Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.

Shortcuts WP:RFPP WP:RFP WP:RPP 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. Skip to table of contents requests to raise protection lower protection requested edits (purge) Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level Request protection Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Request a specific edit to a protected page Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit

this header: view • edit

Archives

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Semi-protect - a user template which will be subst-ed on (possibly) several user talk pages. Eli Falk 08:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection - Edit war started right after unprotection. Artaxiad 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined --Robdurbar 09:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect - There's been a significant upswing in IP anons changing the Exile's gender from female to male in the past couple of days, even though evidence points to the female gender as canon, despite consistent warnings and reverts. --clpo13 07:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected --Robdurbar 09:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected - There is a large number of IP vandals and new users hitting this page, history is full of reverted vandalisms. Maybe give them a week off and see if it cools down.--((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 05:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected --Robdurbar 09:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect, ongoing WP:BLP vandalism due to a controversy in the news. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I was just about to request semi on this article as well. There has been a significant upswing in IP vandalism in the last 24 hours. I don't know why it's started again just now, but a semi would help. — coelacan talk — 06:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – riana_dzasta 06:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection - IP anons blanking parts of the article or nonsensing it up, it comes in cycles. Jaguara 05:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected --Robdurbar 09:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection - There is a high level of obscene remarks and personal attacks against students and faculty. Have shut off attacks from school, but have no control over attacks originating from other computers.70.174.60.43 04:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected --Robdurbar 09:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection - There is a large number of IP vandals hitting this page, about a dozen in the past day. Maybe give them a couple of days off and see if it cools down. Matchups 03:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected --Robdurbar 09:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection Banned user Ericsaindon2 has been consistently posting to the talk page, resulting in the ban of numerous IPs and multiple revert wars. AniMate 03:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. 04:46, 27 February 2007 Will Beback (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California: recurring edits by banned user [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 04:46, March 6, 2007 (UTC))) --Robdurbar 09:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection - There is a large number of IP vandals removing the correctly cited reference to his real life name. I request that this be an indefinite semi-protection because every time it is taken off of semi protection (the last being Feb 22) this sort of vanadalism run rampant by his fans.--Dr who1975 03:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Not indefinate, but I've not set a time limit either. --Robdurbar 09:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection - Heavy vandalism and violations of WP:CRYSTAL by new and unregistered users. It will escalate as WrestleMania 23 approaches. I also request that this be an indefinite semi-protection for the previously stated reason. 声援 -- The Hybrid 03:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Trebor 07:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandalism.TNTfan101 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – riana_dzasta 03:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection, indefinitely. Nonsense edits 5 times over the past 24 hours, with reverts back and forth from IP's in the same range. In addition, this page has an ongoing problem with needing reverts every few days. Squidfryerchef 02:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined There are only two different IPs, and it all occurred over a brief period. Ask again if they come back. Trebor 07:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. 10 vandalistic edits within the past 24 hours. bibliomaniac15 01:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – riana_dzasta 03:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting semi-protection. There has been a constant stream of edits from IP users, all of which ignore all pleas to provide sources, enter discussion on the talk page, and not to add more examples. In addition there's been a bunch of ordinary vandalism lately. I would semi-protect myself, but I would like an uninvolved admin to make the call. Mangojuice^talk 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism for 2 weeks. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect. Lots of recent vandalism. --Think Fast 01:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect. Lots of IP vandalism lately, apparently from kids who don't like being assigned to read the book. Deor 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect due to IP edit-warring, looks like IP mockpuppets of a user blocked for WP:3RR. Semi-protection should move the war to the talk page. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect; high level of IP vandalism over the past few days from multiple sources. --Benten 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect - page recently unprotected due to apparent faith in the goodness of human nature, vandalism underway in earnest. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect Due to fan reaction, vandilism is very heavy.69.156.38.77 23:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect I know the article gets hit by vandals all the time, but it looks pretty heavy today coming from multiple IPs. EnsRedShirt 23:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect due to persistent vandalism. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protect. There is a high level of IP vandalism and one-time editors (who make an account vandalize and never show up again. --EXV // + @ 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Just take a look at the article's recent history. - Regards, Evv 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

full-protect The article is (again) engaged in a heavy edit war regarding this notable man's ethnic origin. (27th since its foundation) To evade one of the longest edit wars wiki had seen (lasted several weeks), protect immediately and warn the parties to work out a compromise. --PaxEquilibrium 22:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected due to revert warring. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protect The article has been IP vandalised three times. This may not sound much but all of this happen every three or four days after one another and there is most likely to be another one soon! - Titan602 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protect. Extremely high level of IP vandalism. In the past two weeks, sections of the article have gone missing and it was very time consuming to dig them up again. Anon users continually vandalise the page as well. Admin arjun1 had even listed the page as 'fully protected' which was beyond what I requested, but the tag was never inserted for some reason. 67.87.237.170 21:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full protect Article was recently unprotected. But it's still trolled by a bunch of stark-raving anonymous and newly registered accounts that thinks the whole article should be deleted and that flood the article with edits before coming to consensus. Please return it to full protection. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect Persistant vandalism by anonymous users. Ciotog 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. War wizard90 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales has suggested semi-protection may be used in cases of "...minor [biographies] of slightly well known but controversial individuals..." which are not widely watchlisted, if they are "...subject to POV pushing, trolling, [or] vandalism." In such cases, semi-protection "...would at least eliminate the drive-by nonsense that we see so often." This article isn't about a person but a group that falls under these exact circumstances and considering this article there is plenty of recent activity to justify protection at this time. I do watchlist it, but I can't always be here to revert any vandalism. Please reconsider. War wizard90 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protect Persistent anonymous insertion of external link spam and general vandalism. - Justin (Authalic) 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protect Persistent vandalism, especially after this just won the Best Picture Q. Lockins 20:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected temporarily due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 20:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protect Persistent, frequent, sometimes subtle IP vandalism Tomgreeny 19:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to vandalism. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect because of a long history of vandalism. This page has been vandalized about ten times in the past three days. Steve8675309 18:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 19:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect due to persistent vandalism. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Added tag, but didn't take (perhaps becuase admin has to add?)CPAScott 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 19:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect due to persistent vandalism. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to sudden spike in vandalism. Nishkid64 19:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please unprotect. This is a shared IP at a cybercafe and its real hard to use this site when admins are consistinly blocking for nonsense issues. 66.93.251.114 04:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect, or at least alter to semi-protection. Despite the un-logged in user's avoidance of using the talk page for dispute resolution, the issue causing the minor edit war had been largely resolved by the time the page was protected. I had reviewed his last change (a superflouous but innocuous cite) and decided to let it pass. I have no particular reason to touch the page other than to eventually add some information in another section. Anonymous Wikipedian 22:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect. The article has been protected simply because of minor edit wars. Also, the admin who has protected the article has not moved to edit, remove, and change the article to make it NPOV. For example, under the external links section a "Koreans, this is wiki english. No korean craps, plz." is written on there. The protection has made it difficult to edit the article since edits have to be requested to the admin only. Good friend100 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasonable issues that started the revert war do not yet seem to have been resolved. It is also too soon to assume that the editors have lost enough interest. Consider adding {{Editprotected}} to the page's talk page to request small modifications, or making a significant edit request on this page for large edits that are agreed upon. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect. There are serious citation problems and NPOV problems. There are other Wikipedia articles, web forums, and opinions sections of online newspapers used as references. 144.81.32.187 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warrior has been page banned from editing the template. Revert war won't continue. Last edit before edit war was [1]. Please remove protection and restore version (I'm not touching it, I'm involved). SchmuckyTheCat 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid64 20:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. High-risk template. Nishkid64 20:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decascade. Page is cascade-protected and semi'd; doing this is a known privelige-escalation flaw, as any autoconfirmed user can full-protect a page by transcluding it onto a cascaded semi'd page. --ais523 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Un-protected. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect. Prone to low levels of spamdalism (generally reverted pretty quickly by multiple users), protected today by User:Radiant! as "edit warring", do not believe it to be prone to enough spandalism to warrant full protection. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect. Talk page was getting hammered by User:Nkras socks, but new socks haven't been seen elsewhere in a few days. Unprotection is probably safe now. — coelacan talk — 06:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 08:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect. The article page is currently protected. In its current state it violates the biography of living persons policy; certain sentences purport conjecture as fact. The on-going dispute has been between those who edit the article of these conjectures and those who write them. Case in point, the very first paragraph: "...is believed to be in Costa Rica." The author could have just as easily said Siberia, New Orleans, or Timbuktu because they all would have made equal sense when the sentence is published without support/citation.

This habit of conjecture continues throughout the article. Because little public information is known about the person in question it is easy for authors to add conjecture and site their own personal websites as support. It may appear as an edit war, but that would be a mis-representation of what is taking place. Please read through the talk page history for context.

Persist and glaring violations of wikipedia policy on this protected page is an error that should be immediately corrected given that article in question is a biography of a living person. An effort to curb such violations by including the policy at the top of the talk page has had no effect. Outside editors are welcomed.

Uptional 14:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with unprotection. I want to remove the reference to sonsangnim, as this is passim in Korean. It's like calling the leader of your company "boss" - it has no special meaning.

Also, he's not really a "former Unificationist". --Uncle Ed 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect. Several weeks have passed since the Super Bowl and the page had been protected that night to douse a revert war over whether he was being booed or the fans were shouting Moose. The Protect did it's job and now nobody seems to care.--Sand Squid 14:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid64 19:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• There are currently messages embedded in the text 3 times that ask users to email their usernames and passwords to a hotmail account designed to look like an official email address belonging to the site monitors. This kind of scam is dangerous to have posted in the Wiki for a site that is used worldwide, but cannot be erased from the text due to the protection in place on the article. It would be great if someone could look into this. Thanks!

Fizzbee 07:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd care to explain further, that would be great. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a normal user already took care of the problem. The page is just semi-protected. -FunnyMan 01:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect both pages: As of this request, the ceremony is just beginning. Vandals and IPs will be adding incorrect info, ugly protests and the like (so was the case with this year's Grammys). --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 01:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's some vandalism starting already, but also some well-meaning edits by one anonymous user. Looks like the situation's under control to me, there's one major vandal who just got *eir last warning. -FunnyMan 01:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And *e has been blocked. There's also a vandal-fighter among the anonymous users. Until and unless we see a bunch of (unique) anonymous vandals, I think it should just stay unprotected. -FunnyMan 01:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I just recently blocked an editor vandalizing 79th Academy Awards, and it appears as though things have calmed down since then. If it flares up again, it could be semi-protected (I'm watching it now). As for the other two, I believe those articles are okay. -- tariqabjotu 02:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect due to persistent vandalism. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined There is some vandalism, but not enough to justify protection at this time. Request again if vandalism increases from multiple unregistered users.--Húsönd 01:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect - Several apparent sock-puppet IPs making the same blatant vandalous edits over and over. Neier 00:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected ~ Arjun 00:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect, due to vandalism in the form of nonsense edits and page blanking by IP addresses. Limiting the page to being edited by registered users would put the clamps on this. Thank you. Jaguara 22:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected -- tariqabjotu 23:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jaguara 01:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection requested, article has been protected for too long now. --sunstar net^talk 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, it gets hit by a wave of vandalism any time it gets unprotected. Hbdragon88 01:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Unprotection never works on that article. – Steel 01:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect - There is always frequent, profane, and blatant vandalism on this page after it is unprotected (and even some from user accounts while it is semiprotected, but we'll have to live with that). This page should be semiprotected with a very long or indefinate expiry time. Thanks. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined eh' it has just been unprotected...today 0_o so I think that it should be given some time, obviously it has increased after the unprotect. Another admin can overturn this though if it gets a lot worse. But for now lets try unprotection. ~ Arjun 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect Varied and persistent IP vandalism. I'm guessing lots of high schoolers find the page via Google. Xiner (talk, email) 23:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected ~ Arjun 00:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect Lots of IP vandalism by what one can assume is girls who have the name Sarah and want to write about themselves, or kids who dislike someone named Sarah and decided to express it in the form of less than complimentary descriptions of them. Either way, completely unrelated to the article's subject, and most of the recent edits have been reverting vandalism or the vandalism itself. Irish♣Pearl 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ~ Arjun 00:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect IP vandalism. [2] [3] futurebird 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- tariqabjotu 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect. This dumb edit war has flared up once again, and no one has caught it and done something about it until now. Typically I'd ask for a full protect, but it seems that the main offenders at the moment are IP addresses. In any case, I can't understand why it is so difficult for some people to say "such-and-such fact is disputed" and leave it at that. Syckls 21:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- tariqabjotu 23:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect, once protected, too early unprotected, still "clever" anons vandalize ... :( ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected -- tariqabjotu 23:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect. While this page hasn't received a particularly large amount of vandalism, in this case I think that semi is justified. There has been repeated insertion of specific information about how to prepare or find out more about this suicide cocktail by anon IPs and new users, against consensus. Wikipedia is not a recipe book, and this is a particularly dangerous recipe to be hosting. Mostlyharmless 19:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Done, and I'm going to delete that revision. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect Heavy IP vandilism over the last 2 days. Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talkTodays Pick 19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect due to persistent vandalism. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protect IP vandilism war with Personal Attack. Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talkTodays Pick 17:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been blocked from editing. Nishkid64 18:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]