Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by Katerenka (talk) to last version by NuclearWarfare
Line 10: Line 10:
==Current requests for unprotection==
==Current requests for unprotection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading}}

==== {{la|Amanda Knox}} ====
'''Temporary un-protect'''

'''Temporary semi-protection''', Article keeps getting recreated despite no real reason for doing so, last revision was just a carbon copy of the content from [[Murder of Meredith Kercher]]. Re-creation is possibly due to current news coverage so possibly a protection for a couple of months? It is highly unlikely Amanda Knox will do anything to warrent own article. <b>[[User:RaseaC|<span style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">raseaC]]</span><sup>[[User talk:RaseaC|talk to me]]</sup></b> 01:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
:{{RFPP|p|1 month}} <font color="navy">'''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 01:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems likely to me that a user searching for "Amanda Knox" is looking for information about the case she's associated with. Redirecting directly to the section on the murder article about Knox is confusing, since it leads to reading about Knox's role without first introducing who the victim is and the circumstances of the case. (The discussion above also seems to indicate that the redirect should go to the article; there's no mention made of redirecting to that section.) I therefore suggest that the redirect be changed to target the article and not the specific section. Propaniac (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amanda_Knox"

Should be unprotected because only one editor doesn't like it and wanted to stop everyone else from editing. Several editors edited and if one editor doesn't like it, they should discuss it, not wipe out the article and demand page protection. [[User:John Obamo|John Obamo]] ([[User talk:John Obamo|talk]]) 03:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


===={{la|Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident}}====
===={{la|Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident}}====

Revision as of 03:53, 5 December 2009

"WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, or Wikipedia:Random page patrol.
    Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.
    Shortcuts

    Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection)

    After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
    Request a specific edit to a protected page
    Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
    this header: view • edit



    Current requests for protection

    Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create 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.

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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.

    Temporary un-protect

    Temporary semi-protection, Article keeps getting recreated despite no real reason for doing so, last revision was just a carbon copy of the content from Murder of Meredith Kercher. Re-creation is possibly due to current news coverage so possibly a protection for a couple of months? It is highly unlikely Amanda Knox will do anything to warrent own article. raseaCtalk to me 01:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 01:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems likely to me that a user searching for "Amanda Knox" is looking for information about the case she's associated with. Redirecting directly to the section on the murder article about Knox is confusing, since it leads to reading about Knox's role without first introducing who the victim is and the circumstances of the case. (The discussion above also seems to indicate that the redirect should go to the article; there's no mention made of redirecting to that section.) I therefore suggest that the redirect be changed to target the article and not the specific section. Propaniac (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amanda_Knox"

    Should be unprotected because only one editor doesn't like it and wanted to stop everyone else from editing. Several editors edited and if one editor doesn't like it, they should discuss it, not wipe out the article and demand page protection. John Obamo (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The article Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident has been locked down because a handful of the usual suspects, (one with a very prominent WP:COI) have been hell bent on shaping the article to reflect a very narrow POV. A lockdown of a current event article for this period of time seems excessive and unprecedented. I would ask that it be unprotected, and that 1RR be observed and enforced on it. WVBluefield (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    to add few difs: [1][2][3]. as you can see, other registered users also objected, and who knows how many unregistered users like me would object if they had patience that i do to deal with this "meta" wiki editing (as we cannot express our discontent on the article talk page). 93.86.205.97 (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article protection will expire in just a few hours. I suggest waiting it out. For the talk page, the Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident/Subpage can be used to post discussions without having an account for now. henrik•talk 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

    Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

    • Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
    • Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
    • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
    • If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
    • This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Article is being vandalized by numerous IP addresses. As of this writing, it has happened six times in the last twenty minutes. Reach Out to the Truth 02:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    –Juliancolton | Talk 03:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Two of last 26 edits are legitimate, 24 are IP vandalism & reversion thereof. Please relieve us of this continual nuisance (chronic problem). Hertz1888 (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 03:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect for 30 days. Continuous IP vandalism. Not the first time, either, so we could use a rest. —Finell 02:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 03:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Multiple IP vandals got excited about this page all at once today. Need temporary semi-protect (a week should do it). —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 02:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 03:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:A8UDI (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection vandalism, It's getting out of hand...... proxy IP keeps vandalizing the page. A8UDI 02:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. J.delanoygabsadds 02:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, And another new target for him, jumping a bit out of Disney[4]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator PMDrive1061.. J.delanoygabsadds 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Robin Hood (1973 film) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Latest declared Bambifan101 target; chosen specifically by him because he thought it was unwatched[5]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator PMDrive1061. - although I can't say I agree with this. If you, Collectonian, and PMdrive would just revert/block/ignore instead of going completely insane every time he shows up, maybe he would lose interest. J.delanoygabsadds 02:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After two years, do you really think he would? Its been tried, and then he goes nuts and stalks/harasses until he gets attention. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Long Term Semi-Protection. High risk article with a long history of IP vandalism. Nearly all edits on first page of history are anonymous vandalism or the reversion thereof. Spiesr (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Willking1979 (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, There's been relatively large number of IP addresses making similar, intentionally inaccurate changes to the page, possibly for political motivations (Russian nationalism?). The vandalism is subtle enough that it's often overlooked for a while (I've had to manually copy'n'paste from older versions to fix the problems). I'm not sure if this should be a one month block (different IPs have been coming back sufficiently infrequently individually, but enough in aggregate that a shorter block is pointless as discouragement), or a permanent semi-protect is in order, though my AGF tendencies make me lean towards the former. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 18:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Willking1979 (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protect. Please semi my own user page for a few days. Outburst of vandalism and hate-speech by IPs following a content dispute instigated by an external hate site. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 7 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If you ever want your userpage semi-protected indefinitely, or for some length, just let me know. JamieS93 17:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism. This page has been subjected to frequent (almost daily) vandalism. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 17:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Some anon and newly registered user vandalism over the past couple days. . Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 16:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 17:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, stubborn vandalism. --Microcell (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). SoWhy 17:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting unprotection of Wikipedia page so that anyone can go in and vandalize it anonymously.

    Note: Anonymous is not currently protected. Vandalizing pages can lead to blocks. Syrthiss (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite create-protection, repeatedly re-created vandalism page. MuffledThud (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, User left a final warning. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I already did this. As there is 0% chance this would be a valid article in the near future, I salted it for three months. Tan | 39 16:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection dispute, Edit war. Since one side uses mostly anon accounts, partial protection seems inappropriate. I think it will be best to protect the article in whatever random state. - Sinneed 13:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I just happened upon this page and I noticed that it was indef move protected more a year and a half ago. The rational in the log is nothing more then "Highly visible page", which doesn't seem to be supported by the rest of the log history to me.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ask NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) first, there may have been a particular reason why. GedUK  10:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protection vandalism, This is a page for a high school and is subject to vandalism, and has been vandalized several times recently. I would think that this is a high-risk page and is subject to a lot of vandalism. -Abcorn (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 13:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Spamming and unexplained reverts by IPs. Laurent (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 13:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Either a dynamic IP is attacking the page, or a bunch of neighboring kids are using it to chat. Either way, it's getting attacked about once or twice a minute. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. I placed a range-block on 194.249.227.224/28 which targets all the IPs used recently. Regards SoWhy 13:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, IP Addresses editing the page which either make no contribution to the page or it's vandalism. Pookeo9 Talk If you need anything 11:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, there might be more forthcoming in the evening but currently the last IP edit is more than 7 hours old. SoWhy 13:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, vandalism just never ends on this article. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  10:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Article keeps getting recreated despite no real reason for doing so, last revision was just a carbon copy of the content from Murder of Meredith Kercher. Re-creation is possibly due to current news coverage so possibly a protection for a couple of months? It is highly unlikely Amanda Knox will do anything to warrent own article. raseaCtalk to me 01:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 01:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism over the past few days. —Frungi (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 01:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism. This page has been subjected to frequent (almost daily) vandalism. This refers to the main page, not the talk page. mezzaninelounge (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. NW (Talk) 01:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This article keeps getting the same material editing back and deleted again by a bunch of IP's. This has been going on for the past couple months and it seems like it will never end. Could this page be protected for at least two weeks? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. NW (Talk) 01:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, The proxies are back in town. Could I get a 24 hour semi-protection please?. Favonian (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by Tcncv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tiptoety talk 00:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Should have the same semi-protection with the same expiration parameter value as Eli Whitney, Jr., for the same reasons as there. — ¾-10 23:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 01:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, ... still not letting up... A8UDI 22:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-admin comment: Today's WP:TFA, vandalism actually seems slightly less frequent than a typical TFA. Also, only on Main Page for another couple of hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Declined... not nearly enough. Tan | 39 22:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Floquenbeam for that.. I was unaware. A8UDI 00:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined <-- template for bot J.delanoygabsadds 00:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism. A8UDI 21:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Users warned, protection may not be necessary, but I thought this is worthy of admin attention. Thank you A8UDI 21:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of six hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That should get us through the school day... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    hahahaha you're great. A8UDI 00:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, While not heavily vandalize, there are random IPs hitting the article every day or two rewriting the article and introducing deliberate factual errors.[6] The IP keeps changing every day and there is no indication that the vandal editor will stop. —Farix (t | c) 21:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 01:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection due to fairly aggressive POV and WP:OR pushing by IP editors in the last few days. Nsk92 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of one day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. To try and force discussion on talk. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection BLP violations. - Rumors on pro wrestling "dirt sheet" websites have IP's repeatedly inserting that he has died. This has not been confirmed by any reliable source. Bmg916 (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 20:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Yet again, we're being flooded by anonymous IPs commenting with things like "you're (insert rude comment here) if you watch this;" requesting maybe a few months temp. semiprotection . —Duncan (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 20:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. I am trying to clean up this article and bring in more sources, but there is someone using IP who is making attempts to improve the article as well, but has not educated themselves on correct WP. I don't wish to keep warning this editor as they appear to be operating in good faith, but on the other hand they are either not reading or ignoring messages I am leaving for them. Can I get this semiprotected in order to clean things up? If there is a better approach, could you message me and let me know? Thanks. LeilaniLad (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Single-IP issue, and the edits are being done to improve the article, even if they aren't entirely correct. The most recent changes are good though enthusiastic- try explaining the issues and WP:COI to the user again. tedder (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-protect. Article that had occasional low level background vandalism has gotten very heavy, probably unfortunately because of attention from when I listed it for afd. PaleAqua (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Heavy IP vandalism today. 150+ edits today–all vandalism and reverts. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Speedy-closed the AFD. Is this b3tards or what? tedder (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Seems to be a target of recent vandalism. A8UDI 19:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  19:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection Excess vandalism today. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  19:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection vandalism Too much IP vandalism after the world cup draw was announced, please protect page. Momo san Gespräch 19:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  19:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Since coming off it's last semi-protection the only real edits have been vandalism and the reversion of that vandalism. 'I'm A Celebrity '09' is due to end 4/12 so one would assume that vandalism is unlikely to continue for much longer but may very well peak this evening/weekend. Suggest semi-protection for 1 week which will also cover a planned one-off episode on 7/12 which will also, presumably, create IP vandal attention. raseaCtalk to me 17:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. IP vandalism in recent history. The Taerkasten (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. tedder (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi protection - problems with anon IP re-adding possibly copyrighted stuff to article, same IP failing to respond to questions, and IP is dynamic. Probable good faith edits but proving disruptive. Copyright issue listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 December 4 - problem has been going on for +1week.Shortfatlad (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As above - Request semi protection - problems with anon IP repeatedly re-adding possibly copyrighted stuff to article, same IP failing to respond to questions, and IP is dynamic. Probable good faith edits but proving disruptive. Copyright issue listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 December 4 problem has been going on for +1week.Shortfatlad (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=329805656"