page) and the intent of which is implicitly defamatory. I have requested either removal of the defamatory photo or unblocking from the administrator who blocked it, but he feels that it would not be appropriate for him to take such actions on an article he has already blocked.Critical Reader (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
P.s. Please note: the editor who inserted this photo into the article about a book by Norman Golb said of Dr. Golb the other day: "In between the lines one can read and feel the disdain, anger and indignation of the writer, that IMO reflects more poorly on him than the other way around." Now, out of seven or eight editions of this book by Golb, he finds one on which a photo, according to him, was printed upside down, and redundantly inserts it into the "reviews" section of this article about the book, without any fair use justification and without citing a single source discussing this photo. Clearly there is at least the appearance of a defamatory intent here and the photo should be removed.Critical Reader (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Declined, editor doesn't have suffrage. east.718 at 07:05, November 30, 2007
Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bonerific ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A checkuser was done by User:Alison and found all the accounts are the same. They have the "suspected sock" tag on them, but I cannot edit the userpages because they are protected from unblock abuse. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Changed to confirmed. bibliomaniac15 01:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)