Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2013/09

< Wikipedia:Requests for page protection | Archive | 2013
2013

01 September 2013

Semi-protection IP editor persistently adds incorrect information about club's squad. This continues for a certain period of time. T-resh (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection Many additions of information (casting in particular by IP editors) are no sourced, since many weeks. I request a semi-protection of one month up to the movie release. Supporterhéninois (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This could be the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Voice Cast Vandal -- Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Subject had been recently banned for *governance* issues around a supplements scandal, but not directly for drug taking, so a/few IPs have been wanting to overstate the issue. The-Pope (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection User:Wifione full-protected this page and left this message. Later User:Bbb23 declined semi-protection with the rationale that there was just one IP involved, deleted Wifione's message, but left full-protection in place. I attempted to contact Wifione earlier today and got no response. If anything, the page should be semi-protected, but it seems to me it should be completely unprotected. --JFH (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to get it out of the way, Wifione's comment [1] following protection strongly suggests full protection was deliberate. Further there is plenty of reverting going on by both new editors, and old. Several editors who would not be effected by semi have made substantive content reverts. I can certainly see a justification for full protection, even if I wouldn't necessarily have done it myself. WP:RAAA counsels that an administrative actions should only be reversed with good cause, and I don't see anything here that would support unilaterally unprotecting the article. At which point, either you should convince Wifione to change it, or we should wait for the discussion at Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks#Is_such_a_high_protection_warranted.3F to reach consensus. Monty845 04:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a consensus to me. Also, Wifione has been unresponsive for 24 hours. --JFH (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted Wifione's message because I misunderstood a comment at the end of it. That was my fault, and I apologize to Wifione for it. I have now restored it. I declined protection because that was my view at the time I was reviewing the history of the article. Although I could see the article history, I wasn't aware of some of the goings-on on the talk page about protection. In any event, I agree with Monty. I would not want to interfere with his decision absent an emergency or with his permission. It's true that he hasn't edited for a over a day, but I don't see any urgency at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite clearly consensus for semiprotection - see Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks#Is_such_a_high_protection_warranted.3F. I see no reason why an administrator's action should override talk page consensus. Full protection for 24 hours to allow editors to cool down might have made sense, but the experienced editors who got overheated have had plenty of time to cool down by now IMHO. Please switch to semi-protection. (By the way, Wifione's statement "Please read the note above that lists out the process for the protection to be lifted" was quite confusing - it would have been better to say "Please look in the obvious places to search for the note..." or "Please click on 'view source'..." rather than pretending that the info was "above". ("above" meant the subsection immediately above - in such a long page, I missed it - I was wrong)) Boud (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (strike on my side comment) Boud (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just notified Wifione of this thread. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No sign of Wikione's on-wiki presence since 43 hours ago. Boud (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it's good form to notify them in case they do log on before this request is actioned :) Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In line with other suceh pages, semi-protestion is good enough. We did the same for Egypt's conflict recently and the IPs went away . Some conflict appears but non too hardsh that results in wars and lack of discussion.Lihaas (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please get this sorted out? There is much to do on this developing topic. Podiaebba (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Translation into plain WP:admin-speak: Podiaebba is saying to admins, "Please drop this to semi-protection!" I'm fairly sure there is 100% consensus among editors on Talk:2013 Ghouta attacks and here in favour of dropping from full to semi-protection. I didn't notice anyone in favour of full protection. Even Lihaas and I seem to fully agree on this point ;). Apologies for the bold, but a somewhat hasty, well-intentioned act by one administrator should not be taken as an absolute order from above. How about a bit of WP:Wikipedia Spring here? Boud (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be a good time to drop protection levels to SP. Its been nearly 72 hours and the talk page shows no indication of any new issues. It was the IP onslaught which didnt help reg eds' nerves. I think its sorted now. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It was dropped to semi-protect.[2] ANI notice link — -dainomite   21:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect again. IP re-adding content removed by consensus on Talk page . JMHamo (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. DoorsAjar (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An IP is changing the subject of the article. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. KrakatoaKatie 21:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of German inventors and discoverers (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined We don't protect article talk pages. KrakatoaKatie 22:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations – extremely vulnerable to BLP vios, and has had vios in the past. related discussion. . -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined KrakatoaKatie 21:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations – extremely vulnerable to BLP vios, and has had vios in the past. related discussion. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined KrakatoaKatie 21:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations – extremely vulnerable to BLP vios, and has had vios in the past. related discussion. . -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined KrakatoaKatie 21:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations – extremely vulnerable to BLP vios, and has had vios in the past related discussion. . -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined KrakatoaKatie 21:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Due to the fact that this NFL player was cut from his team today, unregistered, disgruntled Chicago Bears fans have twice vandalized the page in the last hour or so, which I corrected twice. I suggest a 14-day semi-protection until the issue is out of the news, and then no one will think to vandalize the article. G90025 (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. KrakatoaKatie 21:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: An IP guy keeps deleting sources en masse. He claims to be fixing the first part of the first sentence in the lead, but he is removing sources from other area of the article and he is not providing a source of his own either. Looks WP:POINT to me. Fleet Command (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. He hasn't gone over 3RR at this time, but I'll give him a final disruption warning. KrakatoaKatie 21:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations – extremely vulnerable to BLP vios, and has had vios in the past related discussion. . -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined No changes to protection while an article is listed at WP:AFD. KrakatoaKatie 21:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandlism Has been happening recently. Bobherry talk 22:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. KrakatoaKatie 21:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Kudpung. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All identical pages under slightly different names that were found have also already been salted, and the creators numerous accounts that were found have been idef blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Easy target of mainly IP vandalism. Still occurring as of 27th march. StormContent 20:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. KrakatoaKatie 20:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – by user Goodfaith17. Also, unnecessary material related to Buddhism is being added to the lead. The lead is meant to be a summary of the body. Samenewguy (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined We don't lock pages from edits by everyone based on the questionable edits of one user. KrakatoaKatie 20:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   WikiProject India editor's observation User:KrakatoaKatie I mentioned wrong editor Samenewguy Semi protection will not work, they'll become auto-confirmed in next 2 days. In addition, it is a long term problem. Two of the most affected articles are Bhagavad Gita and Yoga. I don't know about this editor, but, few editors have been blocked as sock. Consider discussing at article talk. If you have questions, you may ask at WT:INB or at my talk page. --Tito☸Dutta 20:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A constant flood of vandalism by IPs, as would be expected from a widely covered, sports-related page. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 22:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism has started up already, and since this is a notable product by a notable company it's bound to get worse. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Almost all of the IP edits are fine, or are good faith attempts at improvement. This is the kind of article that attracts new editors, so I am declining protection for now. Diannaa (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection - frequently vandalizing one contributor is because of this blocked for 24 hours, now vandalize IP.--Sokac121 (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Diannaa (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent edit warring due to casting news. Richiekim (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of ten days , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 22:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Protection for extended period as people keep adding unsourced information regarding the track listing etc. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 20:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 22:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Highly visible talk page repeatedly misused for test edits. The file page is already protected. SuperMarioMan 19:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done KrakatoaKatie 22:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Additions of unsourced material and constant WP:GWAR. STATic message me! 19:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of ten days , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 22:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 22:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 22:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Whack-a-Mole IP's of blocked user TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continue to remove a sourced section describing the channel's required educational programming block with nonsense about it being "liberal talk" when they're just obeying an FCC requirement. Already semi'ed for four days earlier in the month for the same reason. Nate • (chatter) 21:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already done. earlier today. KrakatoaKatie 21:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I just noticed that going into the edit history after my rollback   Facepalm. Thanks. Nate • (chatter) 21:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :-) KrakatoaKatie 21:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The page protection ended yesterday, and the vandalism has been out of control since, almost entirely from IPs or new accounts. If the page is protected again, by my count this will be the third time in a row the fifth time since the season started. Therefore, since the season is finishing on September 18th, I am requesting semi-PP until September 19, 2013. Singularity42 (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Corrected the number of previous page protections. Singularity42 (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 21:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP hopping, adding an inappropriate category. Frietjes (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 21:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs are removing well sourced information. Jorn talk 23:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of ten days , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 21:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

02 September 2013

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – English association football team Arsenal FC has reportedly signed this player to a contract, however no references have been supplied and the football project usually doesn't record player moves until the player is on the new team's roster. 5 days. Also, the article is already locked to anon edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Monty845 16:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple IP editors changing the upcoming album - lots of Twitter chatter about this right now. Gobōnobō + c 15:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Discospinster. (1 day) Armbrust The Homunculus 16:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page appears to be the target of persistent vandalism by IP editors and protecting it would go some way to prevent this. LT90001 (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I'm not seeing vandalism. An IP has a valid concern about the use of the image that identifies a person. Removing it is a reasonable response. Clearly they shouldn't remove the whole infobox, but at this stage it's not happened enough to warrant protection. GedUK  11:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO removing the whole infobox is a Visual Editor bug. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent wars about the person to whom the subject is compared to. Also persistent vandalism in general. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 13:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Edgar181. GedUK  14:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Vandalism made by a registered user that persistently reverts back changes to the biography of the living person. Sinistralogy (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edits abide by Wikipedia policy (MOS:IDENTITY). The anonymous user is the vandal. Nongendered (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined I don't think either sets of edits are vandalism. This needs to go to the BLP noticeboard beacuse the issue seems to be complex; identifying as a different gender and saying that you'd have a sex change are not necessarily the same, and I don't have enough Japanese to be able to contribute to the discussion. GedUK  11:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Continued counterintuitive reverts from various IPs with no explanation. They keep listing every national team that has won the cup in the "most successful team" line of the template, instead of the single most successful one at this point (there are currently no ties). I hate to ask that IPs be blocked, as there have been valid edits by IPs as well on this article, but that's the only way to stop this for now. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pending changes *might* work once this has calmed down; at the moment the edit frquency is way too high. GedUK  11:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism, always the same edit from different IPs.Gorpik (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pending changes seems like a viable option. Relist if it doesn't work effectively. GedUK  11:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Persistent warring by the subject of the article, who had his account blocked, logged out and continued to insert the same promotional language and inappropriate material. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Ongoing edit warring among editors about the sourcing of statistics and the reliability of those sources. None of the parties seem interested in discussion. CodeCat (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism from IP hopper (one blocked already). Dawnseeker2000 03:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Back and forth edit-warring over what category to use to classify the article, despite the discussion on the talk page. I don't have a dog in this fight and haven't edited the article, but the back and forth needs to stop. I don't care which version is protected. 3RR has been passed by a couple of editors, if I counted correctly. GregJackP Boomer! 02:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined You didn't count correctly. Nobody Only one user has passed 3RR, and there's productive discussion on the talkpage. It might be more helpful to warn the single editor who has made three four reverts. Full protection is a big deal, and could be itself inflammatory on this article. Of course it should be done if really needed, but that's not the case right now IMO. NorthBySouthBaranof blocked for edit warring. Bishonen | talk 03:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism after the page has been unprotected, vandalized by this IP address. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 02:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – for unsourced info and/or presistent vandalism. Digifan23 (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. We can't block an article talk page from all IPs. I blocked the most recent IP vandal and he won't bother you anytime soon. :-) KrakatoaKatie 01:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection I am seeing alot of reverting and undoing of edits going on, can we get this fully protected until a consensus is reached for WP:MOSIDENTITY? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Yesterday you wrote "...the discussion has been up for a few days now with not much of people opposing it." [3] —rybec 17:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That part is resolved as I can see it is the other parts that I can see editors making changes over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined It seems to have settled down now. We can always lock it if things get out of hand again. KrakatoaKatie 00:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent edits to one phrase, probably by same person using various IP addresses, without engaging in talk page discussion as requested. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Let's see if the change Diannaa made will solve the problem. We can always semi-protect if the IP continues to disrupt. KrakatoaKatie 00:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: She is a very famous actress and singer, and she should be protected from vandalism. Also, someone said "not to be confused with Jesse McCartney." Nobody messes up that much.

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. KrakatoaKatie 00:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: WP:BLP violations by IP hopping user. STATic message me! 18:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 00:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – One sock user:niloy229 continuously create this page. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 15:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Titodutta:, Thank you Tito, Actually It should and its is WP:CSD#A10, I had redirected it long time back, repeatedlycreation of this title article. .- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 19:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Creation protected - I agree that this is an implausible redirect, so I deleted and salted it. Anybody who wants to disagree can ask any admin to recreate the page so it can be sent to AFD. KrakatoaKatie 00:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of ten days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 00:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of ten days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 00:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – It initially looks like just 1 IP, but look carefully at the history. King Jakob C2 22:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 00:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A football player romoured to change club so therefore a lot of edits has been made but transfer is not confirmed. Transfer deadline is tomorrow (2 September) 24:00 CET (night to 3 Sep) so a short semi-protect would be very good. QED237 (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of five days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 00:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandals are striking once again; minimum three-month semi-protection recommended. DPH1110 (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 00:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP hopper from Brazil has an infatuation with adding their fictitious series cast across all Bad Girls Club Articles. They've had several of their IP and accounts blocked but they find a way back. This article was protected for a few weeks but I'm requesting indefinite due to the ongoing (a few months) vandalism. – Recollected • 17:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Last protection seems to have been for 1 month. Let's see if this dissuades them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. —Ryulong (琉竜) 21:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 12:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There were only two problematic edits this year. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Disruptive dubious unsourced additions by IP editors. STATic message me! 03:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Diannaa (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is five different IP editors adding dubious unsourced content or removing content in less than 60 hours not enough recent activity? STATic message me! 18:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

03 September 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Last few hours has seen various IPs inserting unsourced sex-tape claims into this BLP. Thanks. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 Month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. per BLP Policy. Monty845 03:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, that was quick. Nice one! -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clear BLP violations are much easier call then some of the other requests. Monty845 03:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism and WP:GWAR. STATic message me! 23:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. —Ryulong (琉竜) 15:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated vandalism by ceiling fan video adders. Also, troll uses racial slurs when editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP User keeps changing date. Would like to encourage them to come discuss on talk page. Very minor edit but change/revert cycle is just going to keep going Aldaden (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Somehow attracts a lot of non-constructive edits for a cat, probably on few watch lists, no need for new/IP editors to edit it at all. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected indefinitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Needs to be for the duration of the AfD. IP users are removing AfD notice repeatedly. Fiddle Faddle 19:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined I understand the problem, but we can't protect an article up for AFD, because IP editors must have the opportunity to improve the article during the discussion. Instead, send future IP vandals to WP:AIV (after warning them, of course) as they're disrupting the project. KrakatoaKatie 22:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Slow burning edit war between IPs on one side and registered users on the other side. IPs adding non-relevant info. The Banner talk 13:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Let's hold off for now; the parties seem to have stopped their reverting and the disputed section is under discussion on the talk page. Feel free to make another request if the edit war resumes. :-) KrakatoaKatie 22:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: - Long-term vandalism magnet, constant BLP violations. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 22:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: New article, heavy vandalism. Ginsuloft (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done - two days, by Kubigula. KrakatoaKatie 22:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. (Non-administrator comment) Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent vandalism from multiple accounts . Gobōnobō + c 20:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done - three days, by Kinu. KrakatoaKatie 22:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – All edits since 26 June have been vandalism or reverts thereof. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 22:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

04 September 2013

Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – edit war happening a bit. Allenjambalaya (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Really not very much to justify protection, but because BLP vios and very little activity at the article, no harm in 1 week protect. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for a month BLP where the last few IP edits that I checked were to replace the image in the infobox with a porn picture. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Considering nature of vandalism and that it's to a living person article, 1 months seems appropriate. Other admins feel free to reduce to 1 month. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continued IP hopper deliberately introducing false information. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Consider further protection after that. Other admins, feel free to extend now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and violations of the WP:BLP policy. Long-term target for vandalism. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm reluctant to issue indefinite, as I've never done that before. Considering very high ratio of nasty IP vandalism to anything constructive, and duration, I'd say at least a year. Feel free to make it indef. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Removal of sourced content, copy-pasting copyrighted material, edit warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. BencherliteTalk 10:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Two instances of severe vandalism on BLP today and recent history of serious vandalism. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. BencherliteTalk 10:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Highly visible template – As much as I am loath to do it, it's time to snap the chains on this template. 22k transclusions [4] is too much and based on multiple editors reaching in and accidentally adjusting the template today I feel that the time is apt to lock the template down. Hasteur (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected indef. BencherliteTalk 10:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by block evading I.P. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Question: Can you say what's wrong with the edits (e.g. this one), or which blocked account it is? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Bobherry talk 05:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. let's see if they get bored and move on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations – Celebrity reported to be suffering from mental health issues? Are you kidding? . Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected indefinitely. - happy to consider indef semiprotection too if no constructive IP edits are forthcoming Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent Vandalism Most aimed towards it being "Hump Day". Bobherry talk 03:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. not much really - happy to reconsider if further silliness occurs. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection: There is a claim that Paeon is the more frequent spelling, but the current spelling has been in place for over 3.5 years and the articles sources indicate Paean as the primary spelling. The page has been moved without citing any sources, and may continue to be moved unless it is move-locked, though the user moving it has admin role, so I'm not sure what good it will do. Penitence (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. by Alexf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Please re-report if another IP continues the disruption. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Protection from IPs needed. I got harassed by 87.113.230.153 on my talk page, a suspected sock of LordComputerHero. IP is already blocked. StormContent 15:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Update: 6 consecutive IPs being handled by me. 2 harassing me and counting. Help me please! StormContent 18:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect until an official announcement is made by West Ham.. too many unhelpful IP edits . JMHamo (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Number 57. (24 hours) Armbrust The Homunculus 17:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Previous PC1 expired on 26 August, and problems resumed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Orangemike. (21 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 17:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Slow burning editwar between IP and several registered editors. Declined yesterday as all seemed quiet but today the reverts came again. But now accompanied by a rather tough voiced edit on the talk page, more or less an announcement of more trouble (my opinion). The Banner talk 11:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined I've posted at the talk asking the IPs to follow BRD. Will monitor and protect if needed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Disputed content restored again by IP, so semi-protected for 1 week while they sort it out. Will monitor. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Widr (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined, Removing suspected BLP violations cannot be a protection reason. Not quite sure why you're claiming BLP policy violations. GedUK  11:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The IP, introducing himself/herself as Alnwick's legal representative on my talk page, actually also changed Alnwick's height "at Ben's request". I quickly searched and couldn't find official sources to support this. Also, the scandal news was sourced and cited, so I wouldn't necessarily call that section a BLP violation. But you are probably correct thinking that protection is not really needed here. Widr (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs keep making unhelpful edits, deleting the infobox, adding unsourced content and original research. Paris1127 (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Keep adding faux volumes. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Keep adding faux volumes. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This is a confusing request, because you seem to have restored the fourth disc, so not quite sure why this needs protection. GedUK  11:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. To match the other one. I've changed my mind, now I've worked out what happened. GedUK  11:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bradley Manning (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Long-ish term semi-protection would be appreciated on the talk page. IPs and new accounts are arriving to post their personal opinions, rather than contribute to debate about the article, or to post insults such as this. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the high visibility of the topic, and that direct editing is unavailable, semi protection of the talk page should only be available for very short periods to deal with particularly serious BLP violations. Monty845 03:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not warranted. I understand and agree with semi-protection for the actual article, but to eliminate IPs and new users from the talk page seems too much. We can deal with personal attacks, insults, and uncivil behavior as it comes up, but we don't need to block out new users and potential editors from discussing the matter. GregJackP Boomer! 04:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined, per above. Also, looking over the last 100 edits (admitedly that only goes back a day), I can only see about 6 IP/new user edits, and not all of those needed/need to be removed. GedUK  11:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Content dispute/edit warring. At least 30 days. . ///EuroCarGT 00:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. by Bbb23, so doesn't need protection for now. Monty845 04:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and disruptive repeated attempted additions of external link images. STATic message me! 00:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected. GedUK  11:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by persistent block evading I.P range. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Continued inclusion of unsourced content by IP sock after warnings and block of puppet User:Pierceybrian26. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. KrakatoaKatie 22:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And he's right back at it after another revert. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hope yuo don't mind KK, but it does seem to be carrying on. GedUK  11:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: The club has just been wound up and will take alot of editing. Telfordbuck (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. So far there's only been 1 IP that's vandalising. Better to warn then block them than protect the whole page. GedUK  11:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated re-addition of unsourced single-episode statistics of game show results. Additions/reversions include WP:OR calculations and other unsourced information that fails to meet guidelines in WP:EPISODE, WP:N and WP:IINFO. AldezD (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) This should not be an issue and there is no vandalism on this page. In the same style of TV Game Shows such as Red or Black? (which has been marked as a good article), Pointless Celebrities and The Million Pound Drop Live single-episode statistics need not be sourced. Tables are collapsible and are neatly presented and need not be referenced, under Wikipedia:When to cite When a source may not be needed. Adrianw9 (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding [WP:UNSOURCED]] WP:IINFO results from individual episodes is not improving Wikipedia. This information fails WP:N and WP:EPISODE. AldezD (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Semi-protection is no use because most of the people involved are confirmed editors. Carry on teh talk page discussion, contact the relevant wikiproject, get a third opinion, start an RfC. Don't edit war though, or it'll need full protection, which I hope to avoid at this stage. GedUK  11:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Besides an edit war, there seems to be meatpuppetry there, so please also consider semi-protection instead of full. SMS Talk 12:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •   WikiProject India editor's observation @Smsarmad: Since an editor has been blocked, do you think you need the full-protection now? He was an exceptional newcomer who knew almost all policies from the first day which is unusual. --Tito☸Dutta 02:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there is no need of full protection now. But semi-protection should be given due thought, considering the meatpuppetry and may be block evasion. --SMS Talk 02:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined, At this stage, the IPs don't seem to be causing a major problem, so semi protection doesn't seem approrpriate. GedUK  11:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

05 September 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated vandalism by multiple IP's and newly created user accounts. Thomas.W talk to me 21:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection: content dispute. Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected indefinitely. am happy for an another admin to unprotect if I am not around and situation has settled/resolved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect – no longer needed. DKqwerty (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Falcon8765 (TALK) 20:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism, vandal IP isn't blocked yet even though reported. Rcsprinter (post) @ 17:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done by Legoktm. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: A new editor (User:Scoobydunk) is significantly altering the article based on a single source (a PBS documentary) and WP:OR arguing that an Indentured servant is a slave, therefore Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner in Virginia. That Johnson was is supported by the vast majority of historians. I have posted that I am rewriting the entire article and to wait until I have finished in a few days[5] but he has ignored this this making the rewrite difficult. See also the article Talk page and my own Talk page for his claims. Wayne (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where I can protest this "semi-protection" but will offer a few things here. I've read the rules and won't engage in an argument in this section. Firstly, I'm not the one claiming an indentured servant is a slave, WLRoss is the one claiming that John Casor who was an indentured servant is a slave. Secondly, I've used more than one source to support my argument. Thirdly, it's nowhere near the "vast majority of historians" and I've demonstrated this by listing numerous sources on a variety of subjects to discredit the claim that Casor was the first slave. Lastly, it is clear that Wayne Ross has a anti-establishment agenda and he says as much on his about page "I’m very much interested in all history. Not just the propaganda history you learn in school but the warts and all history you never hear about because it “may” offend someone or does not suit the agenda of the country teaching it." I'm fine with history that may be offensive to some, but not when that "history" clearly goes against officially documented laws that were established 10-14 years prior. He clearly has an agenda on this.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined Protection of any sort isn't really appropriate against one editor. Discuss on the talk page, , use other WP:DR methods, but if it carries on, then we can take action against the individual. GedUK  12:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page has seen multiple Uuconstructive edits from unregistered users in regard to an issue that is already mentioned on the Tokyo bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics page and it is not an issue that should be included on the general page for the 2020 Summer Olympics. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected indefinitely. - reasoning as per below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been multiple unconstructive edits on this page. These edits are in regard to issues that have already been mentioned, as well as re-wording of certain subjects. I feel there should be semi-protection for this page given the fact that I have seen more of this and the fact that the vote on the Olympic host city is coming up in two days time. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected indefinitely. can be undone at some future time maybe. issue won't go away I suspect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. SMS Talk 15:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined, I can't see obvious socking there, and I don't know which sok youo're referring to, so I can't check beyond. If you think there's socking, report to WP:SPI. GedUK  11:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection for a few days please. Edit warring by two editors. Hopefully they will be able to reach a consensus view soon. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined I've warned both of them. If it carries on, report them (both if necessary) to WP:3RRN. GedUK  11:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Having 2 unusual revisionist. Removing old sourced content without taking participation in talk pages. Capitals00 (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. You've been blocked by someone else. GedUK  11:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Upcoming film that is still in production. Article has been bombarded with either vandalism or unsourced info by various IP users. Areaseven (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined, There seem to be plenty of constructive edits from IPs as well GedUK  11:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit war by Jujhar.pannu with multiple editors instead of engaging in proper discussion at talk page and clearly going against earlier formed consensus. . Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 23:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined, If it's one person, report them for edit warring to WP:3RRN GedUK  11:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Currently being targeted by IP socks of Nangparbat,. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined, Not clear it's them GedUK  11:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Interpretation of sources. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined, There's been no edits for a couple of days now, this request is probably slightly stale. GedUK  11:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent assertion of bogus content, by few Ips. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined, No reason to protect to favour one side in an content dispute GedUK  11:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: There have been reverts on vandalism, copyright infringements, and content. George Ho (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alexf(talk) 13:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Very high level of IP vandalism/disruptive edits due to the series current television run ending tonight. STATic message me! 06:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Taman Shud Case (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – User using multiple IPs keeps using the talk page as a forum and posting inappropriate material. Pending changes allows IPs to still contribute, but for reviewers to let in only what's relevant. Paris1127 (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pending changes doesn't work on talk pages. We might have to semi-protect off and on. A rangeblock might work, but I dont know how to do those. GedUK  12:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: The same person using multiple IPs continues to vandalise this page. It has already been protected three times and he still continues, even after a month or two of protection. Please make this permanent. 88.109.26.77 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Just a little early for indef protection. Let's try 6 months first. GedUK  12:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, which is composed mostly of IPs simply wiping all information from the section marked "Season 6". To give a frame of reference, this has happened four times in the last month alone. Adventure Time articles are hit with a high level of vandalism, so "semi-protection" is being asked for.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, which is composed mostly of IPs simply wiping all information. This has happened four times since the article was created in June of 2013. Adventure Time articles are hit with a high level of vandalism, so "semi-protection" is being asked for.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – 2014 World cup, has been vandalized many times and will be in the future. A world know event millions of people follow and IPs go in and add there team in the final and so on. QED237 (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Removal of maintenance templates, deletion of infobox, continued addition of unsourced information by IPs and unconfirmed users. Paris1127 (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – need a pending changes review protection on this article as many IP's started to make some unseen vandalism. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 09:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected indefinitely. I'd have semiprotected myself and would recommend if problems continue. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism caused by added attraction of today's Google doodle. Widefox; talk 09:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent semi-protection if that can be done. The history edits show a non-stop parade of people changing the gender pronouns of this BLP trans woman. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected indefinitely. yes, will be a perennial issue, hence semi Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and unsourced additions to a WP:BLP. STATic message me! 02:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There's a video trending right now of Paul's son being immature:

http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1lqgb8/apparently_his_father_is_a_famous_screenwriter_or/

There has been a series of vandal edits b/c of this. Attaboy (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. by another admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TheREALCableGuy target articles

Temporary semi-protection: Continued targets of banned TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), removing sourced information and required information about FCC programming requirements. Nate • (chatter) 22:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing currently under 66.87.101.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but block would be futile as user plugs-unplugs using a Sprint broadband stick. Nate • (chatter) 02:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected indefinitely. all of them. Folks can try unprotecting at some point in the future when this has settled down. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent and long-term BLP content violation from anonymous editors including 2x in last 24 hours. — Brianhe (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected indefinitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: - First an IP, now a brand-new account, insist on removing information without giving any explanation whatsoever. They've also violated 3RR (the IP and the account are clearly one and the same) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of ten days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Loads of vandalism. Jamesx12345 20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Addition of OR, use of Euphisim both against MOS and WP:BLP. Murry1975 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - Repeatedly edited to add false and unsourced information, as well as personal attacks on real people through this page. 18:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

  Declined - Hasn't been edited since June. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For some reason, this page is repeated edited by other users. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short-term semi-protection: There have been repeated unsourced edits stating that he died yesterday (I have no reason to suspect bad faith). I'm trying to find WP:RS for this, but no luck so far. Temporary protection may persuade those editing to help, rather than simply adding unsourced assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator GiantSnowman. (1 week) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: 5 days of persistent edit warring. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – constant ip editing against the consensus. Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 14:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Multiple Users making pretty much the same edits and edit warring as far back as August 10th. Also includes one IP user (that may or may not also be the same person as some other accounts) previously blocked for edit warring that has continued making the same edits after the block ended. Transcendence (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Bilby. (7 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 18:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP disruption over species has continued since it was unprotected. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The users appears to use other IPs too. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of leaked and un-sourced content from IP users. All have been warned through edit summaries multiple times, but they continue to add this leaked content. If it's only locked until September 17th, then that's fine. --Rhain1999 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected. GedUK  11:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Persistent addition of unsourced content. All were warned in user talk page to stop adding unsourced content. Page currently in Semi-Protection. ///EuroCarGT 20:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Garion96.. GedUK  11:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent reposing of biographies of living persons violation. Specifically Wikipedia:DOB problems ...these youth dont need there names nor birth dates published for all the world to see. -- Moxy (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Gamaliel. (1 week full protection) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Revert warring by anonymous user(s). Ukrained2012 (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ukrained2012 has been repeadtedly edit warring, he kept inserting a massive amount of unnecessary categories which is against wp:overcat and some picture that has nothing to do with the subject so before anyone protects the page ukrained2012 edits needs to be reverted 83.180.179.15 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i requested a third opinon which needs to be answered before protecting the page 83.180.179.15 (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if protection is nessesary then go with full protection because the other user can continue reverting in a semi protected state 83.180.179.15 (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The request for a Third Opinion has been declined at the 3O page for lack of adequate talk page discussion. Per the dispute resolution policy disputes must be thoroughly discussed at the article talk page before seeking dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) (as 3O volunteer) 18:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
discussion is pointless in THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION i will never be able to convince this user and i doubt he can convince me, and if we try that it will just be back and fourth warring that wont lead anywhere 83.180.179.15 (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide some more any diffs to prove your real "attempts to convince me". Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be just one user attempting to bulldoze his view though . He has only applied for protection as the IP user has apposed those views. Protection is not appropriate -this is just a minor disagreement about whether a picture and categories are appropriate or not. Discussion has now begun on the talk page as it should have done originally. --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find Rushton2010's comment arrogant to the extent of incivility. If two (or even more) users get in a content dispute, none of them could be disregarded as "just one user attempting to bulldoze his view". And the "bulldoze his view" part is demonstrably not about me: it is actually me who urges the talk page discussion of content.
This semi-protection request is hereby renewed after fresh deletions by an anon ahead of any discussion attempts. Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a issue between two users who disagree with each other over a minor and uncontroversial issue of categorisation and the inclusion of a picture. The article is not being vandalised or disrupted in any way: the inclusion or exclusion of the categories or picture make no great affect on the quality of the article and neither user is obviously "right" or "wrong" with regards to inclusion.
Instead/before going to the talk page, one user comes here hoping to "protect" the article, which would thereby block the other user from editing the article. What exactly is that, if not that user trying to bulldoze his views through avoiding discussion with the other user? It is a content dispute between that IP user and Ukrained and nothing more.
In requesting such a block Ukrained has shown disrespect to the IP user, who's views are just as relevant and valuable as his own. He also clearly has not read wikipedia's policies; especially that surrounding article protection. And laughable claims of incivility against myself, who has not become involved in his edit war and only commented here for what it is... Anyone looking for incivility need only look to the user's messages on the article's talk page which are very angry, condescending, disrepectful and verge on personal attacks.
This is a user that will not be happy unless his own view wins out: on the talk page even states "anything in this article may be removed after either reaching consensus (in this case, at least with me)". He clearly believes he owns the article and shows shocking disrespect to the valuable work done by IP editors.
I reiterate again; this is just a simple petty disagreement with no right or wrong answer, that should have been discussed at the talk page from the start. Not a suitable case for article protection. --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in response to Ukrained's question about why I have not edited the article myself, its because I only visited the article to see whether protection or warranted or not, and wished to remain independent of the edit warring.--Rushton2010 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

06 September 2013

Semi-Protection or Pending Changes: There's been persistent vandalism edits by IP users and non-autoconfirmed users. Gaylen50 (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Pending changes protection should not be used on pages with a high edit rate. and there isn't enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Woody (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection Persistent vandalism by non-autoconfirmed users. FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The edits are not vandalism per se, they are edits, sometimes incorrect but not vandalism. I would suggest perhaps an WP:EDITNOTICE advising why the edits are correct/not correct and point to the talkpage. Woody (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy, serious libel. Pending changes protection gives nothing. WTM (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Woody (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – See history. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – recent surge of unhelpful ip edits. 1966batfan (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 48 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page has come under attack by a group of editors (possible sock farm? definitely working in concert). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect. A lot of unhelpful IP vandalism due to rumour about him leaving, but nothing official from Fulham FC. JMHamo (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Persistent vandalism. Thebof (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Kudpung. (2 weeks) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Creation protected indefinitely. Woody (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Article at Jackson Ferguson (footballer) should be moved to this previously salted title. It was salted as part of a bulk salting of a bunch of poorly written unreferenced non or barely notable footballers. The-Pope (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Woody (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: This page got salted after an AfD. However, the article got recreated somewhere else after she became notable and the original protector, Ron Ritzman, is no longer active. The result is that there is now higher protection for a redirect then there is for the article itself, enough to raise the ire of Jim.henderson for whom I have posted this on his behalf. Launchballer 07:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already unprotected by administrator Ron Ritzman. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism intensified due to Google doodle. Widefox; talk 10:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please renew semiprotection. Assorted IPs adding defamatory and racist content. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism. Request PC for 3 months. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let's just try a shorter duration first to see how it goes. GedUK  12:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection BLP gone crazy. Some stupid edits, others hugely offensive. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 11:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly on this one please. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 11:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a month. Acalamari 11:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Acalamari. Was struggling to keep up! -- Hillbillyholiday talk 11:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :) Just reverted some more vandalism to her article and the other one! Acalamari 11:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection associated article also gone crazy. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 11:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: An IP is cherry-picking a handful of sources to make highly subjective claims about the film in the lede. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Whether it goes in the lede or should be there at all, it's referenced content and deserves discussion outside the edit summaries. KrakatoaKatie 05:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. After looking at the other article in dispute, it's appropriate to lock this one down also to prevent that dispute moving over here and compounding both problems. KrakatoaKatie 05:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On July 16, Silk Tork fully protected the article "until ArbCom case reaches decision." After considering the case, ArbCom reached its decision as seen here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement closed. Eight editors are topic-banned from the article for at least six months, and some interaction bans are also included. I believe the article can be opened to normal editing now. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already unprotected. (to semi-protection) by Nyttend. BencherliteTalk 22:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected (procedural tagging, for the bot semi-protection =/= unprotected) Armbrust The Homunculus 22:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Requesting immediate archiving... Armbrust The Homunculus 12:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: An IP is cherry-picking a handful of sources, some of questionable reliability, to make highly subjective claims about the film in the lede. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of 72 hours , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There should be 3RR blocks all around here, but instead I'll lock it down completely and see if these things can be worked out. KrakatoaKatie 05:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit war about the track listing, there have been 47 revisions to the track list today. Whispering 01:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of three weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 05:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. —Ryulong (琉竜) 12:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of 72 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 05:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – repeated addition of unsourced information. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. KrakatoaKatie 00:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I reverted some Political Vandalism. Faizking321 18:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. KrakatoaKatie 00:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Things seem to have gotten a little heated on this page, which is already under 1RR restriction. Requesting short (48 hour?) full protection before dropping back to semi to encourage better talk page participation. VQuakr (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Very heavy rate of editing, but no problems are happening right now. Plse re-report if the situation changes yet again Diannaa (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – No one notice the removed passaged that I recovered. The guideline is still disputed, and I gave the person who deliberately removed it a message. George Ho (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Procedural decline, for the bot. Diannaa (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism.- Unsourced and incorrect additions are persistemt on such an important article. Benison talk with me 16:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. IP users are mostly performing useful edits. Diannaa (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This sockpuppet IP's adding wrong information and despite my warning, still continuing to vandalising. NovaSkola (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined The user's talk page is still a red link; they probably have no idea why their changes keep disappearing. Please talk to the user and if that doesn't work, re-report in a few days. Diannaa (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: - IP edit war, and needs attention from editors willing to discuss. Attleboro (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined You just re-added the content the IP was trying to introduce. There's been no talk page posts since January. Please open a discussion on the talk page. Diannaa (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Spate of IP vandalism. Deadbeef 03:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection and restore previous version: Per WP:BRD, I've reverted controversial edits and initiated discussion on talk, but anons refuse to engage on talk. I'm an involved admin and don't want to violate 3RR, so review by a third-party appreciated. —Eustress talk 18:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined for now - you're at your second revert, and you only initiated discussion about 12 hours ago (at present). Since then, there's only been one IP edit, so I'm unwilling to lock the article presently. Kudos to you for doing the right thing here - I'd just keep trying to engage them. :-) KrakatoaKatie 23:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: I tried asking the protecting admin, Beeblebrox, for unprotection. However, he has not yet responded, and the page is still move-protected. As I told him, I made a mistake, and I promised to him that I will not re-move it to a different name ever again. Ever! I will swear that I'll leave the article title as is. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given your stated intention not to rename the article, why does move protection matter enough that you are bothering to ask for its removal? Monty845 20:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Protection isn't necessary if there are no more title disputes. And I'm sure no one will even try to move it. That's all. --George Ho (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any admin is willing to unprotect given the length of time this has sat here and that I can't actually see where you spoke to Beeblebrox about unprotection. tutterMouse (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 30#Lilith Sternin. --George Ho (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that, thanks. I'd take that as a decline of your request, it was 22 days ago and if he hasn't replied by now I doubt he's going to unprotect either given the past involvement between you and this article. tutterMouse (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done Given the history, and the inconsistency between saying on the one hand that you will not move it "for now" and on the other that you will not move it at all, let's have any attempts to rename go through a WP:RM. BencherliteTalk 22:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC. Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of one month , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 00:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: This page is undergoing an edit war on the behalf of sock puppet I.P.s of User:Bens dream and others. In order to stem this issue, it's best to remove his reach of his I.P. addresses. DarthBotto talk•cont 15:53, 05 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yep, at first it was just a matter between DarthBotto and Bens dream. I saw this edit, which was/is inappropriate, but I didn't bother with it because I researched Bens dream and saw that he is prone to WP:Edit war, and because I figured that it would be reverted soon enough; it wasn't. But it was eventually spotted by DarthBotto. Bens dream has obviously reverted as an IP, and then that is when I stepped in (though I was going to take the matter to a different editor who edits The Walking Dead articles). Bens dream needs to learn to discuss matters instead of immediately edit warring. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article talk page is totally blank, except for wikiproject templates. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: First an IP, now a brand-new account, have started to vandalize this article. Please shut it down for now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism following end of recent page protection . STATic message me! 18:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 00:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: The article has been targeted by sockpuppets/meatpuppets of AndresHerutJaim for well over a year. Block evading edits have recently increased in frequency. Confirmed socks have included Sparkling Princess, Crandmeipait, Michael Zeev, Carvotta, MelissaLond and Jabotito48. The Telefonica de Espana IP 83.34.120.209, a provider often used by AndresHerutJaim for block evasion, is also a AndresHerutJaim sock. Sweet Micuchi is a likely sock too (already reported to Elockid for checking). Sean.hoyland - talk 16:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Elockid. (1 week) Armbrust The Homunculus 00:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The last page protection recently ended, and IPs are already re-adding unsourced info. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Nyttend. (2 weeks) Armbrust The Homunculus 22:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Seperate IPs making unsourced changes even after being warned. I can't find a source for their edits, although it's hard to find anything on this guy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Excessive sockpuppetry. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done BencherliteTalk 22:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Excessive sockpuppetry. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done BencherliteTalk 22:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Excessive sockpuppetry. I am well aware that a single deletion is generally nor enough to merit salting. However, in this case one particular user, 089baby (talk · contribs), has created articles on this subject a total of eight times using four different titles so far. See: Um Vichet, Oum Vicheth, and Um Vichet (footballer). There is no doubt in my mind that if we leave this page unsalted it will be recreated inappropriately. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done BencherliteTalk 22:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

07 September 2013

Temporary full protection: Editwarring due to an editor adding wrongly attributed quotes, WP:OO and non-relevant info. The Banner talk 12:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the requests "Irish people", "Aos Sí" and "Righdamhna" and this AN/I-case The Banner talk 12:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined I'm going to decline it for now. I don't want to lock out potential editors of the page over one user. The main antagonist seems to have stopped now and is responding to comments on his talkpage/ANI. If they start ignoring discussions again then they should be blocked. Woody (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Editwarring due to an editor adding wrongly attributed quotes, WP:OO and non-relevant info. The Banner talk 12:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the requests "Sumerian language", "Aos Sí" and "Righdamhna" and this AN/I-case The Banner talk 12:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined I'm going to decline it for now. I don't want to lock out potential editors of the page over one user. The main antagonist seems to have stopped now and is responding to comments on his talkpage/ANI. If they start ignoring discussions again then they should be blocked. Woody (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Editwarring due to an editor adding wrongly attributed quotes, WP:OO and non-relevant info. The Banner talk 09:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the requests "Sumerian language", "Irish people" and "Righdamhna" and this AN/I-case The Banner talk 12:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined I'm going to decline it for now. I don't want to lock out potential editors of the page over one user. The main antagonist seems to have stopped now and is responding to comments on his talkpage/ANI. If they start ignoring discussions again then they should be blocked. Woody (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Best, Mifter (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jnorton7558 (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined The vast majority of non-autoconfirmed edits seem to be good faith so I am loathe to protect it. There aren't enough disruptive edits at this time to justify protection. Woody (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – 109.127.16.213 this IP keeps vandalizing and adding wrong information despite my warnings. NovaSkola (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined see the previous comment on the last request: "The user's talk page is still a red link; they probably have no idea why their changes keep disappearing. Please talk to the user and if that doesn't work, re-report in a few days. Diannaa (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)" You haven't attempted to discuss this, open up a discussion in the talkpage of the article and add a note to the user. If they then continue, then get the article protected. Woody (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP Editors keep removing the total worldwide gross figure for this film article. Please mark the page so that edits need to be approved, pending protection or whatever it is called.
Talk:The_Mortal_Instruments:_City_of_Bones#Gross An editor who reverted the first of many deletes said there was a statement (source not available) from the films producer claiming the film had already made $50 million worldwide and at the time reliable sources only put the box office take at $30 to $33 million. (One reliable source now puts that figure at $46 million and film is on course to make more than $50 million, it just has not done so yet and fans seem to be taking it personally). A few days of protection should be enough. Thanks. -- 109.79.183.240 (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent BLP violations. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Long term pattern the protection log is full of protections immediately after unprotections so I've gone for long term protection. Woody (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of censorship attempts through redirection of the entire page--Prestigiouzman (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Protection impossible due to AfD. But in fact the filer is the one who is pushing his wishes. The Banner talk 12:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Related to the requests "Sumerian language", "Irish people" and "Aos Sí" and this AN/I-case The Banner talk 12:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined Let the afd run its course. Woody (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, most of which are significant WP:BLP violations. STATic message me! 04:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Woody (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page has been subjected to persistent, long-term vandalism by those pushing their POV or using it as WP:FORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – This title has been used twice now to circumvent create protection at Thierry Chantha Bin. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Creation protected indefinitely. Woody (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High levels of vandalism due to a spike in interest as a result of the recent federal election. . YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hopefully should blow over in a few days. Woody (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent BLP violations by several IP users and sockpuppet of blocked user Lexusnexus123. Areaseven (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Constant spam from various IPs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Spectro Analytical Labs (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – Spamimg even after indef block. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. Materialscientist (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Please protect until Tony Abbott gets sworn in by the Governor General. Editors are changing the prime minister on the article to Tony Abbott when he is not sworn in yet. Cheers, camerontregantalk 11:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - semi protection would be sufficient. Full protection is a bit extreme. Hack (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment reply" - semi protection is sufficient, I agree, thanks. Cheers, camerontregantalk 12:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — JamesR (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment" Somebody edited saying Tony Abbott was the PM right before you protected the page... Please revert back to my last edit? Cheers, camerontregantalk 12:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Cheers, camerontregantalk 12:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated removal of sourced content by a number of different IP-editors. Thomas.W talk to me 11:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 12:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Apply until official result of election is confirmed TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — JamesR (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article and other Bengali film related article constantly moved this different name, with many sock user. . - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 09:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Materialscientist (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Apply for it to start September 10 and end September 12th. Bobherry talk 05:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done - The article is already semiprotected indefinitely; adding PC on top of that wouldn't really accomplish anything. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – IP sock of a currently blocked user. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. as a sock of User:Crème3.14159. KrakatoaKatie 03:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Has been a lot recently. (See Page History.). Bobherry talk 04:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 04:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. WadeSimMiser (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. KrakatoaKatie 03:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: I stumbled upon this article earlier and it appears that an edit war has broken out between two editors over the actor's date of birth. I think protecting the article might force them to discuss the issue on the talk page instead. - JuneGloom Talk 21:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined One of the warring parties has a username softblock, and the other hasn't edited since your 3RR warning. KrakatoaKatie 03:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Since April 2013, IPs and new users have tried with increasing frequency to change the feminine pronouns to masculine pronouns, although (as has been explained to several, who try to edit-war the male pronouns back in, anyway) this violates MOS:IDENTITY. -sche (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of ten days , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 03:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Disruptive IP editing related to adding unsourced content. STATic message me! 20:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of ten days , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 03:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Various IPs repeatedly removing AfD templates. Semi-protect for about a week or so. GregJackP Boomer! 19:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of four days , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 03:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent sockpupptery. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of ten days , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 02:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 02:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 02:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism, the article about Colombia receives vandalism attacks each week by IP users. IP users usually do not help to improve the article and contribute very little to this article. The article should only be edited by autoconfirmed users. Theryx7 (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 02:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. WadeSimMiser (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

08 September 2013

Semi-protection: vandalism was 2 years ago by new users/IPs. Semi would (have) worked just fine. — Lfdder (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You requested this yesterday, what's changed besides you now admin shopping? tutterMouse (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the decision should be reconsidered and the other one got archived. I don't admin shop Sundays. — Lfdder (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined This seems to have a reasonably high number of transclusions, so I'm reluctant to decrease protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection: Disruptive activity: Persistent vandalism by IP user (3 days +). Coming close to edit warring.FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Since it is just one IP, it would be better to seek sanctions against it than protecting the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: BLP policy violations – Persistent BLP violations and edit warring. ukexpat (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has a discussion been started about the dispute anywhere? While it does appear there is a BLP issue there, but even so I'm reluctant to go to full protection as a first resort. I will drop the editor a note asking that they not restore the content prior to discussion. If its restored again prior to discussion, protection would then seem more reasonable. (If another admin wants to jump in with protection go ahead, I'm not declining the request, just stating my thoughts) Monty845 04:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined at this point. But I think the best thing to do would be to follow Monty's advice and then re-report if things continue. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – 212.178.246.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) got blocked for a week, came back as 109.106.248.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), that got blocked for a week, now back as 212.178.237.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Semiprotection probably a better solution here. bobrayner (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dawnseeker2000 14:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Editor and IP removing all negative aspects out of Conrad Gallaghars article. Not responding on request for explanation. Coming close to edit warring. The Banner talk 08:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Widr (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – With the upcoming election, there has been an influx of vandalism from IPs. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 23:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Some vandalism occured in August 2013. This is currently a Good Article, and some IP edits are not disruptive. George Ho (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent re-creation (fails WP:GNG). Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 Months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Monty845 04:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 Month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Monty845 04:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent COI spam/vandalism . Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SpencerT♦C 04:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Edit war with IP-hopping vandal who continues to insert unsourced material against discussion on talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Natalie Morales (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection. Persistent sockpuppetry Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: fall back to semi, no good reason for this to be fully protected, IP and new user vandalism was 2 years ago. — Lfdder (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Not unprotected The reason for the 2 years of no vandalism is because it was protected. This is a high risk template so I don't feel comfortable falling it back to semi. If you have any edits you want to make then please use {{editprotected}}. Woody (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Can someone look at it now? — Lfdder (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And like I said, vandalism was done by IPs/new users. So semi would have worked fine. — Lfdder (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent sockpuppetry Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent sockpuppetry Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent sockpuppetry Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to request. This is a "please fix my error" protection request, not a request for additional protection, since I'm an uninvolved admin who recently modified this article's protection. See the final sentence of the final section of the current revision of the talk page — I somehow messed up the protection by restricting feedback. Please either remove the feedback restriction (I didn't mean to implement it, so by removing it, you're effectively performing the self-revert that I'd like to perform), or if it's a standard part of protection nowadays, please let me know. Please do not modify anything else about the article's protection, unless of course if you check the page's history and believe it warranted. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Feedback protected Changed to autoconfirmed to match the other protection settings. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP user(s) continue to submit contested information (series end date edit-warring) after a discussion was started on talk page. Maybe a 2 week temporary block would see us through the discussion?. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by IP users. Kingsocarso (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – removal of sourced content by IP user. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Taman Shud Case (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Attempt to restore deleted material within 24 hrs of protection removal. Paris1127 (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of four days , after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
  Note: I don't think PC is appropriate for a talk page. Short-term semi-protection might dissuade this person from posting their 'theories'. If not, we might try a rangeblock. Please let me know how this proceeds. KrakatoaKatie 03:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism, removal of sourced content. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs are posting about his death. Jamesx12345 20:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: There is persistent IP vandalism 173.24.167.213 (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Best, Mifter (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Mas y mas (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent removal of content, e.g. the full name of Pristina airport. Bazonka (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually want it deleted, but can't add the speedy deletion request until it's unprotected. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 22:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

09 September 2013

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism/bots. Abel9992 (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection - Persistent blanking of content to support a particular POV. - Aoidh (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined - PC protetion was added 2 days ago and seems to be working. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Attleboro (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined - This is not obvious vandalism; it would probably be more worthwhile to try to discuss these edits with the other users. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article has been plagued by vandalism within the past few days. DPH1110 (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated unsourced speculations on a BLP by a number of seemingly unrelated IPs. The article is about a British TV actress who, according to the speculations/rumours has gotten engaged to someone, but none of the IPs has presented any form of source supporting the speculations. So a temporary semi-protection might calm things down until a source is presented or the rumours die. Thomas.W talk to me 19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Attleboro (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Three problematic edits in two weeks is a little bit too low for me to protect here. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – EW between registered editor & IP over the sequence of Male-Female/Female-male in a personnel data chart. Discussion was opened by me, but the EW has had another partial round. (IP has responded in discussion, registered editor has not.). – S. Rich (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. More people keep adding shows not aired on PBS or putting in "(currently In reruns)" sections of former shows. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism - potential edit war KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 17:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 48 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: People - mostly anons - are repeatedly adding an election symbol that has been determined to be a copyright violation at Commons and which currently has no consensus for inclusion per non-free use in the discussion here. It is obvious that the anons are supporters of the party. This article has been semi-protected previously due to disruption caused by non-neutral contributions from activists both pro- and anti- the organisation. Sitush (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protection: Created three times. Deleted twice. I just CSDed it again. Please creation-protect it, so that if my CSD succeeds, it won't be simply recreated again. Thanks in advance, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent incarnation was contributed by Major comp (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who hasn't been blocked. I asked to have the history of the deleted article restored, so that non-administrators could compare it to the present one. —rybec 07:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined I've declined the speedy, and as such there's no rationale for protection. GedUK  11:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Wikipedia User with Number 1 most edits. Bobherry talk 21:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't see a reason to do this, as the vandalism here occurs at a rate similar to what occurs on my page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you asked Koavf (talk · contribs) if he'd like his page protected? I'm hesitant to do so if he doesn't want it. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Nothing like the levels to protect for vandalism, and if he wants it protected he can ask. He's been here long enough, I'm sure he knows where! GedUK  11:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Page likely to be vandalised due to nature of content. KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 09:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – repeated addition of unsourced content. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – repeated addition of unsourced content. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Page is being edited by multiple accounts suspected of sockpuppetry (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Extrause). KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 09:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected.. GedUK  11:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Page is being edited by multiple accounts suspected of sockpuppetry (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Extrause). KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 09:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. GedUK  11:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Author of the article seems to like links to disambiguation pages and is restoring them time and time again instead of solving them. The Banner talk 22:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Consider the Edit warring noticeboard if reverts continue – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection - under barrage of vandal attacks. Please silence these beasts. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection' - Repeated insertion of unsourced speculation. Article has been semi-protected a few times now, and just came off of semi-protection for the same exact thing. - Aoidh (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Due to persistent editing of unregistered users with useless symbols such as "†". Allenjambalaya (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – for persistent editing of unregistered users with useless symbols such as "†". Allenjambalaya (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit dispute over the inclusion of "live score". Two editors has undone about 10 times each. QED237 (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the page is going to need updates soon, and the dispute is over WP:Live Scores (intentional redlink), I think dealing with the editors makes more sense, rather then protecting the article and locking in the soon to be outdated info. Monty845 17:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I totally understand and after some thinking I have to agree. Also one of the included editor is actually admin so it would be like him "getting advantage" anyway. But when it was going on i felt like I had to report it here. QED237 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now i realize I made the mistake in thinking he was admin. Oh well, at least the edit warring has stopped for now. Lets hope they discuss on talkpage, which one of them tried to do. QED237 (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined Consider the Edit warring noticeboard if reverts continue – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. for three days by User:Woody. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Slow-moving edit war where POV-pushers are trying to scandalize her and remove the fact that the charges were thrown out months ago. She contacted me via OTRS a couple of months ago, and we have cleaned this up a bit, but people are still vandalizing, as evidenced in the page's history. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lots of vandalism and POV editing. Adabow (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Wrapper for {{Iw-ref}} (functions identically) with fewer transclusions. {{Iw-ref}} is semi-protected. — Lfdder (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined First, requests for unprotection should go in the section below. But this seems to have a reasonably high number of transclusions, so I'm reluctant to decrease protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a request for unprotection. — Lfdder (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the protection decreased, it should go in the unprotection section. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so. — Lfdder (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iw-ref with 4 times as many transclusions is faring fine, so what makes you reluctant? — Lfdder (talk)
Right, you edit-protected {{Iw-ref}}....for absolutely no good fucking reason. — Lfdder (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13,000+ transclusions is a pretty good reason, I think. See WP:HIGHRISK. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the risk with semi, exactly? What might happen? It's not gonna get vandalised by anyone who's not an IP/new user. A dispute is extremely unlikely. Someone might make a genuine mistake with wikicode when trying to change something maybe? Not a reason to edit-protect; it'll get dealt with. — Lfdder (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10 September 2013

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations. NeilN talk to me 20:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of ten days , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 20:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – With the upcoming election, there has been an influx of vandalism from multiple IPs. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 20:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of ten days , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 20:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: due to edit warring and incorrect information being added all the time and is constantly being reverted i have tried to reason with the use but they are not listening to wikipedia rules --Onlythetruthisappropriate (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined It seems to be an autoconfirmed user that's causing problems, so I don't think semiprotection will be much help here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 19:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continued posting of unreferenced entries by registered and unregistered users after recent protection was lifted. Areaseven (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Feel free to re-report if problems continue. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined You can seek a second opinion if you like, but I think pending changes has been handling this well. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection. Prevention of edit war KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 14:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Consider the Edit warring noticeboard if reverting continues – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection. Prevention of edit war KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 14:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated removals of content without explanation, possibly damage control attempts by a PR agency - all removals apply to the fragment describing a widely publicized Sex Scandal within one of the company's subsidiaries. The four anonymous removals span a period of almost two years, so a long-term semi-protection is recommended:

Aleksander.adamowski (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I have noticed different IP's making changes that are not verified. VIRGIN INFATUATION (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism currently not persistent enough (only once/twice a month) to warrant semi-protection at this time. AngelOfSadness talk 14:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined (for the bot) Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I don't particularly see the need. The article is TFA and while it's getting some anon vandalism, that's getting reverted quickly (as would be expected) - and there in fact have been a couple of useful anon minor edits today, looking at the history. It's had no edits at all for the last 90 minutes at the time of writing. However, this isn't a decline, just in case another admin takes a different view or the situation changes by the time someone else checks. BencherliteTalk 12:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined Agreed with Bencherlite. Definitely some vandalism going on, but not too out of the ordinary for a TFA. Feel free to re-report if it picks up again. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by multiple IP users> Few active editors watching. Brigade Piron (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – SPA vandalism. Brycehughes (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 18:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: High level of vandalism/unsourced additions, but also mixed in with helpful IP editors. STATic message me! 18:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 18:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 17:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 17:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 17:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Noticed a paragraph of standard pro-Falun Gong material in Bo Xilai article. This is a hot topic for the FLG right now and I've had more than a few runs around the block with them on Wikipedia. This page should definitely get eyes at the very least to ensure protection of WP:NEUTRAL

Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 16:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent good-faith edits by anons using damned VisualEditor that require constant reversions. Specifically the changing of "Edward Thatch" to "Edward Teach" despite multiple reference explaining. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - Is a new release and possible fans keep vandalising the page with silly things and is also a magnet for vandalism --Onlythetruthisappropriate (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting unprotection of Wikipedia:RefToolbar. I've asked the protecting admin a week ago, but he hasn't edited in over a month. The moving admin left Wikipedia after an Arb case removed his bit, so I'm asking here. The page has never been vandalized and the protection was a carry over from when it was being developed in user space many years ago. Protection does not seem necessary in this case. Thanks for the help. 64.40.54.181 (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Unprotected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Within a matter of hours of the previous semi-protection being lifted, the IP's return yet again with edits of disruption, deliberate factual errors, and persistent vandalism. This has become a regular case on similar articles over the years. This article was first protected on 18 May for a period of 1 week, and then again on 5 June for a period of 3 months, all for the same reason - addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: per RfPP. Would it be possible this time to have the protection period lasting a total of 6 months? Wesley ☮ Mouse 15:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Valdalism At Its Peak. Different users & IP;s are adding un verified data. VIRGIN INFATUATION (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Edit war of unsupported changes to key information with an multiple dynamic IPs. Cky2250 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection: Highly visible page – Always substituted as instructed by WP:GAR. George Ho (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined It's never really highly visible. It only sits on talk pages, and seldom that many at a time. GedUK  11:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection: Highly visible page – Always comes and goes in talk pages. George Ho (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined It's never really highly visible. It only sits on talk pages, and seldom that many at a time. GedUK  11:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm really sorry you have blocked the article. I'm the creator of it, I see there were so many vandalisms but I can't explain anything in the discussion page since the same as been blocked and my original account removed. I just wanna make clear that I did not do any vandalism or whatever some admins claim in the discussion page. I wrote the article, then corrected it a few times to make it correspondent with the Wikipedia norms, since I belive the article is right to stay on it. I'm not involved with the Company, I've just made t thesis on it at the university. I wrote a few messages to those who change or delete section, in a very civil way (maybe ironic sometimes when I saw deletion came afte 0,2 seconds from the modify asking how can they read everything so fast, that's it). I never done anything else. So I would make it clear, you can either accept the article or not, but just don't blame me or something I've never did, and judge it for its contents and for those absurde arguments! Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek7289 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 9 September 2013‎

The article does not appear to be protected at this time, and the talk page has never been created. The account that created the page was blocked due to a sock-puppet investigation - which means you are evading that block. Go back to your original account, and request unblock from there, do not continue to create new accounts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined article isn't protected. GedUK  11:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Dawn Bard (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. AngelOfSadness talk 14:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Widr (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. and pending for a month. Short term semi just to stop the next IP hop, but I think that pending might work better because they're probably the type that will creat an accounot and get it confirmed before trying again. Pending should stop that. GedUK  12:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Repeatedly created, then deleted for G11: Unambiguous advertising. KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 10:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. GedUK  11:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Repeatedly created, then deleted for G11: Unambiguous advertising. KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 10:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. GedUK  11:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: repeated attempts of hate speech, false info and edits. -- Mahmoodyaqub (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated vandalism by an IP address hopping editor. STATic message me! 04:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Tons of socks blanking page... EvergreenFir (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month. Tiptoety talk 05:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS-TX templates

Template:MOS-TW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:MOS-TM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Move protection: Highly visible page – These templates are used for notable transgendered/transsexual people. George Ho (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not sure why you want move protection. Neither of these are highly visible either, under 100 transclusions. However, there is clearly an edit war going on, so I've temporarily protected. GedUK  11:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Editors are going around and around and around about how to describe her as a philosopher. Fighting over: amateur, self-styled, non-academic, disputed, or no modifier. . – S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article is a magnet for vandalism. Most of the edits since it was last unprotected are IP vandalism and reverts of said vandalism. Really stinking up the history page. TimL • talk 01:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected. GedUK  11:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Was previously temporarily protected - that ran out in June. Since then, almost all edits from unconfirmed accounts have been vandalism. . Stalwart111 23:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There's been some constructive IP edits as well, so pending changes seems a better option. I didn't expect that. GedUK  11:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ged, that's a very good solution! Thanks! Stalwart111 11:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - Reverting a recent vandalism (some minutes ago), I followed the recent chronology: Last hundred edits are at almost anon vandalisms and subsequential rollbacks. IMHO a temporary protection could be useful. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I agree, this one is an IP Van magnet.--Ekabhishektalk 05:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Has been the target of continuous IP vandalism since Saturday 9/7. Protect for a few weeks? . BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: A floating IP address starting with 69.95, who disagrees with the consensus result of a month-long RfC, now refuses to let the result of that RfC be footnoted. Discussion at Talk:The Dakota gives evidence of his disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

11 September 2013

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent removal of the copyvio template. Psychonaut (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple IPs adding same link to a cartoon. Lesion (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 18:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 19:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Several incidents in the last 24 hours. Many in the past. Perhaps 'pending changes' would be better: Hopkins isn't widely admired in the UK, and I don't see the vandalism stopping anytime soon. Hillbillyholiday talk 17:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 18:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Katie. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 18:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :-) KrakatoaKatie 19:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 18:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 18:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 16:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 18:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Filipino IP-hopper repeatedly spamming BLP with unrelated promotional text, containing the names of a totally unrelated person and a motorcycle dealership in the Philippines (diffs: [6], [7], [8]). Thomas.W talk to me 14:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 18:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent admin vandalism by reverting good faith edits to vandalised versions

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw... vandals can be very strange sometimes. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent semi-protection: Incessant and relentless vandalism, list creep, and other unsourced additions by IP and new users that are often slanderous to living people. Every time I log into Wikipedia, I have to clean up vandalism on this page. Thevampireashlee (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent film with a lot of buzz thats attracting a lot of unnecessary and unwanted IP's with WP:RS, WP:SPAMLINKS etc. Tired of reverting. . Sohambanerjee1998 13:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP POV editing got the article semi-protected a couple weeks ago; they're back at it.  Mbinebri  talk ← 12:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – While the vandalism on this article is infrequent (about once a month), it's always the same: an IP user removes approximately the same chunk of well sourced text without reason. Furthermore, I can't find any productive IP edits going back over a year. I know that this is something we can probably just live with, but if there's irregular but consistent vandalism, I wonder if semi-ing it might be worthwhile. . Qwyrxian (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection High level of IP vandalism. Users claim they want to fix "incomplete" information but end up removing various sources as well as adding wrong piece of information. Two registered users [[9]] & [[10]] and one IP are involved.Syedammadali (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined, I put pending changes on yesterday, and there's been no edits at all since then. GedUK  12:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the two links you provided, on hasn't edited anywhere since May, and the other since May 2012. GedUK  12:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Koala15 (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and some blatant giving away of the series. Only registered Wikipedia users should be permitted to edit this page as each episode is aired. MasterMind5991 (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion seconded by me as It is all coming from one IP TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – This article was protected with pending changes due to BLP-violations and now I request them again. The prosecution has requested the death penalty for the accused, so it is highly likely that the article will get a lot of attention, wanted and unwanted. The minor in this case and the victim need to be protected against privacy breaches and mentioning the names. PC is the most easy option for that. The Banner talk 10:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article did already fell victim to vandalism. The Banner talk 10:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Unsourced disruptive edits due to album being released today, sure to be persistent over the next couple days as it has already been. STATic message me! 01:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Users claim they want to fix "incomplete" information but end up removing various sources as well as random words, leaving incomplete sentences as a result. Tom Danson (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Recent IP edit warring including BLP issues, and at least one instance of outing in edit summary. Tgeairn (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - As there has been at least one autoconfirmed user making BLP violations, I have fully protected the page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – As with Ayn Rand, the description of Rand has been going through a series of reverts. Dispute is largely about whether Rand should be described as an "amateur" philosopher. Two registered editors and one IP are involved. Remarks in edit summaries have included "vandalism" and uncivil usertalkpage messages have ensued. The Ayn Rand article is under PP at present. Once that issue is resolved, this one should reflect the same language. – S. Rich (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 05:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent adding of links to disambiguation pages due to removal of correct disambiguators on red links. IP's never responded on requests to stop with that. The Banner talk 23:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined I'm hesitant to protect if the edits are otherwise constructive. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Ongoing, steady stream of IP vandalism. Almost every single edit in the last year has been vandalism and reverting of vandalism. Uyvsdi (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 Year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Monty845 01:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP users removing tags. Mayast (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done Now deleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – I'm not going to bother with warnings because I know they'll do no good. Protect and force discussion please. Onorem (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined It looks like warnings have been given, so proceeding to WP:AN3 might be the best idea if reverting continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for nothing. 'Special' editors don't worry about AN3. --Onorem (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like, feel free to ask for a second opinion here from another admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds productive. I'll do that. /rolleyes. --Onorem (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now it is   Fully protected for three days by User:Nikkimaria. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and unsourced additions. STATic message me! 00:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Some IPs keep changing "Japanese" to "American" or "anime" to "pornography". Not sure if a range-block will be effective in this case. Probably a good idea to lock it for a week or so, or at the very least pending changes-protect it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Asking for five days or so semi-protection on this article. Every Friday the Thirteenth (starting just before and continuing a day or so), this article is the the target of relentless vandalism; see, for example Friday, Jan 13, 2012; Friday, April 13, 2012 Friday, July 13, 2012. Usually, it ends up getting semi-protected after the wave of attacks begins (see the log and note how many semiprotects are on or about the thirteenth; those are Fridays the thirteenth), but in the meantime, good-faith editors step on each other's undo operations, reversions, and legitimate edits. Friday the thirteenth is two days from now; it would be great if we could semi-protect it for the interim to avoid this. Five days or so should do it. TJRC (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 19:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. KrakatoaKatie 20:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of people with the longest marriages (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent reversion, by multiple IPs, of archiving which removes a large amount of unnecessary/redundant threads. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of four days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Content dispute.. please protect until resolved. JMHamo (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of 48 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent removal of talk page material without explanation or justification by IP despite warnings that this is against policy. IP makes other non-vandalistic edit so protection seems more appropriate than blocking. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. Did you mean to report a different page? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, it is the talk page that needs protection. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I gave it a week's protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12 September 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP hopping vandal. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 20:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Monty845 21:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Multiple IP users violating WP:BLP by changing sourced birth year without ref. STATic message me! 20:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 Weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Monty845 20:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection - please restore semi-protection. The disruption continued as soon as the protection expired today. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High traffic article with lots of vandalism. Jamesx12345 18:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent semi-protection: Steady stream of anonymous IP vandalism over extended period of time. Uyvsdi (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Monty845 17:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – See talk. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There's been no vandalism this month, and as far as I can see nothing obvious since about July. There's been no edits to the talk page since March, so not sure what you meant by 'see talk'. GedUK  12:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated deletions of cited material by anonymous editor who does not participate in repeated requests to "See Talk". Anonymous editor only editing this and related articles 2GO and 2GO Group.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined, It's consistently the same IP address. Better to warn them, then if necessary block them, than protect the page. GedUK  11:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll see if he deletes the material again. If he does, I'll warn him (Hmm, how do you warn an IP address?) and then move to block if necessary. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Please offer similar protection to that given to Yugvijay Tiwari earlier today. Repeatedly recreated by what appears to be a schoolkid of that name. Fiddle Faddle 15:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Creation protected Woody (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – 1 month. -- L o g X 14:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The page was protected on August 20th from one week afterwards. But, now again the vandals started. Make the protection to indefinite period. Thanks. -- L o g X 13:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: We almost never indef protect any article. Can another sysop look at this case? Bearian (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 13:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: We almost never indef protect any article. Ironically, for this article. :-) Bearian (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 13:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extend PC or removal of it. according to the logs, the last semi-protections of Mike included PC, but it lasts the same time as the SP, so, it should be extended (which is not a bad idea considering the history) or removed. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked User:Orangemike to consider modifying his protection? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined I've asked Mike to have a look at it again, I think it's a mouse-slip, but not sure which way he wanted it. GedUK  11:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Subject has just died, however there are no reliable sources as yet. Suggest 24hr or 48hr semi protection. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. A day's usually long enough for sourcs one way or the other. GedUK  11:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Non notable person, probably a schoolkid, repeatedly recreating artcile about self. Fiddle Faddle 11:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Creation protected. For a year. GedUK  11:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring continues after sock blocked. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP-hopper repeatedly creating new accounts and adding negative information without any sources. Kindly semi-protect the page, the user has been warned enough times by several registered wikipedia users.

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP-hopper repeatedly removing properly sourced content and adding promotional content, originally with a fake edit summary in an attempt to evade scrutiny. The article has been subject to regular vandalism/promotion for a long time, but the vandalism/content removal/promotion has escalated over the past few days, and the person or persons behind it are now IP-hopping. Thomas.W talk to me 07:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: One editor using many IPs for edit warring. Obvious sock puppetry problem here as well with one IP hopping person editing many articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Catalan nationality dispute. Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: The edit-warring continued as soon as the previous protection expired. Longer this time? --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. KrakatoaKatie 18:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Creation protected for a period of 3 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dewritech (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've requested speedy deletion because the person doesn't make any claim of notability. The one source isn't enough to show the person's notability, and I can't find any significant coverage on him. Also note that this person has had articles on him delete twice before - the title should be protected from creation should it be deleted. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done marking this as not done for the archive bot, as there isn't a template for the article being deleted as a result of the request. Monty845 00:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. prevention of edting warring KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 14:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History log shows near constant violation of WP:3RR by User:2.102.187.12, user has been warned of this possibility of edit warring ([11]) - KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 16:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. KrakatoaKatie 18:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Almost WP:LAME edit-warring due to an incredibly long and almost pointless discussion on the talk page. AussieLegend (✉) 01:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Wow, what a mess. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess it's safe to say it can be unprotected. 76.69.127.122 (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually no given how high profile it is, right now with a new line announced and very much in the public eye? Impossible, an admin would have had to lost their mind. tutterMouse (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined The protection log for the page highlights why it wont be unprotected any time soon. Woody (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 21:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 21:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous addition of unsourced information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated addition unsourced death notice. Please semi-protect for a couple of days. --bender235 (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- L o g X 20:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – 3 months protection needed. -- L o g X 20:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let's start at 1 month and see if it persists after that. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Publication of an article with an inflammatory headline in the Independent has led to IPs posting conspiracy theories as though they were fact. A careful read of the Independent article all the way to the bottom shows that the conspiracy theories have no basis in fact. Requesting a week or two protection of this Good Article. Thanks, . Diannaa (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism - The article is about the Youth President, United Nations Association United Kingdom. An unregistered user, GarySpeedy that was created on 11 September 2013, 08:44, in using unreliable sources to add information to the page. Furthermore, the tone of the edited content does not represent a neutral point of view. Unidentified IP addresses are also constantly making changes using the only unreliable source present. Extraordinary claims that do not even reflect in the hoax article are being made without any evidence. Such unsourced, biased information and constant vandalism can be avoided if the page is temporarily semi-protected.

  Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism - There is currently two version of this band. An unregistered user keeps deleting all recent material regarding the continued version of the band and replacing with the new incarnation of the band, rather than using both. I have undone this twice so far and it's a pain in the arse to keep having to revert it bit by bit to be neutral to both parties.Yellowxander (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, the same guy has done it once again for the 3rd time now. Rollingdell, an unregistered user.Yellowxander (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined Consider the Edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. High level of vandalism. They kept on destroying the living person biography. Again and again i had to revert it back. Sometimes it takes me a lot of time as well as to re-enter data that was already existed. Archana Ramdonee 13:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

13 September 2013

Long-term Semi-protection: Left unprotected, the article has always been a magnet for persistent vandalism. JNW (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term Semi-protection: Persistent attempts by person operating from different IPs to restore material deemed a BLP violation, see article talk page for links to administrative history. Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations – A 1-month semi just expired, and the problem resumed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: David Horvitz and "his friends" (or whoever it is) is trying to "delete" the article... Christian75 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Instead of full protection, I'd recommend WP:AN3 if the deletions continue. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not one user, but a "David Horvitz"-stunt to delete his own article - one sentence at a time; quote from [12]: "Currently, Horvitz is deleting his own Wikipedia profile one sentence at a time, tweeting the deleted sentences as they are removed. He’s also looking for a collector to purchase his student debt, and working on a piece that will debut at the Statements section of Art Basel in June." - see - the article has been vandalised for months. Christian75 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but long-term full protection is an unusually harsh way of dealing with regular vandalism. I'm open to other ideas though. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: now at Afd. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Repeated BLP violation by IP editors. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nadine_Dorries_and_accusations_of_nepotism. . GabrielF (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Onorem (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semi-protection - a Featured Article that is being essentially vandalized by a user who keeps on making incorrect changes based on factually inaccurate sources. I've explained this to them already; they've still persisted on making the invalid changes. They're also at 3RR (the IP involved is clearly them) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. കാർത്തുമ്പി (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Persistent vandalism – Semiprotection has not curbed the vandalism; there is persistent removal of copyvio template by autoconfirmed users. Psychonaut (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Level two protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Content dispute/edit warring. High level of IP attacks. Biased and inconsistent undue-weight info repeatedly pushed into the leading section. No willingness for discussion. Insulting-like comments by edit summary. Jingiby (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: The article has been a long-term magnet for ongoing vandalism from multiple IP addresses. Current history has been 6 instances over 6+ days. The article has had indefinite protection before, and needs it restored again. Thank you, PKT(alk) 16:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Full protection would be totally inappropriate here. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: BLP policy violations – high profile individual, subject to longstanding BLP violations in original article, being repeated in new spin-off article. . Gaijin42 (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. The Banner talk 08:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Although there are disagreements about the page's contents, the editing that has taken place does not constitute edit warring, and is nowhere near so disruptive as to justify the disruption that full protection would cause. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism of page Scottdoesntknow (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined I have checked every edit since July except edits by the person who filed this request, and only one of them could conceivably be regarded as vandalism. "Vandalism" does not mean "editing which I personally disagree with." JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Also Yugvijay tiwari. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected.. GedUK  11:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring by IPs I came to the page to give a third opinion and made an edit in line with what seems to be a clear majority of registered editors only to have it quickly reverted by an IP. One IP has already been blocked but IPs continue to edit war against consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't think the consensus is very clear one way or the other. GedUK  11:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Dynamic IP edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There's more than IPs involved in this now. GedUK  11:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Most likely its the same editor removing the iinformation, but from different IP addresses. – Muboshgu (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The edit history of this article is a disaster. — Richard BB 09:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thenazgullord . Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of a month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Both a registered user (Albright Netowrks) and two IP editors (166.147.88.22 and 166.147.88.23) are engaged in an edit war and ownership behaviour. It's possible that the two IPs could be sockpuppets of the registered user. Drm310 (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: An apparent IP-hopper keeps vandalizing the article by removing information related to the Battle of Maaloula. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Keeps POV-pushing opinion by adding BLP content that is dated (hardly notable) and is also copying word for word from the single source. Bidgee (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary PC. Persistent sockpuppetry User:Waldemar15 ([13], [14], [15], [16]) and persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Persistent introduction of unref and unexplained changes contrary to WP:BLP from variable IP addresses. Dl2000 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple pages

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from IP hopper. See this also. Freshh (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected the first three but declined Amblin Entertainment as insufficient recent activity to merit protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: The constant unsourced WP:GWAR returns after the end of the last protection period. STATic message me! 20:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent WP:GWAR and unsourced additions by IP editors after end of recent protection. STATic message me! 20:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An upcoming major festival in Kerala, India. Protech the page for 2 weeks. Thanks. -- L o g X 16:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continued disruption from what appears to be an IP-hopping POV pusher. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 20:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A POV-pusher keen on using racist personal attacks to intimidate other users. According to her or him, Slavs and Swedes should not edit this Wikipedia. She or he deserves a big, fat block, if that's technically possible. Surtsicna (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Intractable edit war/content dispute that needs an RFC to resolve. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. Woody (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism over roughly the last two months. Microphonicstalk 17:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Woody (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14 September 2013

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator EdJohnston. Woody (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of IP vandalism that needs reverting because he made his Premier League debut today. JMHamo (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP's and new editors vandalizing. NeilN talk to me 17:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Protected by Elockid for 10 days. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Already protected by administrator Elockid. Woody (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP users keep messing with the preciously researched box office figures, sometimes their edits are not even noticed. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long term Semi-protection: The page has been previously been protected many, many, many times. After the end of the last protection period, pending changes was attempted to see if some positive edits would come. Since then every single IP edit has been reverted, the majority have been vandalism and attempted promotion of non-notable artists. STATic message me! 19:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since this has been going on for several years, I am by no means sure that indefinite semi-protection wouldn't be better, but this should help. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism to a WP:BLP returns immediately after end of last protection period, which was less than ten days ago. STATic message me! 16:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Sudden burst of vandalism . Jamesx12345 16:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism from multiple IP addresses. DoorsAjar (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Apparently his skills in a recent match have inflamed a lot of people. Almost 30 vandal edits in the last few hours. Yintan  11:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated and persistent attempts to add unreferenced, unencyclopedic and misformatted (and template-breaking) material by (probably) good faith IPs who are ignoring advice not to do so without seeking further advice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rockefeller family (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent sockpuppetry. Refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waldemar15. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Previously semi-protected for a month due to similar edits. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous addition of fictitious content. Same IP hopper from Brazil who has had several IP and accounts blocked for adding their buffoonery. This has been going on for several months now, and the user vandalizes any Bad Girls Club season article that isn't protected. – Recollected • 02:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, ongoing due to a popular meme. Anon423 (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Edit warring, now persistent vandalism. JNW (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant additions of unsourced content by IPs. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – 1 week. --    L o g  X   21:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. for one week by User:Ponyo. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Block evasion. Abusing multiple accounts Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vgleer. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Mark for all the protections. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Block evasion. Abusing multiple accounts Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vgleer. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Block evasion. Abusing multiple accounts Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vgleer. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

15 September 2013

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Inbound sock IP attacks from Brazil. Position warring. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Mark. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection IP edit warring rather discussing on talk page. Edgepedia (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined This is an edit warring issue, if the IP breaks 3RR then try the edit warring noticeboard. Woody (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season

Unprotection: Page will be outdated in a few hours following the match today, compromising the quality of Wikipedia. Plus, lame edit war brewing to a stop at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Assists. Bobby (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: The page was protected to stop edit warring and to allow consensus to develop. I'm not seeing consensus yet on the talkpage or at FOOTY. Woody (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least convert to semi-protection. Indefinite full protection is excessive for a small-scale edit war. Plus you don't want a page with 100,000 monthly views to be outdated. Bobby (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection would be biased to one side in an edit war. The point is to discuss it and come to a consensus and then it can be unprotected. If you have non-contentious edits in the meantime you can use {{editprotected}}. The page views should be an encouragement to come to a consensus. The pages are almost always protected on the "wrong version." Woody (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined for now. Woody (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This feels a misuse of full protection. Regarding the bias for semi-protection, full-protection is also biased to one side when the initiator of the edit war, (User:GiantSnowman), is an admin and has the page protected to "his version." I used {{editprotected}} to make an edit request, but was ignored and GiantSnowman used the edit request instead to make a WP:POINT regarding the protection, again claiming nonexistent consensus over the lame war at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Assists. In fact, his edits there are personal attacks or insisting over and over that consensus has been reached favoring his side, instead of actually replying to points to being made. In the future I would suggest full-protection to not be liberally applied to a non-stable page as soon as a reason validates it to because the harm protection creates far exceeds the benefits of protection. In other words, the weight of the edit war is overwhelmingly less than the weight of maintaining the accuracy of an article. Bobby (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Starting 11 again and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Assists - to me there is consensus, but then again I am biased as I have participated heavily in both discussions. Please also retract your comment that I initiated the edit war, we both know that's not true, and such accusations are not helping the situation. GiantSnowman 17:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Edit warring by different accounts and IPs. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP editor repeatedly pushing promotional text into article. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Appears to be sockpuppet work of blocked User:Abbot gordon Rushton2010 (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. User blocked as well, Woody (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – same vandalism as before, immediately after release of protection . -- Aunva6talk - contribs 05:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indef PC Persitent BLP violations. Looking at the history, his birthday date has been changed multiple times through many months, despite his FB page and other references. The reverts of these inaccuracies are performed by IPs [17][18]. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: So I can move the recently created Gudda Gudda (rapper) to Gudda Gudda to avoid the unnecessary dab. STATic message me! 06:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Woody (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Recent high level of IP vandalism and dubious unsourced additions. STATic message me! 02:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Steven Walling • talk 02:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP constantly adding unsourced content.  Dravidian  Hero  02:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Steven Walling • talk 02:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Very high level of IP vandalism. STATic message me! 15:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There are a lot of good edits by non-autoconfirmed users that would be prevented by protecting the page. Woody (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried to ask for protection too, and it stated it was already listed. There are not a lot of good edits by anon ips, there are a lot of incorrect edits being made, with a plot that looks like a script a 10 year old would write. It definitely needs to be protected for a bit. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Let me also add that not one single edit made by the anon ips have cited a reliable source for their edits. If I'm not mistaken, isn't citing a reference a requirement? Dave Dial (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: As has happened with previous seasons (List of songs in Glee (season 4), List of songs in Glee (season 3) and List of songs in Glee (season 2)), IPs are have been regularly adding unsourced and sometimes inaccurate (contrary to available reliable sources) information about episodes and performers ever since the article was created last weekend. It would be helpful to have a block again this season; if possible, until the end of the fall, but if not, then until the first three episodes have aired (October 10). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Apollo 17 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. RadioFan (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandalism of talk pages. Similar issues with other Apollo mission pages (5-17), please consider them for temporary protections as well.--RadioFan (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I semi'd 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 as well. He hadn't hit the others since my last protection expired so I left them alone for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. Persistent level of IP vandalism, users with unregistered IP addresses are constantly removing referenced data. Haleth (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 02:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Slight weirdness here. You need to look at the recently deleted article to get to grips with it, but it is, broadly, a gentleman purporting to be the article subject using the article to complain that the article was deleted previously. Fiddle Faddle 21:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only two creations, both by editors acting apparently in good faith, but lacking knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Explanations have now been given, and there is no reason to protect unless further unacceptable creations take place. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lots of vandalism and addition of POV, unsourced content by anons. Adabow (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There are a lot of good edits by non-autoconfirmed users that would be prevented by protecting the page. Woody (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. EmbarKC96 (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. "High level of IP vandalism"??? There have been only two IP edits since March! JamesBWatson (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've also cleaned up a lot of the copyright violations and promotional cruft that you added Embark, please don't re-add it. Woody (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of dubious unsourced additions. STATic message me! 16:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There are a lot of good edits by non-autoconfirmed users that would be prevented by protecting the page. Woody (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Disruptuve edits by ips. Benison talk with me 14:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Woody (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: BLP policy violations – The past 6 edits by IPs and non-autoconfirmed editors have all been BLP's and vandalism. I think that if they actually want to help Wikipedia, they should put in an edit request. buffbills7701 13:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Pending changes seems to be doing its job at the moment. Woody (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – New film with adult content has just released with good collections. As is expected its attracting a lot of unwanted attention. . Sohambanerjee1998 12:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined The vast majority of non-autoconfirmed edits (in excess of 90%) seem to be constructive so I don't want to protect it and prevent those edits. Woody (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The users will keep getting blocked. You might want to consider asking for an edit filter given the variety of articles this vandal seems to be targeting. Woody (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, users with unregistered IP addresses are keep adding untrue and non referenced data and making changes to tables that are not as per WP:Discography Szaboci (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There aren't any recent edits that can be classed as vandalism, misguided perhaps or not conforming to an obscure guideline, but not vandalism. You need to explain to the IPs why the edits aren't correct not threatening to edit war in an edit summary. Woody (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism and dubious unsourced additions to an article covered under WP:BLP. STATic message me! 20:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Woody (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PC. Unneeded now. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Woody (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

16 September 2013

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs constantly adding unsourced information based on their own personal knowledge of a related television show. —Ryulong (琉竜) 20:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated addition of unsourced information regarding the track listing. Please semi-protect for an extended period of time. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 19:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – So many re-creations. Time for a pause. Suggest 3 weeks?. Fiddle Faddle 18:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Creation protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Braking news - already seeing poor sourcing (Twitter etc), and without protection this is likely to get out of hand. The Washington Navy Yard article will also need semi-protection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The semi-protection can be revisited tomorrow if there are still problems, but it seems like the issue is just that this is breaking news (and I should add that many of the anonymous editors have been productive). I didn't protect the Washington Navy Yard article; it doesn't seem to be hit with the same problems, as there's just a couple sentences about this incident. -- tariqabjotu 19:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism from possible IP hopper over the last 2 days. Haploidavey (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Disruptive behavior by both IPs and newly-registered users. Երևանցի talk 17:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Contentious point of county name, see WP:DERRY, user using multiple IPs to edit war against guideline 4 times in recent days. Purely disruptive. Murry1975 (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It's still quite low level and infrequent. GedUK  13:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent block evasion by a POV-pusher. . Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 16:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of disruptive edits, vandalism and dubious unsourced additions by IP editors. At the very least the page needs pending changes really bad. STATic message me! 16:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism.having added a fact reported in the press people keep removing it the fact is factually accurate and i cited sources 212.183.128.53 (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent IP vandalism. I have edited the page as per the directions of peer review. But some anonymous IP with commercial interests, keep reverting the page back. I have requested moderator review of the changes. Thanks. --ThinkDone (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - contrary to the above claim, I can see no evidence of vandalism. To the contrary, the above user has added promotional puffery to the article in question, based in part on a gross misrepresentation of a source. I also have grounds to suspect sockpuppetry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent IP vandalism. Jamesx12345 13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Request temp semi protection until mid October, as this player is the subject of rumours that he will leave his club, but no trade can be done until October. The last hour of unreferenced speculation is likely to continue for weeks. The-Pope (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Thanks Mr Bot. GedUK  13:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Excessive vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – repeated IP vandalism.  Dravidian  Hero  11:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. The article being one of the most popular articles on Wikipedia is constantly vandalized by IPs throughout every month. I request an indefinite semi-protection. So, that a Featured article remains protected without vandalism. Thanks.—Prashant 08:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Regular destructive editing by a variety of IP editors over the last 7 days, including 3RR gaming. No constructive edits. 2 on 11th, 4 on the 12th, and again today. . Lexein (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Article is for an upcoming season of a TV show, and has been receiving persistent vandalism from various IPs. AD (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated addition of misinformation from range-hopping IP: [19] [20] IPs in the 108.25 range have added misinformation and extraneous formatting before. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism after being temporarily semi-protected. 76.69.134.20 (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. NW (Talk) 03:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection: There had been persistent vandalism, disruptive editing on those pages from users with various IP addresses, same IP addresses on both those pages. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism that led to last page protection is continuing. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. DMacks (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – On-going IP vandalism at Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film) seems to be spilling over here. SummerPhD (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Slow edit war over use of references and associated statistics. Elizium23 (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined I don't think the edit warring is severe enough to justify full protecting a high profile page like this. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – On-going vandalism by dynamic IPs. . SummerPhD (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP keeps introducing and re-introducing links to disambiguation pages. I guess because he/she thinks that red links are wrong. I am unsuccessful in reaching the editor to explain the case. . The Banner talk 22:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined I think deletion is probably the best option here. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page has been protected long enough. --75.15.218.220 (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Random spur of Weird Al" Yankovic copycat vandalism. STATic message me! 23:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Request in own userspace. This page is used to make the creation of new categories easier. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP traffic is increasing with some disruption. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Unexplained removal/unsourced addition of content. Tried to discuss at article's talk page, but there were no responses. Jetstreamer Talk 21:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content. Jetstreamer Talk 20:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Protectionn or reblock. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection. The book was the protected page, now that it has been moved, let's see how this goes. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Unprotected Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: There is no justification for this template being fully-protected. It is never transcluded on more than 5 pages at a time and is constantly reviewed by helpers that could quickly fix any vandalism to the template should it occur, which there is little evidence of this being a major concern. The only vandalism on the first page of the history (back to 17:06, June 2, 2010‎) was fixed within 16 minutes. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the protecting admin, User:Ks0stm, if he's willing to unprotect? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be protected in some form (either semi or full) due to its high level of visibility with new/inexperienced users, who are less than likely to be enchanted when the template they were trying to use for requesting help has been vandalized. I'm willing to defer to the judgement of other administrators, however. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now   Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and semi-protection was what I had hoped for. I didn't realize I hadn't specified that. Thanks again and happy wikiing! Technical 13 (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

17 September 2013

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – no need for ip and new editors to ever edit this. LGA talkedits 20:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. for three days by User:Anna Frodesiak. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Page has been recreated & deleted twice, But not entirely sure whether this should be salted as a possible notable person going by "Jim Hebert* may arise, Anyway Thanks. Davey 19:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Page has been recreated & deleted twice, Thanks.Davey 19:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP hopping editor with active sockpuppet investigation continues to make questionable, unsourced date changes to a variety of articles, including this one. IP editor has been creating disruptions since March 2013. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs adding data without any reference. Needed indefinite protection. --    L o g  X   18:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism, for as long as I can remember. JNW (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Tonnes and tonnes of vandalism and BLP violations. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection: Long-term vandalism magnet, highly visible article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Looks like someone tried to protect the article earlier today due to shifting IP vandalism, but it expired immediately?. McGeddon (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – 2 months. --    L o g  X   16:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There's been a recent slew of vandalism on this page and a similar page (methamphetamine) has indefinite semi-protection; consequently, I think this page could benefit from the same status as well. Seppi333 (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent POV pushing by an IP-hopping (and range-hopping) editor. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection: Persistent POV pushing by an IP-hopping (and range-hopping) editor. The editing history shows other instances of POV-pushing on and off for quite a while now (at least June) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Courtesy request from me, as this user is having at least one dynamic IP, if not several, attempt to edit-war vandalism warnings onto their talk page. Related to the two above disputes. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Uncletomwood (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Temporary, yes, but for quite a long while, please. This article needs to be salted against unduly regular recreation attempts. The gentleman may become notable one day, just not today. Fiddle Faddle 11:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Creation protected for a period of 2 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It's quite low level, but does occur in lumps. I think pending changes is probably a better solution here. GedUK  11:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Unregistered/IP users have repeatedly inserted COI content and/or removed criticism. I have removed most of the COI content just now, but semi-protection might help prevent the problem from recurring. Thank you. Unforgettableid (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research, I now see that some student newspapers are often reliable. Anyway, it remains true that unregistered/IP users have repeatedly inserted COI content and/or removed criticism. And so, dear administrators, please do semi-protect the article. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There do appear to be several accounts adding trivial or non-neutral content, some of which constitutes apparent copyright violation of Lambda's website. JNW (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined Since it's only one IP, it makes more sense to seek sanctions against it than protect the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edits continue to change between the incorrect iPhone 5s/5c and the correct iPhone 5S/5C. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Most recent edits seem to be from autoconfirmed users so I doubt semi protection would help much. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – user(s) keep on vandalizing page even though they are warned constantly . Barry Shukla 01:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated vandalism from various IPs logged in from the same location (the user is at a school doing the edits on different computers) in the past couple weeks. The unregistered user just keeps blanking sections of the article, mostly the last section that is the most up to date. I'm assuming it is someone involved with the group that doesn't like that there is negative press showchoirnerd User talk:showchoirnerd 22:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved editor — I looked at the "Reinvention" section that keeps being blanked, and there are several issues: the middle third of the section is unsourced and screams of unverified original research. The last third of the section is a lot of recentism (i.e. following the last year from competition to competition when each individual performance is unlikely to be of long-term value) and use primary sources rather than tertiary sources. While none of these issues permit blanking of the section, I would suggest finding more sources and tidying up the section with long-term value in mind.    DKqwerty    23:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined While the IP is going about things disruptively, it looks like there may be legitimate issues with the content being removed. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Content dispute/edit warring. IP users continually adding boldface to arbitrary sections for stylistic reasons, violating MOS:BOLD (and acknowledging their own violations). After I left multiple user talk page messages, edits violating MOS continue. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Content dispute/edit warring. IP users continually adding boldface to arbitrary sections for stylistic reasons, violating MOS:BOLD (and acknowledging their own violations). After I left multiple user talk page messages, edits violating MOS continue. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit war between 2 users over hours. Cky2250 (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. for one month by User:Kudpung. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated inclusion of Harry Styles as a band member from disparate accounts. This one is making the rounds on Twitter at the moment. Gobōnobō + c 02:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Charlie Anders (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent BLP violations. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of dubious unsourced content additions. STATic message me! 22:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and dubious unsourced additions. STATic message me! 22:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and adding of joke info from various IPs. Article was previously protected for two months, vandals returned once protection ended. AD (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – EW over using the modifier "amateur" has picked up again. Article was on a short PP last week. The discussion (prolonged) over calling Ayn Rand an amateur philosopher continues on her article talk page. Suggest leaving this PP as indefinite until Ayn Rand is settled. – S. Rich (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated vandalism from IPs in the past day, followed by an edit war today. ZappaOMati 22:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Been recreated 5 times to promote selfs, deleted 4/5 times,. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done by NawlinWiki —rybec 20:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Materialscientist (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Martinvl keeps attempting to spam this widely used template with links to articles he's trying to promote. Each time I've tried to stop him, he's accused me of warring, and put it all back again! EzEdit (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Consider the Edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Series of new accounts being used to perform identical content deletion vandalism... been going on all day. QuiteUnusual (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. for three days by User:Diannaa. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent POVpush/edit warring by ip editor. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. for 72 hours for edit warring. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Multiple back and forth edits for the whole day . Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined It's only one IP causing problems, so I suggest you warn it and then seek a block if it continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18 September 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by two IP's, could continue if this is a sockpuppet case. {C  A S U K I T E  T} 18:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – It's that time of the year when people change the name of the Yugoslavia teams to Serbia, add (or subtract) Yugoslavia's records to/from Serbia, and do a bunch of stuff that screws up the article. FIBA has already attributed all of the old Yugoslavia stats to Serbia, but it's wrong to say a "Serbia" team competed prior to Montenegro seceding from SCG.

So I'd suggest on a full protection for a month until it simmers down. –HTD 17:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It doesn't look like there's enough disruption from autoconfirmed accounts to justify full protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Four different IPs have been changing the genre in the last ten days.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Very high level of IP vandalism to a recent event. STATic message me! 16:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – WP:BLP issues. --    L o g  X   16:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. --    L o g  X   16:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Violations of the WP:BLP policy, unsourced gossip. Elizium23 (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection all recent editing history has consisted of IP tests/vandalism and related reverts. Peter James (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. Disruptive editing by one IP. Edit warring and persistent vandalism. Refusal of any dialogue on the talk-page. Cynical comments in Serbo-Croatian written with capital letters on the talk-page. I think that even a block is necessary. Jingiby (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. for 2 weeks and   Pending-changes protected for 1 month. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Article repeatedly recreated. The two AfDs which have taken place both seem to indicate that the company is non-notable. Unforgettableid (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Disruptive editing by IP and registered users. Request one week semi-protect block. Msw1002 (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. for three days by User:Kudpung. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism. Google doodle bringing more. Widefox; talk 23:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It looks like we're through the worst of it. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Constant removal of sourced information by IP. Երևանցի talk 22:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined I warned the IP that was edit warring, if he keeps it up let me know and I'll block. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – An editor disregards consensus and continues to change the article. —Chris!c/t 21:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined I warned the user who was edit warring, if he keeps it up let me know and I'll block. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent violations of the BLP policy. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and edit warring. Into the Rift (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long-term BLP vandalism. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: This redirect is the target of various IP editors who want to have an article under this name, even though Wikipedia already has an article covering the same topic under a different name. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Legislative action committee for the AFC which I reviewed and declined. I think this redirect should be protected in some manner so that the IP editors will add information to the proper article rather than create a POV fork. . Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Thanks, Mark! Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Was previously protected for a week in January and for a month February to March. In April a change was made to the pending-changes settings, I'm not sure if that is working correctly. The vandalism from anons continues. Serious edit warring has been a feature of this exchange in the past. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined I'm hesitant to protect here, since there has only been two problematic IP changes in the past two and a half months. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated attempts to add contentious material from disgruntled players despite a rough consensus that the sources (blogs and an op-ed) are extremely poor. There is a good deal of meetpuppetery going on as a result of this forum thread. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Vandalism and constant dubious unsourced additions following recent end of protection period. STATic message me! 22:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: There has been a slow burn edit war going on for more than a month. Soffredo is attempting to change the template without discussion, and has been reverted at least 10 times by multiple editors. Full protection will force the issue to be discussed on the talk page. TDL (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Non notable dating site repeatedly created over a long time as an advert and linkspam. Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism with unreferenced additions and biased content being added by one or two new users. 115.248.130.148 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

19 September 2013

Anonymous editor with at least 2 IPs persistently removing a valid image from the infobox. . AussieLegend (✉) 19:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – As of late, an IP hopper keeps changing the name of the subject without explaining why or providing a source, despite repeated warnings. As explained on the talk page, the name change conflicts with existing sources, as well as WP:NAMECAPS. Recommending semi-protection as opposed to blocks, editor has used at least four different IPs. — MusikAnimal talk 19:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Anonymous editor with at least 2 IPs editing disruptively. AussieLegend (✉) 19:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warrior has decided to log out. Request page protection to stop him doing this. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 18:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. --    L o g  X   17:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: School is in session. Changes by IP editors since late August (nine in number) have consisted entirely of vandalism and erroneous changes. —rybec 17:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – repeated removal of sourced content. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – repeated removal of sourced content. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection Unsourced addition We've had anonymous IPs inserting unsourced information, both addresses seem to be from the UK (per IP locator).--Harout72 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Protection recently finished; apparently there is a trend on Tumblr so the article is continually being changed to reflect this. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nev1 (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – recreated at intervals since 4 August 2013. Fiddle Faddle 14:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done by User:NawlinWiki Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. --    L o g  X   14:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IPs/IP-hoppers repeatedly/persistently adding fringe, and possibly self-invented, theories about the origin of runes, accompanied by comments on user talk pages about the "barbarians" of Northern Europe not possibly having been able to invent an alphabet. Thomas.W talk to me 11:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined There is a lot of constructive IP/New editing going on in the recent history of the article. I'd say just keep on reverting vandalism, and if it gets worse, maybe PC. Monty845 00:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs adding unsourced and often fake information. Requesting protection at least until the end of the pageant. GrayFullbuster (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The rush should phase out after that. --Ekabhishektalk 13:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – IP editors adding that McCray is a "former lesbian", because she was once an avowed lesbian and is married to a man. While I understand this, its a BLP issue as the IPs were linking to former lesbian, a redirect to Ex-gay movement. She is not a part of that movement, and when asked, only says she eschews "labels". – Muboshgu (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous addition of unsourced content. – Recollected • 23:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Request in own userspace. Used to make speedy deletion of categories renamed through CFDS easier. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you Armbrust The Homunculus 12:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple IPs have been vandalizing the page in the past few days. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Monty845 00:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Very high level of IP vandalism to a WP:BLP. STATic message me! 21:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Gamaliel (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. --    L o g  X   20:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC or SP, persistent IP disruption. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism by shifting IP in range 168.102.14.* DVdm (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. Looks like there's a rangeblock in place now. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20 September 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from newly-minted sockpuppet accounts. Other pages affected too but this one is by far the editor's primary focus. Bonusballs (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Content dispute with several IPs inserting text which is still under discussion on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandals started again. . --    L o g  X   15:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Question: Can another sysop look into this? Bearian (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to enact long-term protection here. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent evasion. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. --    L o g  X   16:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page isn't protected yet. --    L o g  X   17:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it was protected in this edit. Is there a bug or something? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but I couldn't see the lock on the top right corner of the page. --    L o g  X   17:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's not added automatically unless you use Twinkle so admins will sometimes forget. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. It's ok now! Thanks for the help! --    L o g  X   17:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Whispering 15:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Can you please Temporary protect page from I.P. editors. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 13:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. DMacks (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Perennial favorite for school vandalism, presumably English Lit classes. JNW (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Recent flare-up of WP:ENGVAR changes by various IPs. DMacks (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. An editor is ignoring established policy that the first version of an article sets the spelling variant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.202.97 (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Armbrust FP watchlist account (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite full protection: Request in own userspace. A non-editing alternate account to maintain a separate watchlist for featured pictures. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I've protected the talk page, which is a redirect to the user page. Haven't protected that, let me know if you want it doing too. GedUK  11:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PERMANENT semi-protection: This is the third time I've requested this page be permanently locked from IP and new user edits. Every time, only a temporary block was placed. This article is extremely prone to unsourced list creep and vandalism. Given the nature of the article this is to be expected, and one minor glance at the article history shows nothing but edit warring and constant, unproductive edits all stemming from newly created accounts and IP addresses. Please give this a permanent semi-protection, so we can build the article in peace. Additionally, I have made numerous attempts to put in-article warnings and even mediate the situation on talk pages, but to no avail. This is really becoming a problem. The moment the page protection expired, it was edited with list creep. Thevampireashlee (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Protection is increased steadily and this is only the second protection. Pending changes might be an option, but I suspect that it wouldn't slow it down much. GedUK  11:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated vandalism by multiple ip's. {C  A S U K I T E  T} 02:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism. ///EuroCarGT 23:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An upcoming major festival in India. 3 months protection appreciated. --    L o g  X   21:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – The article keeps getting edited by IP addresses, who add unsourced speculation. This has been going on since September 15. . User:XXX8906(User talk:XXX8906) 20:45, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

temporary full protection: edit warring. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Please upgrade to full. Registered users are part of the dispute. –HTD 10:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Consider reporting the user(s) to WP:AN3 if disruption continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

21 September 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection: Long-term target for vandalism; recently, a particular user appears to have a bee in their bonnet about the usage of iOS 7's (the latest version) home screen in the infobox, often making inappropriate (and homophobic) remarks in the process. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked: Emilie LV (talk · contribs). I'm not sure about indef proection. Can another sysop look at this article? Bearian (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Movie has just been released. Protection for a few days.Sherenk1 (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Typos and Hinglish by IPs are not the same as vandalism. Bearian (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Hopping IP vandals. Nymf (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And pending-change protected for 6 months for good measure. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection: This article is periodically filled of POV/promo and copyvio content by several occasional contributors (users that make 5 or 6 edits in that page and contribs no more), IPs and by yesterday night also by CBrownATX and Mischamp. Yesterday CBrownATX added this content. After my (and ClueBot's) reverts and warnings it was an addition by the anon ip 70.239.13.126 (partly copyvio) and, time later, CbrownATX added back again that content, rollbacked again. Today Mischamp added this content. Please note that this edits not only update the bio (as said in the edit summary) but remove all internal links and "correct the corrections" of Sillyfolkboy (as section titles as "Audio interviews" and not "Audio Interviews") returning the article as on february, after the edits of GilbertsGazelles, rollbacked by Aunva6 as vandalism and POV. I suspect a case of sockpuppetry with promotional purposes about this foundation. The content added by this users simply overwrite other content (internal links included!), so it seems to be done in bad faith. The content is a copyvio of this website and other sites linked here and is POV. I suspect of sockpuppetry as reported here. A semi-pro is IMHO insufficient because the majority of this edits are done by autoconfirmed users. Thanks. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Only one autoconfirmed account is involved in the disruption. I recommend reporting him to a noticeboard if he continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll watch. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Back to being vandalised immediately after semi-protection expired. Nymf (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 00:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Disruptive editor evading block. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 00:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP-hopping editor repeatedly adding dubious unsourced plot claims to article. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 00:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistant removal of cleanup templates without addressing issues, persistent removal of AFD template. Suggested time: 30 days. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of one month , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 00:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes. --    L o g  X   18:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

22 September 2013

Temporary pending changes: Edit warring between IP editor and registered editor. —rybec 20:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring by autoconfirmed users. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – IP insists on inserting the names of the perpetrators despite the fact that there are (apparently) no RS's actually naming them because of a gag order. The only source is the victim, which is not acceptable. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: High level of vandalism by multiple new editors. Note: There is a referendum in Ireland next month on whether to abolish the upper house. Snappy (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection Multiple IPs (same editor) adding demographic "facts" to article, despite findings at WP:RSN that no reliable source reports these figures as accurate, only biased POV sources. Editor also insulting another editor in edit summaries. ("siktir"="Fuck" in Azerbaijani; "Anti/Turk Racist"; "eshak"="eşşək"="ass"). Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: High Risk of Vandalism. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bit pre-emptive, there's not been any vandalism and if it's so high risk you can always come back when it's occurring. tutterMouse (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: User request. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 17:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Unprotected Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 17:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short term vandalism. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism and dubious unsourced additions by IP editors. STATic message me! 16:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. I requested this yesterday; the only action taken was blocking one account. This ignores the fact that numerous IPs have been vandalizing the page on and off for months - and there have been a LOT of vandals this month. The page is one that gets a reasonably high amount of traffic, and is thus a clear target for vandals. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An IP user keeps making same changes even if some of IPs are blocked (He has dynamic IP but almost all starts with 86.46). QED237 (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He does this to about 10 different football player and always gets around the blocks, with new IPs. QED237 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I think I've gotten most of his targets. Let me know if I've missed any. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have not looked that much but I think you got most targets. QED237 (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection or something. High level of IP vandalism. Thanks, Littledogboy (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent violations of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V by IP editors. SMS Talk 09:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by the same user (IP 151.26.38.54) who insists on modifying the actual and real information (with solid references, due to the popularity of the model to whom this article refers), for false ones with reference to only one fake page of a social network, which impersonates this same model and was certainly created by themselves even for their own benefit. Celebsonwiki (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short info for situation: there are two twin cities (source provided in the article) from unrecognized Nagorno Karabakh Republic. In the short table we don't mention if the state is recognized, partially recognized or not recognized (f.e. look for the Taipei as a sister city in the articles Manila, Quezon City and Seoul).

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Highly used. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 06:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full-protection If not appropriate or warranted within our guidelines, I do apologize. IP accused of socking deciding to get profane against my evidence rather than making a reasoned argument against it. Address was blocked in the interim, but possible they might come back under a new number; if not allowed again I will accept that. Nate • (chatter) 03:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Rschen7754. (indefinite semi-protection) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined - Although this is a current event and sort of a high-profile page at the moment, everyone seems to be editing well and I don't see any vandalism at all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tthere quite clearly are a host of unsourced changes as happens wih such profileLihaas (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How many of the unsourced changes are by IPs or new accounts though? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, =thats in the history. Cant be bothered to look. Anyhoo..(Lihaas (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Downgrade to PC1 - It's been two years, might as well try this for a while. If it gets bad, I'm not opposed to restoring semi. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move protection One editor is insisting on moving to some other page he chooses without discussion and per naming conventions this doesn't need caveat as it is the first and only such incidentLihaas (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Note that it was at Westgate centre shootings when I protected, so the bot may mark this as not done. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move it to the singular?(Lihaas (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
I'm very hesitant to edit through protection here, having recently had a bad experience while doing so. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated Copyvio. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. (semi) for one year by User:Barek. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent removal of the afd template. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – created & deleted 3 times, cheers -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple IPs vandalizing page over the past two weeks. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:Nyttend just unprotected the article a couple days ago. I suggest asking him if he'll consider adding PC. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Pending-changes protected Sorry that this produced a bit of vandalism so fast; I didn't know but that it might be time to unprotect finally. Apparently it's one of those articles that will always be vandalised, even without Colberrorism. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Continued addition of text about and links to the Washington Navy Yard massacre, which is seen as out of scope by the majority of editors on the article, by IPs and a newly created SPA, with no consensus on the talk page. In fact without discussion on the talk page. All IPs geolocate to Springfield, Va (three of them leading to the Department of Homeland Security...), and the edits bear all signs of being made by a single individual (with the three DHS IPs being used for editing by a single individual in this dismissed ANI-case, confirming that there's a single individual behind those IPs). The article was protected for 24h yesterday, but as soon as the protection expired the disruption started again. Thomas.W talk to me 19:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hopefully this will slow down the feds some... Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – Editors are adding content (4 times in 48 hrs) that the subject is dead. So far no reliable sources are available to corroborate this and we need pending changes until it is resolved. — Keithbob • Talk • 18:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done by others. Pending changes were enabled for a short while; the article is now fully protected and awaiting reliable sources. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Very high level of WP:BLP vandalism. STATic message me! 17:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. — Richard BB 17:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dynamic IP(122.164.-.- range) edit war, has been asked to stop many times, with subject change reason and talk pages. Cky2250 (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

23 September 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 19:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Until the end of this term's rush season. Multiple IPs, possibly frat boys. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. George Ho (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. IP 64.113.183.170 blocked for especially shocking anti-semitic vandalism. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism has occurred every day since September 13. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 18:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. See protection log for past semi-and full-protection. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: I previously requested article protection and it was granted. However since the expiration, vandalism has continued. Fry1989 eh? 18:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. For the record, it has been semi-protected for one month at a time, for many months. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: A floating IP address starting with 69.95, who disagrees with the consensus result of a month-long RfC, now refuses to let the result of that RfC be footnoted.

He is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and this is chronic: Protection was asked for at 18:17, 9 September 2013, but it was felt that not enough anon-IP disruption was occurring. Since that time, it has occurred on Sept. 22 and Sept. 23, with no indication it will let up. No other editor in the talk-page discussion is advocating to remove a footnote in violation of WP:VERIFY. And with no discussion about this on the talk page since Sept. 12, the article has been stable after the RfC except for this one fanatic.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If this person wants to change consensus, he or she must become a member of the community, with its rights and duties. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism, in the true sense of the term. If someone goes over the history of the article one can find numerous IP's acting in bad-faith and numerous STiki, Huggle, TW reversals. Now what were the vandalisms - external linking to sites which for 15 mins of fame posted outwright vulgar images and videos which have no context with the article whatsover. The reason such links are added because the film falls in Adult category and therefore draws in negative crowd which can't be handled so easily. How many reversals can be made in a day? Hope the admin who is reviewing this request for page protection understands our plight Sohambanerjee1998 17:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A week. --    L o g  X   16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – An editor arrived about 24 hours ago and started adding what at least two editors (myself being one of them) believe are not rock genres. Editor has offered his opinion and entry in what does not appear to be a reliable source. Fully lock for one week while discussion continues to avoid the edit war that has started. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Declining for now. One editor who is not properly follwing the BRD cycle will end up being blocked. I've also just warned them for NPA on your talk page. I'll watchlist the article, but if they continue, they'll end up being blocked. I'd rather block one editor who's not editing collaboratively than protect the whole page. GedUK  11:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: The latest administrator who enabled semi-protection is inactive right now. Actually, I want to request either lowering protection level to "pending changes" or unprotection. Suddenly, edits have become less frequent recently, and no point on semi-protection indefinitely. George Ho (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected I dropped it down to pending changes as the article seems like a good candidate for it based on its average edit counts. Mike V • Talk 09:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – current event suffering from frequent vandalism. The-Pope (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by multiple IPs and new users. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – urgently needed for current event. The-Pope (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. for one day by User:Melburnian. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The IP user with different IPs is vandalising the page and removing all the sourced content in the name of fan-cruft. The temporary protection would help. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. SFK2 (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined, The worst offender has been blocked. The IP level of vandalism is low enough to cope without protection I think. GedUK  11:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent removal of sourced content. I tried to discuss at talk page, but nobody responded there. Jetstreamer Talk 10:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated addition of unsourced/dubious content by anon users over several months. — Reatlas (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – This is getting ridiculous... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: This article needs to be semi protected from these users: User talk:Xoxomede, User talk:Davidolukoga, and Alvan Mademan. If one looks at the edit history of this article, one would see that the edits done by these users have been vandalism. Only User talk:Davidolukoga is an auto confirmed user; he was blocked from editing for a month for disruptive edits. If you ask me, User talk:Davidolukoga created these alternative accounts to continue practicing vandalism on Wikipedia. versace1608 (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and disruptive edits since lifting of protection. JNW (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. I blocked the IP that was causing problems this week, feel free to re-report if disruption continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lesbiangirl123

Indefinite Creation Protection, Full Admin only: I request my userpage to be fully protected, creation protected, to prevent future vandalism. It was oversighted due to my posting, and I don't want it to be set back up. I appreciate your consideration. Also, if it was set up by the time I posted this, delete it. --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. George Ho (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. George Ho (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. George Ho (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Immediately after being unprotected, it's still being vandalized. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined There has only been one problematic IP since unprotection, and that one has been blocked by User:Materialscientist. Re-report if disruption continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dubious unsourced additions to a WP:BLP. STATic message me! 00:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Recent uptick in unexplained disruptive edits, particularly from varying 117.*.*.* ips. Dl2000 (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restore indefinite semi-protection: When this article was nominated for Good Article status, its indefinite semi-protection was removed, due to a belief that inexperienced editors in mass could improve the page. This has proven to be a mistake, as the only edits have been blatant vandalism. Therefore, the only reasonable action is to restore it to its previous settings. DarthBotto talk•cont 00:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent re-creation of an article that was redirected following AfD process, often with promotional and copyright violation content. JNW (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. George Ho (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Creation protected Mark Arsten (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Same juvenile vandalism going on for months. Dawnseeker2000 21:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to a second opinion here, but there doesn't seem to be much disruption from IPs and new accounts, as best I can tell. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Looks like a few disruptive IPs have found the article by now. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Ready to start user page by adding badges. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Unprotected Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24 September 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – same old IP. Attleboro (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – same old IP. Attleboro (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – We are getting almost no constructive edit from IPs here. here you can see latest 1000 edits. The article was PC protected for 6 months. That was helpful. Tito☸Dutta 16:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: long-term problems with removal of sourced content etc by IP editors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: A full list of mosques is periodically being re-posted by a collection of anonymous users in violation of the category page guidelines and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The page has already been protected once for this reason. SuperMarioMan 15:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Disruptive edits and vandalism by IP editors. Totorotroll (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporaty semi-protection: Constant vandalism and unsourced information by IP's. I have been reverting to no avail. Mpejkrm (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism from multiple IPs. RA0808 talkcontribs 14:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ... discospinster talk 15:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page has been AFD'd. Multiple IP's have been edit-warring and blanking. Auric talk 13:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at the AfD, so I recuse myself. Bearian (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Already protected by administrator Discospinster. (3 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: High level of IP vandalism. IPs having been editwarring since 22 Aug 2013. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It seems like the worst of it was last week. If it starts up again like this, please re-request protection. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. IP jumper resumed activity with this edit. Favonian (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Disruptive edits and vandalism by IP editors. STATic message me! 13:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Persistent vandalism/sockpuppetry at this page. IP users keep bouncing around, as do autoconfirmed socks, submitting garbage content (unsourced future dates, series that never aired on the network, date fakery, etc.) This is a persistent target for nonsense and I respectfully request a long-term preventative block for, at the very least, the IP hijinx. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't do indef protections, but more than 1 month was needed. Bearian (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: High level of IP vandalism. Certain IPs continuously remove information from the article. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since this is a content dispute that only involves IPs, semi-protection is sufficient to stop it. Use the talk page to discuss it, please. Regards SoWhy 10:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. George Ho (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Pending-changes protected by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 04:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: I contacted protecting administrator. However, he hasn't responded for more than 24 hours, as the user talk page said. Lately, the edits have become less frequent lately. Therefore, I request that this article be "pending changes" and unregistered and new editors be allowed to edit it. George Ho (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – IPs (supposedly from China) are back adding material that was agreed would not be added to the article, and removing categories they apparently don't like. . §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 19:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Consistent attempts by IPs to change the name of the "Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl" name, to just "Peach Bowl" because they want all the bowls to have sponsor names or not. However, this is a special case, which has been noted in hidden comments and on an FAQ on the talk page. Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Unsure if vandalism amount is high, but I see further disputes. George Ho (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – As so many times before, vandalistic edits & their reversion vastly outnumber constructive edits. Please protect this page for a meaningfully long time, if not permanently. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protect, creation protect. I'm probably never going to create an a user page, so no room for it. Vandalism, is my reason.--Lesbiangirl (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Creation protected Should you change your mind about having a userpage feel free to ask an admin to remove the protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Trust Is All You Need has been attempting to blank half this article for a week now, and refuses to engage in the discussion on the talk page. The content has been in the article for years. Full protection will force the user to engage in talk page discussion and other dispute resolution mechanisms, rather than continuing to try to force their controversial changes onto the article without consensus. TDL (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Creating a way for administrators to start the HasteurBot Task 1 ahead of it's normal start time. Hasteur (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. WadeSimMiser (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and dubious unsourced additions. STATic message me! 21:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent edit-warring. Grave concerns of instability. Article is under GA reassessment. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Creation protection after deletion: User:Kkrn532 has created this promotional article four times in one day. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done Can we send this to WP:AfD for discussion and a breather? Bearian (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the best plan - sent to AfD here. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dynamic IP repeatedly edit-warring to insert an inappropriate external link (e.g. [21], [22], [23]). MastCell Talk 22:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Semiprotected last week. I recommend indefinite protection. കാർത്തുമ്പി (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lot of IP doing unsourced edits and edits against discussion on article talkpage. QED237 (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 19:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. See protection log for past protection. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and dubious unsourced additions. STATic message me! 18:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like small stuff. Can we get a second opinion? Bearian (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I checked into sources. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

25 September 2013

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Pending Changes page protection expired today, however would like to renew it as persistent vandalism and BLP issues occur many times on this BLP article. ///EuroCarGT 21:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection Content dispute/editwarring. Despite recent improvement in the sourcing of this article, one editor keeps reverting to a previous version with unsuitable tabloid references. Sick and tired of explaining why their edit is unacceptable. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 13:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked., both of them. tutterMouse (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. George Ho (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Overrun by sock/meatpuppets (dynamic IP) of blocked editors. NeilN talk to me 19:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. for one week by User:Bbb23. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Disruptive editor evading block, and personal attacks in edit summaries. See WP:EVASION, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Traffic to this article has nearly doubled in the past week and the level of vandalism and general disruption from IP editors and newly registered editors has increased. It would probably be a good idea to semi-protect this article at least until the October 1, launch of the exchanges, and possibly a few day beyond that. - MrX 18:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Constant dubious unsourced additions immediatly upon end of last protection period. STATic message me! 18:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes persistent vandalism by IPs and users started again after expiration of semi protection. Rahat | ✉ 16:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Leo Frank (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protect. An IP has repeated a BLP violation after being warned (see [24]). The offending passage (see [25]) is "Contrary to either the overblown false imaginings, misrepresentations, or blatant fabrications of the so-called, "reliable sources" of [IP then names two living writers]. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Tried to contact the protecting admin, but turns out to be busy in real-life to lose time on Wikipedia. Three years passed; I must request "pending changes" on this article just in case. George Ho (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done It's been a while since the scandal broke, so this is probably fine. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: IP editors at this article are continually trying to sell their tourist curiosities as valid archaeology specimens. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Whispering 14:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Creation protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Semi-protected, as the editor who kept creating it was not autoconfirmed. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Fiddle Faddle 07:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism returns immediately following end of recent page protection. STATic message me! 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Target of banned TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Nate • (chatter) 01:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:187.109.228.1 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: This user keeps blanking everything on this page. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done The IP is allowed to remove everything except current block notices and declined appeals while the sanctions remain in place. You should not have restored the additional warnings if they removed them. That being said, it seems to have stopped now and the block expires tomorrow. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. SFK2 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: continuing vandalism by a person with something that looks like an Ethernet MAC address. noclador (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. See also: IPv6. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism continues to add unrelated content. Jdperkins (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That was some very strange vandalism... Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism and unsourced BLP issues. STATic message me! 19:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

26 September 2013

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism coming off of a previous protection. I'd question if this page benefits at all from IPs being allowed to edit it. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – this is a current high profile international news item referring to "white widow". A redirect from White widow (terrorist) was inserted here, where in reality this is an unconvicted terrorist suspect so a BLP violation. We need to prevent reinsertion. Widefox; talk 17:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The user who added the link is autoconfirmed, so semi-protection wouldn't have helped. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism since the lifting of previous protection. JNW (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Although not frequent, this has been occured for four months or so. George Ho (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: An IP hopping user is disruping this article by advocating for one of the candidates. TDL (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: This was semi-protected for a week, but the day the protection expired, IP users continued to genre war.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content. Jetstreamer Talk 13:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ok enough IP cruft started the moment the article was unprotected, adding false certifications, changing chart peaks, general mayhem. An extended semi-protection please. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 02:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC). —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 02:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Very high level of IP vandalism. STATic message me! 00:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi: Heavier persistent IP / non IP vandalism than usual lately. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, unsourced additions or general disruptive edits. STATic message me! 00:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Very high level of IP and new user vandalism/soapboxing in the last week or so. STATic message me! 00:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. There is an RfC on the dispute opened on 24 September, so I would suggest protection until its 30 days are up. Previously protected on 10 September for two weeks due to the same dispute, per request here. I can't do it myself as I am WP:INVOLVED. RL0919 (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – long term persistent vandalism with no useful contribs. There are breaks between the vandalism of sometimes days and weeks but there is a very consistent pattern. I don't believe PC will work because the vandalism kept going last time it was PC protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Materialscientist. (3 weeks) Armbrust The Homunculus 16:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dubious unsourced additions and vandalism from IP editors immediately following end of last protection period. STATic message me! 02:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This is nothing like the disruption that warranted protection last month. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A month. --    L o g  X   21:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 fortnight, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 16:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Prot. admin. currently inactive. Requesting "pending changes" if "unprotection" is not appropriate. George Ho (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Unprotected CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: The protection admin is currently blocked. So I'm requesting lower-level protection (or unprotection if that's too much to ask). George Ho (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Unprotected CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: This article is severely less edited. If "pending changes" is too much, how about "unprotection" instead? By the way, the protecting admin is inactive right now. George Ho (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Unprotected CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protection administrator is not active since 2010. Either unprotection or "pending changes" is fine for this article after four-year protection. The redirect "Bambi, A Life in the Woods" should be unprotected (yet still move-protected). George Ho (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Unprotected CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP users keep adding a member of One Direction as a band member/promoter/back-up dancer, etc. Mayast (talk) 06:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – see history. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 09:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full-protection: Continued high level of IP vandalism by User talk:122.107.32.165. Did not refrain from editing when asked to stop. MasterMind5991 (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection wouldn't be required as it's an IP, and as there is only one user causing a problem they should be reported at WP:AIV. I've given them another final warning and a bit more information about what they need to do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  User(s) blocked. Bearian (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protecting administrator inactive since last month. Article severely less edited recently. Requesting "pending changes" / "unprotection" after five-year protection. George Ho (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: The protecting admin is inactive since July 2013. I request "pending changes" since the article is less frequently edited after four years of protection. George Ho (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Sure, we can give this a try. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: The protecting administrator is currently inactive since August 2013. I'm requesting "pending changes" on this article after four years of semi-protection, so everybody can edit. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. SFK2 (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP addresses keep removing the AFD tag, almost all the edits to the article are removing the AFD tag, no constructive edits by non-confirmed users. GB fan 01:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Rinne na dTrosc 00:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Whispering 22:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Creation protected indefinitely. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – EXT spammer, IP has been reported. Widefox; talk 12:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. George Ho (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full-protection – Edit warring continuously happening between two users. Both have been warned to cool off. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. by User:Kww. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

27 September 2013

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I requested this page be downgraded from indef semi to PC1 a few days ago to see if the vandalism subsided, and it hasn't. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected Well, it was an interesting experiment. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really an experiment, more a hope that it had and wouldn't have to be re-protected. Oh well. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Anon editors don't seem to appreciate that the subject has agreed to leave his football team at the end of the season when the current season has just begun. The issue will probably be active for a few weeks and then again when the "pre-contract agreement" is signed in January. I'll allow the admin to decide the duration. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Same old IP (173...) blanking what he doesn't like. See Tragedy of the commons, American upper class and Plackett–Burman design. Attleboro (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated vandalism/unsourced edits by both IPs and new users. Thomas.W talk to me 17:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – BLP that attracts juvenile attention. Brianhe (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article has seen a lot of anonymous drive-by editing, some vandalism, since his Senate speech; mostly re. Green Eggs and Ham, as well as trying to add commentary about his Canadian heritage and it being a non-qualifier for POTUS. Seven days will hopefully be enough.    DKqwerty    17:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I think we need to go long term on this one. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Thanks for the assistance.    DKqwerty    21:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Now that school is back in session, IP vandalism is getting out of hand again. Since August 21, I count reverts of 17 IP edits Even the one IP reverted as "good faith" was nonsense. — Maile (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent violation of WP:NPOV. SMS Talk 17:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I didn't see that the article is already semi-protected and the editor involved is autoconfirmed may be. But I won't remove this request as I still would like an admin to look into this issue. --SMS Talk 19:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Already protected. Feel free to bring the user to WP:AN3 if he keeps it up. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Changes: Vandalism, although sometimes sporadic, has blighted this article, with the majority of IP edits in the last month or so being vandalism (and some of them are fairly vile.) Probably worth giving a month or two on pending changes. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. (semi) for one month by User:Ponyo. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I semi-protected it for a month, which is how long it has been since there was a beneficial edit from anonymous or unconfirmed accounts. When it gets to the point where edits need to be rev-deleted, pending changes isn't very helpful in preventing further BLP violations.Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A fortnight or a week. --    L o g  X   15:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection:Persistent vandalism – Users adding same unsourced content, with switching IPs. . IP and Accounts special for this case - 128.176.12.243 - 77.177.239.120 - Richardharrison999 seams to be allways the same User from Germany.thx Adniim- (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined In the 7 or so days the article's existed, there's only been 3 edits from IPs, plus one from Richardharrison999 which was to add an AfD template, as he's perfectly entitled to so. Protection is unneccessary at this time. GedUK  11:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite protection: The user, User:103.6.87.121, keeps adding unsourced content to the Dan Vs. page and keeps adding that the show will be canceled when the Hub Network says it will be canceled. He's on the verge of violating the three-revert rule and starting an edit war. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. As far as I can see, this is a content dispute between both sides. The IP is not being unreasonable in asking for a source regarding the show's cancellation - I suggest you discuss this on the talk page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protecting admin. is less active, and I don't want to wait for his response. The topic may look historic or important enough to attract vandalism. However, it has been protected long enough to die down amount of editing recently. "Pending changes" perhaps?. George Ho (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: A BLP vandalised a couple of years ago. Requesting unprotection here as the admin who protected it is no longer active, per their talk page. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism by persistent anon IP who considers the band to be "arseholes." . BlackberrySorbet 11:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent target of an IP-hopping anon inserting hoaxed info regarding a supposed PC/console tie-in game. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., a bit early for indef yet. GedUK  12:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Have reason to believe its a previous editor who was banned as even though its different IPs its the same content being added all the time. BadSynergy (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated unsourced changes by anons to a sourced d.o.b. Even the inline note doesn't seem to stop them. I had opened another thread on the talk page about the d.o.b. issue just prior to the most recent change. This article has been semi'd before and, frankly, I think it is getting to the point where if it appears here again then indef may be necessary. Sitush (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary protection: Persistent vandalism from IP-Hopper. I previously reported one sock IP, 156.3.163.99, which got blocked, but they've now reverted to their main account, Sotosbros. Crboyer (talk)

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. You'll need to report the user to WP:AIV if he does it again after that warning. GedUK  11:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Fiddle Faddle 09:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done by User:Deb Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Fiddle Faddle 09:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done sysop indef because recreator is nearing autoconfirmed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Users adding the same unsourced content, but have been switching IPs. Paris1127 (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP vandalism from an IP-hopping user. STATic message me! 05:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of BLP vandalism, and dubious unsourced additions by IP editors. STATic message me! 03:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Self promotion oft recreated. AfD some tome ago, too. Fiddle Faddle 23:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked.. It's only been recreated today, both attempts by the same user who is now blocked. There hasn't been any other attempts to recreate the article. Elockid (Talk) 01:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – IP-hopping user with long history of disruption across various pages (Most recently receiving a six-month block at 108.208.226.10) continues to force personal preference against consensus, and is engaged in edit-warring. Requesting 2-4 week block, if reasonable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Page oftenly gets vandalized. ///EuroCarGT 01:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of dubious unsourced additions by IP editors. STATic message me! 01:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Quite a handful of issues, such as IPs making changes to quarterbacks that have been benched, but the games haven't been played yet, along with others such as Russell Wilson's college being either NC State or Wisconsin, as well as blatant vandalism. ZappaOMati 00:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – As an editor who engages primarily in anti-vandalism efforts, I find my user page is not-infrequently targeted by those same vandals and would like to request pending-changes or semi-protection to minimize these occurrences. besiegedtalk 22:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: The software doesn't allow us to put PC on userpages. Would you like semi-protection instead? Elockid (Talk) 01:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Flood of BLP vios and other vandalism. Ginsuloft (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already done.. See below. Elockid (Talk) 01:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. ///EuroCarGT 23:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Elockid (Talk) 01:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC, persistent sockpupptery. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Elockid (Talk) 01:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Would also suggest a reversion to before the edit warring, but, obviously, that's up to the admin's discretion. ~SlyCooperFan1 01:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Feel free to re-request if things continue, but the edit warring seems to have tapered off over the past 24 hours. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of vandalism in the last day and a half. Suggest semi-protecting for a couple of days so they lose interest. Sophus Bie (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Elockid (Talk) 01:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

28 September 2013

Temporary semi-protection or PC: persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: IPs persistently adding unsourced content despite numerous citation needed tags. (again). AussieLegend (✉) 19:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of dubious unsourced additions and general IP vandalism. STATic message me! 06:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent addition of information using false citations. Editor doesn't respond to talk page comments and blanks "citations needed" tags. -Thibbs (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. (full) for two days by User:ItsZippy. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent vandalism due to a recent incident in the person's life. Martinian Leave a message! 19:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – One of a series of differently titled autobiographies by the same editor. Fiddle Faddle 12:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: The other recreations are at K. A. M. Muhammed Abubacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Abubacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (In case the 2 sections above this are archived before this is handled.) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Peridon (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protecting admin. inactive since 2011. Article rarely edited for three years since protection. Topic no longer popular enough to attract vandals and socks. If unprotection is too soon, "pending changes"?. George Ho (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Been long enough, lets see if your right. Monty845 15:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Unprotected (procedural tagging) Armbrust The Homunculus 17:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – One of a series of differently titled autobiographies by the same editor. Fiddle Faddle 12:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Peridon. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – One of a series of differently titled autobiographies by the same editor. Fiddle Faddle 12:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Peridon. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP repeatedly (four times now) removes infobox image and will not engage in any discussion.Egghead06 (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Edit warring is reverting without discussion. I've tried discussion over several days. I'm just getting nothing back!Egghead06 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you have tried discussion but he won't discuss it's fine to report him to WP:AN3 and ask for a block. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection – The article was already indefinitely semi-protected. Admin Dmacks did a wrong unprotection while trying to do a full protect during an edit-warring. Result is vandalism and mayhem started as usual. Please revert to the indefinite semi-protection for this BLP. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Materialscientist (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite move (sysop) protection:

  Done Materialscientist (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Multiples IPs keep adding unsourced and false claims about this song and the most recent edit in this vein was basically vandalism. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Presistent vandalism – IP user 67.169.46.25 has periodically changed name translations for one section of the article to reflect non-primary works. As per MOS:AM, all other pages related to Fairy Tail use the translations in the primary Kodansha USA manga releases. User:Immblueversion (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection (any length accepted): Persistent vandalism – The article Yugoslav dinar has been targeted on many occasions by the "Global Cash Dinar" vandal who deliberately inserted factual errors to the article. It has been the case since 14 October 2012. Marianian(talk) 04:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism & BLP issues. Either semi-protection or pending changes. Possibly 1 year or more. ///EuroCarGT 01:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent spamming by multiple IP users originating from Nepal. Areaseven (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent spamming by several IP users. Areaseven (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Over the past couple of months, there has been a steady stream of IP user vandalism to this article. The number of incidents may not seem very high, but the vandalism has usually been subtle, with many deliberately incorrect tweaks to stats and other items that might not be caught by page watchers unfamiliar with Smith or (American) football. Page protection would stop additional unhelpful edits as I do some careful proofreading to make sure everything has been fixed. Thanks. Zeng8r (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Consistent addition of characters revealed from a leaked achievements list. Achievements lists in and of themselves can't be used, but the fact that it's leaked, further questions its reliability. Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article has been suffering from a steady string of vandalism, unconstructive editing and unexplained blanking. Recently, a large part of the article was blanked. The content was restored 10 hours later by IP 78.186.56.208. Whilst there is nothing wrong with IPs combating unconstructive edits, it is unfortunate it took 10 hours for the content to be restored. A vandalising edit by 203.122.213.153 was partially removed by 174.115.88.208. This vandalising edit had become ingraned in the article history without anyone noticing. As the page has only been protected once (in 2009), I suggest temporary semi-protection.

Why are vandals so facinated by Jam? (Pinched from Phytism on User:ClueBot NG#Praise.) RainCity471 18:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

29 September 2013

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – According to the page history, there's a strong present of vandalism. ///EuroCarGT 16:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined Sole IP blocked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. George Ho (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – IP editor keeps adding a fan site link to External Links. I have reverted this three times with the notation WP:LINKSTOAVOID #11, but the editor has chosen to ignore this and simply continue adding the link. This is the external link. Aside from the violation of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, the site title and content likely violates trademarks and copyrights; anyone who visits it might think it is the official site of the intellectual property owners of Studebaker and Avanti. Strebe (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – repeated re-creation by somewhat aggressive potential sock editors. Fiddle Faddle 13:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Indef, sysop. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated changes to sourced contents/addition of unsourced by anons. This is a problematic article that periodically seems to get the attention of Vishwakarma community members, probably because of off-wiki notifications. Sitush (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Editors determined to add unsourced negative information. Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of vandalism from multiple IPs, probably because this year's contest has just taken place. DoorsAjar (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Repeated insertions of unsourced negative material by anonymous IPs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that "sources" are cited in the edits, but an examination of those sources (such as this Rolling Stone article) do not contain any of the material being inserted. The IP is simply fabricating falsehoods. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined Sole IP blocked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – A discussion was opened re the number of images, based on MOS. Per the reasons given, the number was reduced and it looked like consensus was going to be achieved. Based on a non-MOS rationale, 7 images were re-added. Please protect article with limited number of images. – S. Rich (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This summary is not accurate. Rich and Binksternet have been edit-warring against all comers to keep these embarrassing but accurate photos out, and how he's coming here to lock his version into place. MilesMoney (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Already protected by administrator Adjwilley. (1 day) Armbrust The Homunculus 14:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection High-visibility article, more so than most semi-protected pages. Threats of vandalism made on football forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.58.81 (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment) It hasn't been vandalized in a year. Can you give a link about the threats, just to check if it is potentially a target (Right now there is no reason to protect per the WP:PP policy. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Agreed with Tbhotch. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for a few days to fend off an IP-hopping troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: Page has not been protected. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 21:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected as the troublemaker has been blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  User(s) blocked. (procedural tagging) Armbrust The Homunculus 01:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protecting admin. currently retired since 2011. Article rarely edited recently. I'm sure that the topic is no longer too sensitive or controversial and will not be treated hostily by unregistered and new editors. If in doubt, "pending changes"?. George Ho (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The protecting admin changed usernames from what I can tell, though is no longer an admin. I'd be inclined to give unprotection a shot if they don't object, though I'm not too sure unprotecting will work. I'll drop them a note. Monty845 15:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really opposed to PC for it, but its been so long on that one, that it seems reasonable to try removing it entirely. But again, want to give the editor who protected it a chance to comment. Monty845 15:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's okay to give unprotection a try, but in my experience be ready to protect again as these centuries long ethnic disputes never go away. PumpkinSky talk 19:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Returning IP vandal. Ignoring talk requests. . SummerPhD (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I only see two recreations and every time there is at least 4 months between them. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Page was recently deleted per CSD. ///EuroCarGT 02:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) That's true, but the last creation before that was in May 2013. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) At least two of three versions of the article were created by the same user who is also a rather persistent sockpuppeteer. It may very well be another few months before he creates the article again, but he will do it, of that I'm sure. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Creation protected. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protecting admin. is currently retired. Lost is cancelled, and no vandalism occured for two years for this episode. "Pending changes" perhaps?. George Ho (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try PC for a few months on this one, the lost series has sufficient ongoing popularity that it seems best to go slower with it. If there aren't problems for the next 3 months, PC will just expire. Monty845 15:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Pending-changes protected by Monty845 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (procedural tagging) Armbrust The Homunculus 17:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism, addition of unsourced content, BLP issues. High page traffic according to page history. Semi-protection or Pending changes for a good amount of time. ///EuroCarGT 00:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs not liking Wikipedia's spelling of character names, as usual. —Ryulong (琉竜) 00:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. George Ho (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism and dubious unsourced additions by anon editors after recent end of page protection. STATic message me! 22:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Also, I don't see when it was protected before. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: High level edit-warring over content dispute. The article just came out of full protection recently. Might need a longer one until dispute is resolved over talk page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined I just warned the two users involved in the dispute, I suggest filing a report at WP:AN3 if they continue reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Changed my mind as a third user has joined the fray. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This is getting ridiculous... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Editors ignoring style issues addressed at the recently closed wp:fac. This includes WP:MOSJA#Using Japanese in the article body. « Ryūkotsusei » 21:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. [26] TheManish767 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined - I'm struggling to find much here at all that I'd classify as vandalism. Unless I'm missing something? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection: - Constant vandalism/BLP violations, sometimes at a ridiculous rate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Persistent addition of channel listings by anons and newly-registered users despite being reverted per WP:NOTDIR. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Article was semi-protected against non-registered spammers. This protection ended 22 September. And today the spammer was back, so please reinstate the semi-protection. The Banner talk 11:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC). The Banner talk 11:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

30 September 2013

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and is persistent. Corkythehornetfan (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple IPs vandalizing today, target of persistent vandalism throughout the month. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Yet more persistent IP sock puppetry . Rushton2010 (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. for two fortnights by User:Reaper Eternal. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and dubious unsourced additions to a BLP. STATic message me! 18:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected by administrator Reaper Eternal. (a fortnight) Armbrust The Homunculus 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page has been protected before. Since the previous protection has lifted (on September 10th), high levels of vandalism have occurred. Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – All recent edits by IP users have been reverted. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – All recent edits by IP users have been vandalism. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection, y'know, the one that says 'this page is protected due to a dispute' or whatnot, continual back-and-forth reverting. Semi-protection has no effect; continual "revert war" happens on this page.

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection: An IP keeps changing the name "Cima" to "CIMA" throughout the article, including as part of the references' URLs, because he says that this is the way the wrestler's name is correctly spelled. As the name is not capitalized as part of the references' URLs, this has of course repeatedly broken the references. The IP's latest edit to the article seems to have taken into account what I stated in my edit summaries about him breaking the references, but I'm still not sure that this person's name should be capitalized all the way through the article. Article conventions certainly usually do not capitalize the article's title, but the IP wants that changed as well (see the article's talk page). I'm requesting long-term semi-protection because this IP is persistent in edit warring over this matter; I'm sure that he would simply return in a week or two and continue the behavior. In fact, if the article is semi-protected, he might register an account (if he doesn't already have one), get WP:Autoconfirmed and then continue the behavior. Flyer22 (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined I think it's a little premature for protection at this point. I'd prefer to try warning (and reporting the IP to WP:AN3) if he continues and then we can revisit. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High level of vandalism over the past few days by IP-editors (from US schools) and newly created user accounts. Thomas.W talk to me 15:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Long-term history of recurring abuse by IP editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent Vandalism by several IP's . Redalert2fan (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Disruptive dubious unsourced changes after the end of a recent protection period. STATic message me! 14:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. This is Drew (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent addition of copyright-infringing text, and removal of the {{copyvio}} template. Both registered and IP accounts have been involved, though lately it's mostly IP accounts, so semi-protection should be fine. Psychonaut (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection - Continuous IP vandalism since SEp 5. -- Whpq (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Already protected. for one month by User:JamesBWatson. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Continuing socking. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryanjay1996. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High IP traffic page. Jianhui67 Talk 08:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long term history of vandalism, also see this diff which implies that there is a coordinated effort to disrupt the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dubious unsourced additions and vandalism immediately following end of previous protection period. STATic message me! 06:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism with the removal of her ethnicity even though it is cited from a reliable resource. The constant vandalism is becoming exhausting and it is the same IP address.Mcelite (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Hi Wiki Admins,

There seems to be a vandalism from one particular user who seems to be a fan of Arya is adding promotional content to the article. he is adding hyped content about Arya which is also a fake sorce. Thanks!. hrm (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Violations of external linking policy. Paris1127 (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. by User:NawlinWiki. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Final episode (which finished airing not too long ago) of popular television series. Already a vandalism target. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dawnseeker2000 01:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: For a while, there's been a high level of IPs vandalizing the page and lots of gebre warring and addition of unsourced genres. 2600:1003:B013:C583:24C5:F4D:2658:DBC (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protection: Persistent vandalism by users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipajoneskk (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 September 2013

  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple IPs adding unsourced controversial claims to White pride and Black pride. Ignoring requests to discuss the issue and provide sources. SummerPhD (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple IPs adding unsourced controversial claims to White pride and Black pride. Ignoring requests to discuss the issue and provide sources. SummerPhD (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism and disruptive edits by anon IP editors. STATic message me! 21:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated One Direction vandalism. The page has already been semi-protected once for this reason. SuperMarioMan 19:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Disruptive editing and dubious unsourced content additions by IP editors. STATic message me! 18:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Falcon8765 (TALK) 17:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism.  — TORTOISEWRATH 17:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Obviously, must I explain further why?. George Ho (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected indef. Wow, can't believe this was unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism from various IPs. ‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 14:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: A hot article since she recently won the Miss World 2013. Allenjambalaya (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Same IP range used previously to remove huge chunks of content back at it. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article is being targeted by a sockpuppet, who is making disruptive edits. Several other articles like Damien Duff have already been protected to prevent this Sock from editing. . JMHamo (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: An IP tries to include Indian-origin people in the list like Indian Americans or Canadian-Americans as opposed to Indian nationals. He reverts and wants to "discuss".  Dravidian  Hero  15:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do as the IP requests and actually try to discuss this issue on the talk page? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss what ? To include Foreigners in the list ? Are you kidding me?? -- Dravidian  Hero  16:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Going to the talkpage is the normal protocol, see WP:BRD. tutterMouse (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2013/09&oldid=1160941015"