Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2012/12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2012

01 December 2012

Indefinite semi-protection: Personal request protection to avoid future disruption and vandalism by anonymous users. Because this is a log, this page is not meant to be edited by other users except for the user who operates it. Mediran Season's greetings! 12:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, This is a wiki; we don't protect things just because they don't need to be edited. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – With Dec 21 quickly approaching, the vandalism will only become more frequent. Recommend protecting until at least Dec 25. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 08:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection IP vandals who don't have this new local sports channel are posting links to petitions and Facebook hate pages. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. You might wanna see this. TheManish767 (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Looks like longer term may be necessary. Please rereport if vandalism continues after protection ends. --regentspark (comment) 15:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unprotection: For other users will have access to my user talk page. Mediran Season's greetings! 12:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: This is akin to L2 PC protection, if I read the log right. The article is semiprotected, disallowing non-autoconfirmed edits. The PC log shows "Accept: require "review" permission" which leads me to believe that only reviewers can accept edits (I could be wrong). An RfC determined there wouldn't be any L2 protection on en.wiki. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected PC2 removed, semi-protection (edit and move) retained. My understanding with respect to PC2 is the same as yours. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I forgot to earlier, but I'm going now to see if any other stable pages have a PC2 for some reason. The other pages that still have Accept:review permission is a test page another one, and a last one, which are all test pages. Not sure if you want to deal with those. Not sure what good having test pages for PC2 is if we aren't using it now. So.. Food for thought. Thanks for taking care of the one. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for checking! That's great. My personal inclination would be to leave 'em, thinking that in the unlikely opportunity that PC2 ever comes back to service there'd be one or two fewer things to do, and otherwise who cares? But, I don't have strong feelings about it, it seems like a pretty trivial detail. If some other admin wants to override me, I'm not going to give it a second thought. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by IP who uses dynamic IPs, so that blocking any particular IP has become useless. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Broadway Hoaxer.Flami72 (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected seems reasonable - done as suggested. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – recent rash of vandalism, including obvious vandalism that stayed for nearly 24 hours, last 10 or so IP edits all vandalism or non-contructive. Secret account 07:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected This is one where PC might make a difference, since the problems are long-term but not ever so regular. Let's see how it goes, and I'll consider semi if problems continue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. Persistent disruption. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection He will be the president in a few hours, but not now. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 72 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 06:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Shahzad k.Chaudhry (talk) 07:35, 01 December 2012 (UTC) Page Protected due to sensitive Religious Issues.[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Currently being targeted by an IP sock of Nangparbat. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-Change protection. Actually requesting WP:PC. Persistent BLP, IP edit warring, accusations of sockpuppetry, etc. Tgeairn (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PC just hides the edit warring from non-logged in users, it won't stop it. Courcelles 06:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism from different IP users. It is also a highly visible page. Astros4477 (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 06:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Newly released film then chances of disturbances are likely in coming hours or days.It needs atleast two weeks semi-protection. . ---zeeyanketu talk to me 22:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined While there is some vandalism I also see a lot of good faith edits by new or unregistered users. The collateral damage does not seem worth preventing the few instances of vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds great for WP:PC protection. Vacationnine 02:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. SMS Talk 21:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. I have personally warned one of the warriors before and the other has been blocked previously for edit warring, so rather than protect I have given them both a time out. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent claims about the subject and others, breaching WP:BLP, are being made by IP editors or very new accounts. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Pending changes applied for two weeks, in case that productive editors will want to edit the article. NW (Talk) 02:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Webclient101talk 00:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 48 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 02:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Repeatedly recreated with same promo material, author has been warned multiple times, temporary until author submits an AfC with a better version, or just temporary for a while. Creator is at Teahouse trying to get us to recreate it, don't want him being disappointed with us not being able to, and creating it over and over himself, as he has been doing. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected This has been going on for a while. An admin will be needed to recreate it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Edit-warring and POV pushing by anonymous IP. GiW (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Blocked for personal attacks and edit warring. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined (procedural tagging) Armbrust The Homonculus 21:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – A week or two so a dispute over the article's Introduction can be peacefully resolved on the article's talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from anonymous and other users; frequent posting of spam criticisms without any reliable sources used as citations. JNorman704 (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – It's getting to be a hassle dealing with vandalism on athlete's articles. This article was recently vandalized numerous times. . LFC90 (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. –sumone10154(talk) 20:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. as much of it is more in the realm of clueless editing than deliberate vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An IP repeatedly adds Chicago as an Air India destination out of Hyderabad despite being reverted several times and asked not to, by different editors. . — Abhishek  Talk 16:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection was recently made for this page, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days. Snotbot  t • c »  16:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chicago was constantly added/removed because Air India operates the flight from HYD to ORD under one flight number with a stop at DEL. However, the flight at one point, operated under different types of aircraft and once again uses the same aircraft on the route per Air India's online timetables. Already started a discussion on the talk page. However, per WP:AIRPORTS page content, direct flights that passes through a domestic hub for an airline shouldn't be listed. Snoozlepet (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Now that an actual conversation is open on the talk page to resolve this content dispute. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long term IP vandalism. -- Luke (Talk) 22:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Latest IP blocked too. Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Appears to be on school curriculum - attracting plenty of IP/school IP vandalism. Keri (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of four days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

02 December 2012

Full protection: Edit warring. Fans of the band Tokio Hotel are trying to add two members to the Notable Residents section, which is both unsourced and unwanted by those members. These band members have been added and deleted three times already. Telstar2 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. kind of wondering to why this is not being discussed on the talk page... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism. This has been going on for a long, long time, on and off, and shows no signs of abating. Article is a magnet for nationalistic POV-pushers, and very few, if any, contributions by IP's have been of any value. Long-term semi-protection would be helpful. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. IPs constantly vandalize this article by fabricating the chart positions (changing to number one when it didn't reach number one), adding made-up certifications (such as Platinum for Canada when the song didn't even chart in Canada), changing the artist's name to 'One tooth willy', and writing things such as "The lyrics don't actually make any sense so maybe that's why so many people like the song." This is in the past month alone. Till 04:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: BLP policy violations – This article has been repeatedly vandalised with BLP-abusing edits and defamatory comments, by newly-created SPAs (subsequently blocked as socks of a serial vandal) and IPs (already reported as likely socks). An earlier article was deleted because of similar persistent vandalism; if the article is to remain on Wikipedia, it needs to be protected from this serial libeller. . RolandR (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Mifter. (1 week pending changes protection) Armbrust The Homunculus 19:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect for one month. His name seems to have got on to a conspiracy forum and IP editors are starting to come on to this article. Can it be semi protected. JASpencer (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Pending-changes protected
I had a funny feeling there was something like this going on from reports on WP:BLPN. I've done both temporary semi-pp and indefinite PC protection to protect the subject of the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full-protection User:Overagainst Has repeatedly undone edits, added biased information, and added original research to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jritts (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Move protection Moving war on controversial article title. Matthew_hk tc 15:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes or semi protection: the unconstructive edits aren't constant, but there isn't a lot of anything else which would make PC worthwhile. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unsourced IP edits. STATic message me! 02:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unconstructive content by IPs.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Royal College, Colombo (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I know that we generally should not semi-protect talk pages, but there have been 6 instances of harassment against User:Cossde in the last 2 days. I'm blocking them as they show up but they're being used only once; several were previously blocked as Tor Nodes, so the user is probably using open proxies. I'm an involved user on the page, so I don't want to possibly breach WP:INVOLVED. Also, please look at the history User Talk: Cossde and see if something needs to be done there, too. . Qwyrxian (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I've also deleted the offending revisions from the page history. I haven't done anything to User talk:Cossde yet, but I've left Cossde a message asking how they would like this kind of thing to be dealt with. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There seems to be vandalism coming from various IP'S... MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protection or semi protection (though I don't think there are enough edits to justify that) - vandalism and test edits over a number of months as well as construcive edits by IPs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Semi-protection: The second page protection was issued not long after the first one ended, it ending on 14:22 29 November 2012‎, and already three different IP addresses have had to be reverted for vandalism. Please just permanently block whoever this person is, by blocking all IP addresses from editing that page forever. The vandalism started up again an hour and 27 minutes after the last protection bit expired.[1] The problem is obviously not going to go away. Dream Focus 01:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. The vandalism rate is a little low and the history of protection a little short to jump to indefinite semi-protection, but it seems a good fit for pending changes protection. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High levels of Edit Warring from various IP's. Controversial subject due to Karabakh war. Anonymous (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - The map seems to have copyright issues. An extremely persistent IP-hopper has been warring to insert this map at a variety of articles. You appear to be joining in this effort. You have not used the talk page to explain your desire to add the map. If you make a request here, please sign with your real user name, not 'Anonymous.' EdJohnston (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. The page has received too much traffic concerning the band members' positions, and respective disagreement. This page is currently unstable and needs outside intervention. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. And I removed all of the "main" and "lead" markers as BLP violations without evidence. I've seen this crap on other South Korean band articles before, where it's basically fans fighting about who's the most important. Odds are good we'll eventually have to semi-protect it indefinitely. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Major edit warring since last 15 days. one editor adds the list of all episodes of this show due to which article becomes over-lengthy and another editor reverts the edit explaining in the edit summary that "Wikipedia is not a directory". Forgot to put name (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs edit warring, adding a variety of changes without consensus or thorough discussion on the talk page. . – Richard BB 15:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not really vandalism, but it is a violation of WP:POINT. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – 2nd request for protection for this page (1st was denied for some reason). IPs connected with the company (from Knoxville and America's Collectibles Network) are inexplicably removing information and maintenance tags from the article. IPs are changing so protection would likely be better than blocking the IPs. This behavior has been going on intermittently since July. Article needs to be rewritten as there are major copy-vios and advert-y sounding content. This is impossible to do without being reverted. Pinkadelica♣ 19:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Until it's explicitly confirmed which teams will be playing in the game. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 04:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I don't think there is a need to protect this page right now. There isn't a significant amount of edit warring to justify full page protection (we don't usually semi-protect for edit warring). In addition, the Rose Bowl announcements will be made on Dec. 2nd, less than 24 hours from now. By then there should not be an issue in terms of the disputed content. In the mean time, I would recommend discussing the concern on the talk page with the users/IPs involved and maybe putting a note on the edit page to request that only cited information is posted on the page. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours on Twitter suggest that the footballer died last night. No reliable sources but persistent addition of death notices. Longwayround (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A source has now been added. Protection might become necessary anyway, but not due to an unverified death. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. To deal with violations of B(f)LP policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continued IP warring against agreed consensus. The film hs only just been released in a couple of countries and is still a 'hot topic'. This article has only just come off its second period of protection. SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since it's not vandalism but a content dispute, I'm locking it for everyone involved. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent copyright infringements and POV from IPs. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Not enough activity to justify semi IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Removal of content likely by one person, multiple IPs Jim1138 (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:SMP0328. (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An anon whose acts of Vandalism I have reverted keeps Vandalizing my user talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks more like a candidate for WP:AIV.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Declined I'm going to mark the request as declined, as I have blocked the IP for 2 weeks. Generally you want to keep your talk page open for IPs to comment while doing RC/Vandalism patrolling and the editing pattern suggests a long protection would be necessary if that route was used. Monty845 02:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. SMP0328. (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – To save my account from vandalism. pratyya (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Icestorm815 • Talk 04:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs/various users keep changing data arbitrarily. Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only once in the last 2 weeks. Armbrust The Homonculus 22:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Changes Protection: Before semi protection, there were many good faith edits by IPs. I requested PC protection in response to a declined Semi Protection request for this page but it was archived. PC sounds perfect for this scenario. Vacationnine 18:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined According to WP:PCPP, pending changes protection shouldn't be added to pages with a high edit rate, and this page was receiving several edits an hour before it was semi-protected. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 19:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PCPP says nothing of the sort. It says PC shouldn't be applied to pages with a VERY high edit rate. And anyway, a few edits an hour shouldn't be considered a very high edit rate. Besides, with all the reviewers backlogs shouldn't be an issue. This would also be a good page to test PC on high edit pages. In this case, benefits (letting ips edit which they were doing) outweighs the non-benefits (possible but unlikely backlog). Vacationnine 19:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Stradivarius here, but I do see Vacation9's point. If we wanted to test the ability to apply to pages with a higher rate, then I think that page may be good. Secondly, I don't see where it says anything about edit rate on that page, but I do remember it elsewhere. However, if we are only going with PC1 at this time... In determining the edit rate, only count edits that would be marked as pending. If there's 240 edits per day (10/hr), but only 2 edits per day are IP's/new editors, then PC1 is fine because the other 238 edits/day will be accepted automatically, assuming there aren't any other pendings to be reviewed. Basically what I'm saying is that an article's edits, for the purposes of determining PC, should only include those edits that would have to be reviewed. This article, in my opinion, doesn't meet that as a very large amount of edits are IP/new, which means us reviewers would have to approve them quickly, or else get a backlog of unreviewed edits on that article. I hope I made sense. gwickwiretalkedits 19:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I quote the page here: "Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered." That is under When to apply pending changes protection. IMO, a few edits an hour with over 1000 reviewers isn't a problem. "Very high" should be taken as one edit or so a minute. By semiprotecting the page we lost a significant amount of input. Vacationnine 19:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone's definition of a "high" edit rate will be the same. I thought the edit rate for this page was high, others may not. Arguing about it is a bit academic at this point, really. Better to wait until the semi-protection wears off and see whether we still have a lot of IP edits. We could probably do with some clarification about what kind of edit rate would be an upper limit for applying pending changes protection, but that conversation is probably best left for the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 20:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what happened: Someone requested semi protection. An admin declined it saying that semi protection would prevent the many IP contributors from contributing. I said PC would work perfectly. A bot archived this however. Another Semi request was made, which was accepted. So I started this. Even if the edit rate is high, PC makes sense here. Semiprotection shouldn't cut off all those IPs from making their contributions. Before Semi, the majority of good faith edits was from IPs. Vacationnine 20:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the edit rate is too high for PC to be practical. All those edits would need to be reviewed one at a time. With PC only being back for one day I don't think it pwild be wise to stretch when we use it just yet. I am not so sure I agree with the semi as I declined to protect it at all just a few hours before, but maybe vandalism spiked after that decline. On that note has anyone bothered to contact the protecting admin? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: High level of IP vandalism, some useful IP activity (GA) RDBrown (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Courcelles 01:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 49 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistant IP vandalism. Please protect for atleast a month. Anbu121 (talk me) 07:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15 instances of pure vandalism out of the last 100 edits. If you include test edits and content removals, the percentage goes up to 20. This page says that more than 5% should be considered for semi-protection. --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The operative word being "considered". Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. How much do you think is a reasonable percentage? --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. RadioFan (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected --j⚛e deckertalk 22:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Poo (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. §h₳un 9∞76 16:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mifter (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Full-protection: Highly visible template – Recent death of subject, vandals are out in full force. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 16:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – Steel 16:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

03 December 2012

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. –sumone10154(talk) 20:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Oleola (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Long term pattern if IP vandalism. Been going on for months and months. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 17:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Six months. This has been going on long enough. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IPs going nuts with a reported contract that has not been finalized and has only been reported on through anonymous sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: In the news because of pregnancy, and attracting a lot of unconstructive edits and vandalism. BabelStone (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Seems to be a target for vandals and oversight has not been provided on the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – BLP vialotions. . Torreslfchero (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  13:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: This page has been persistently vandalized for an entire two months since I previously edited it, with very little heed. When I began to repair the damage, an anonymous I.P. address reverted my correction. This page needs some breathing room, in order to re-stabilize it once again. DarthBotto talk•cont 03:55, 03 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Being used by Miller97 as their own personal soapbox. Warned multiple times by myself and others, and continues to make the same changed to the article. The content Miller97 adds is usually in the first person, unreferenced, against WP:MOS, and opinionated. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined If it's one user, then better to talk action against them. Report to WP:3RRN if they're edit warring. GedUK  12:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection Persitent recreation through multiple names (Artpop, Artpop (Lady Gaga album), etc), ignoring the AFD result. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)I'd say that some arguments in that AfD are irrelavent, as more information is released now than before. However, I'd support salting this and all related titles until February. gwickwiretalkedits 22:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Too early yet to go for protection, it's only been created once and is now pointing where it should be. If that redirect gets reverted, then protection might be necessary, but at the moment it isn't. GedUK  13:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi or pending changes protection: persistent vandalism and BLP violations with very little constructive edits by non-confirmed users (which may justify PC). Given the protection log and allure of the page name - suggest long term or indef semi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let's try pending changes, there do seem to be plenty of good, or at least good intentioned IP edits. GedUK  12:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IPs constantly blending information. Theman244 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Another redundant protection. PC1 and Semi-protection are in place. Both of them are indefinite. Please remove one of them. —cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 00:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by Crisco 1492 for a period of 7 days. Torreslfchero (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes or semi protection: long term history of vandalism with no constructive edits from non-confirmed users. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: After un-protection same problem again. Theman244 (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long term vandalism, probably due to subject matter. Most of the last 50 IP edits were vandalism and reverted. Legoktm (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: continuous addition of huge WP:OR section by anonymous IP who is ignoring attempts at discussion on the talk page. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 07:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ongoing vandalism. Illia Connell (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The rate of vandalism is not high enough to justify semi IMO, so doing PC. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – News just broke that the band broke up, and the page has already been vandalized by three different IP addresses in the past two hours. -- Irn (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Some good edits are also coming in from IPs, so let's not be too hasty. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very temporary full-protection until 129 UTC Decemember 3: People are repeatedly trying to add projected BCS bowl participants, which won't be announced until the ESPN Selection Show on 530 PM PST/830 PM EST/130 AM UTC pbp Please protect it with this revision 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of five hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined (For the bot, plus the desired protection period has elapsed.) Icestorm815 • Talk 05:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: A dynamic IP is regularly removing content that a number of other editors agree on. IP may have a legitimate case, but the matter needs to be discussed on talk. Since IP continues to edit war, but a little slowly, a week or two semi-protection will be needed to force the conversation. . Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected Icestorm815 • Talk 06:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) User(s) blocked. – both IPs have been blocked. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 04:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protection: long term vandalism along with constructive edits by non-confirmed users. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mifter (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Either semi-protect it, or PC protect it, but to have the two is totally redundant. —cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 21:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Semiprotected before PC1 trial restarted. PC was also applied before it technically went back into effect (November 5 according to log). gwickwiretalkedits 21:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected I went with leaving the semi-protect intact, not only was PC1 prematurely applied, given the rationale for the protection, semi is probably a better choice. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 21:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous Vandalism in response to Bob Costas's comments regarding gun ownership and the murder-suicide by the Kansas City Chiefs player. SMP0328. (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Downgrade to pending changes: Fairly low-traffic article with long-term semi-protection because of a single IP-hopping vandal. I'm hoping that either the vandal has gone away sometime this year or will be discouraged by not have his edits go live immediately. jcgoble3 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected The expiration date has been kept the same. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism since previous protection ended on November 27th. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
I placed the article under pending changes review instead, as there are some recent edits by IPs that appear to be constructive, and I don't wish to deter that with semi-protection. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Related to Enrique Peña Nieto. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Temporary semi-protection (half year or full year) - persistent IP vandalism or unconstructive edits and clogs up edit history. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi or pending changes protection: long term vandalism and BLP violations which nothing constructive by non-confirmed users, given the protection log suggest long term or indef semi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - The article has had some issues, but with a rate of only about 20 or less edits a month (and any issues reverted in a timely manner), pending changes at this point in time seems unnecessary. Feel free to re-report if the situation changes. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected. by Icestorm815. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:139.190.140.12 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – User is blanking their talk page while blocked. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined They are probably just unaware of the finer points of the talk page policy, which are hardly obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Particularly aggressive IP who won't back down on their edits. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. looks like a content dispute to me. Is there some reason there is no discussion on the talk page? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: To avoid caste vandalism in India. Protection is required so as only authenticated and information with complete citation appear on the page Atcnandal (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. There doesn't appear to be any vandalism to justify protection. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

04 December 2012

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High profile media event, persistent IP vandalism. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – since November 25. SMP0328. (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism – IP editor (8.225.186.101) is making repeated unreferenced, incorrect changes to entry, despite suggestion to take discussion to article's talk page. Same IP editor has also made similar changes to other War of 1812-related pages. Natty10000 | Natter  19:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a follow-up, I would request this be expedited if possible as IP user is doing frequent changes and attempting to thwart revision to verifiable information. Also appears from history of article that another anonymous IP editor with the same MO has been previously revising the article in the same manner. TIA  Natty10000 | Natter  19:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let me know if edit warring continues upon expiry and I'll protect for longer. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mark. I suspect that this particular individual will lay low for a bit and return under a reset IP address. This clearly isn't the first time he/she has been riding this particular hobby horse and doesn't appear interested in discussing the matter with anyone. In any case, thanks for your prompt attention  Natty10000 | Natter  19:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Player is subject to speculation regarding a free agent signing. He has to pass a physical examination before the deal is complete, and he has a notable injury history that could kill the deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: BLP policy violations – This page is lightly watched and lightly edited. Most of the last edits have been WP:BLPPRIVACY violations adding personal, unreferenced info. Might be a good candidate for pending change protection. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Given the cosmophobia surrounding December 21 2012, I would like to request either semi-protection (or pending changes) to prevent the now-frequent IP vandalism and fear mongering. -- Kheider (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected until the 23rd of December (if we get there...) SmartSE (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by IPs. The person in the article is a candidate for election to be held in December. I request semi-protection for atleast two months. Amartyabag TALK2ME 14:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Soerfm (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JohnCD (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Some blatant vandalism & also the continuous addition of deliberate factual errors surrounding speculation of his future employment. . ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JohnCD (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. SMS Talk 09:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection, pending the outcome of a discussion that has not had any resolution so far. Some edits, such as this one have not gone over well with editors. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protection: A few constructive IP edits, but otherwise mostly vandalism and unsourced fancruft -A1candidate (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection (half-year) - tendency for IPs to vandalize or add unconstructive content without proper sources. When they do use sources, they do not adhere to RS policy and the content is mostly non-npov, so other editors have to remove it. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Not enough activity for semi. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hour protection User taking a host of cross IP vandalism over a current issue, recommend short term protection. Cheers. T.I.M(Contact) 06:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, three instances of identical cross ip vandalism consisting of blatant personal attacks in the last hour alone. T.I.M(Contact) 06:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator Guerillero. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 07:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been prevented from making edits to this page. I added a new section "unbalanced" several days ago with the IP address 124.148.140.116 (my IP roves due to my ISP). I suggested that John Boyd's article was unbalanced as it was uncritical of Boyd's claims and credited him with things he had not been responsible for, such as engineering the F-15 Eagle or reintroducing cannon to USAF fighters after the F-4 Phantom omitted it. User Bzuk suggested I make such edits, and when I went to do so I found I was prohibited. I cannot edit the article or its talk page. I made a tiny edit to another talk page to verify it's just that page I'm prohibited from editing. I had a friend make a minor edit to the Boyd talk page to verify it wasn't a blanket ban on the page, and he could do so. Perhaps this was simply a mistake but it appears someone objected to making edits so much that they prevented me from even continuing the discussion. I'd have asked Bzuk for help but I cannot edit his page either. 124.149.158.121 (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The article is currently not protected (BTW never has been). Make the changes yourself and if somebody objects it, than initiate a discussion on the talk page (Talk:John Boyd (military strategist)). Armbrust The Homunculus 16:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stated clearly that I specifically have been prohibited from editing the page. Not really sure how much more clearly I can put it. 124.149.158.121 (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/260. Looks like a false positive, I will poke the admin who last edited the filter for their input. Monty845 21:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry your edit got disallowed. I have attempted to find a way to undo the disallowing, but it appears that the way the edit filter is set up does not provide a way to do so. Instead, I have edited the article with your change, and attributed to you to the extent the edit summary box permits. I'm not good with regex (the language the filter uses to identify text to block) but I would guess the phrase "wax his ass" may have been what triggered it. As best as I can tell, there is nothing directly set up for that article, or tied to your IP. Monty845 23:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The edit filter was triggered by the string "his ass". It is a false positive, but I don't think the part of the filter that catch this string should be removed, because the vast majority of other instances are vandalism. Sole Soul (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There seems to be a long-term pattern of IP/new user vandalism. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 05:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Persitent violations of the BLP policy. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Removal of Carla Hernandez's participation in PP with sources. Platinum Star (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. KrakatoaKatie 01:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page was put under semi-protection three years ago (December 2009) because of a vandalism problem. There is no clear need for the page to be permanently protected, so it should be unprotected again. 142 and 99 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure BambiFan is still active and still making socks so I'd advise against it. tutterMouse (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Bambifan101 is indeed active. Sadly, this needs to stay protected for the foreseeable future. KrakatoaKatie 01:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Pending changes would be good as well. Webclient101talk 03:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary protection. This file has been the subject of vandalism. Aaaccc (talk), 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Declined File is on Commons, therefore you have to make a protection request there. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: This is one of a series of articles related to claims of descent from the Ten Lost Tribes which are continuously being subjected to unjustifiable deletion or defacing of genetics research and other evidence that disproves the claims. The user in question in this case is using a relatively new ID, yet has created a page: Pashtunyar (talk)

I have been engaging various other contributors on the talk pages of related articles, such as British Israelism and Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory to build consensus in ongoing editing which may take some time; especially given the scope of the BI topic, an article which has been repeatedly bombarded by people posting promotional material and needs substantial work.

The edit on the article in question, however, would seem to be a clear cut case of vandalism, as the information from the most up-to-date scientific source was removed and replaced with unsourced POV using ethnically infleced (Yiddish?) terms and promoting a genealogical connection that appears to have been conclusively refuted by the genetics research.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

  • Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. If the page gets protected, it will need to be full protection. You should be careful, you got up to 3 reverts, very close to an outright WP:3rr violation, and probably edit warring even without one. Monty845 00:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The contributors that have been unjustifiably altering my edits or adding material (i.e. "Rabbinical literature") that apparently has been removed by others in the past. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan has been question before on the Talk page by contributor Intothefire 11:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC), with no reponse, and basically redressed for using unreliable sources by Dougweller in that section, who also posted a notice regarding the WP:NOR.
Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan makes the following statement on his User page, under the section "Pashtun descent from Israelites":
"Many users here have resisted heavily and changed articles related to the Bani Israelite origins of the Afghans / Pashtuns. None of those editors have any qualifications in the said field. They also lack basic knowledge of it. These articles were original research and endless historical texts. Yet they have been deleted. Alas thats one of the fallacies of Wikipedia which has to be addressed in the future by the admins."
This does not seem to be an issue that involves a dispute, but simple abuse. Are you telling me that the only alternative recourse would be to request full protection? This is time consuming. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Numerous IP editors and new accounts have repeatedly added poorly referenced (or, usually, unreferenced) content asserting that the organization is a hate group. - MrX 02:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Steady level of IP vandalism on stable, high traffic, MedRS page. RDBrown (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Ongoing content dispute across several editors. No 3RR yet. . Zad68 01:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection please: see the talk page for an ongoing RfC on the inclusion of this material, which (it is argued) falls foul of various BLP policies. I'd do it myself, but I have an opinion here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If that's too long, I have no problem with shortening it based on the length/outcome of the RFC. KrakatoaKatie 01:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Been created twice now to promote User:AbdulsVillage's YouTube channel. I figure if he creates it one or two more times he'll wind up with an indefblock, so why not cut off the ability to do it again, and see if he takes it as a sign to shape up or ship out?. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done KrakatoaKatie 01:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Some sort of dispute about pictures and phrasings...I'm slightly involved (in the page, not in this dispute) so I'll let someone else decide if protecting or blocking is better. . Qwyrxian (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for 1 week. Monty845 00:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. –sumone10154(talk) 20:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page protection for 1 year has expired, and vandalism resumes. –sumone10154(talk) 19:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Drmies (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Has been subject to various forms of vandalism, etc; I have no need to edit here, anyhow, as the actual page content is stored on a subpage. —Theopolisme 23:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. I don't see any autoconfirmed vandalism, and a full protected userpage seems to me to create more work for admins down the line without any actual increased benefit. Courcelles 23:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense; thanks for the help. —Theopolisme 23:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism; general vandalism to article text, repeated uploading of copy-violating images by accounts outside of Wikipedia immediately followed by replacement of Commons image by IPs. Dan56 (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Courcelles 23:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism – Persistent inclusion of POV/spammy material by two new editors (socks?). Randykitty (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Declined for now. I've issued level-3 warnings to the two (ahem) accounts. If this continues it will escalate to a block, of the IP address also (it should)--and maybe we won't have to file an SPI. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent inclusion of POV/spammy material by two new editors (socks?). Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined See above. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Two individuals continue to revert edits that I make to the Cro-Magnon article in spite of the fact that I cite sources for all of my claims. They have arbitrarily decided that my sources are "outdated" (one being from 1981) while offering sources that are demonstrably false as alternatives. For this reason I am requesting temporary page protection on the Cro-Magnon article as it stands. Kapture-N-Kill Commando (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined No way. This is a content dispute and you should stop edit-warring. In fact, I'm going to revert your latest edit since it is not well-written and poorly referenced, and I am going to place a warning for edit-warring on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind: user blocked for edit-warring already. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Two individuals keep reverting edits that I have made to pages for irrational, unjustified reasons. I am requesting temporary page protection on the Neanderthal extinction hypothesis article until the issue can be resolved. Kapture-N-Kill Commando (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been only one editor at this page although I will shortly revert as KNKC is adding unsourced material and I believe misrepresenting at least one other source. He is now at 3RR on this page and 4RR at another. He has also told the editor reverting him at this article "Dear Ma'am (I am assuming you are a female because your behavior and choice of words are very effeminate),". Ah, just noticed he's been blocked for edit-warring. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. Nom blocked for edit-warring. Favonian (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Widr (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked.. Two named accounts indeffed and the underlying school IP sent off for a year. Favonian (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

05 December 2012

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – vandalism from multiple IPs. Anbu121 (talk me) 19:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alleluhia!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism resumes after semi-protection for 1 year has expired. No reason was given for the protection request decline a few days ago. –sumone10154(talk) 17:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Frequent uncited unexplained changes by IP users. Davidelit (Talk) 05:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent semi-protection  : Every day you have a different or even same Ip user changing info and adding unnecessary info which are unsourced, one ip user comes back every week or two weeks and rewrites the entire article in a negative way. (Libby995 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent persistent attacks from numerous IPs. No reason why flagged revisions wouldn't be appropriate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let me know if disruption continues upon expiry and I'll re-protect. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Has been getting hit lately by serial IP fantasy-writing trolls. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Vacationnine 15:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected -- Alexf(talk) 15:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite full protection: spamming by blocked spammer at user's talk page: [2]. Altered Walter (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. by Bwilkins (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 12:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Breaches of the WP:BLP policy apparently ongoing for more than three weeks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be working - edits by ISP are being made without review.--ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny. I edited the page logged out, it wasn't automatically approved. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Pending changes: Persistent unexplained removal of content by IP addresses since June 2012 -A1candidate (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism and also change in box office numbers, adding unsourced contents (mostly from IPs) started again after protection expired yesterday. Torreslfchero (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs are changing the contract status of a player before the official announcement based on rumors. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. IP user (presumably the same person but different addresses is continuously adding opinion to lead. Perhaps lock for a while to deter.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Per history, and per post at BLPN: [3]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of a fortnight, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – by single purpose IP accounts. They keep changing links to the site to referral links.FusionLord (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is a long-term but infrequent problem - not really suited for semi-protection but pending changes should work well. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.FusionLord (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent semi-protection: Repeated vandalism by several different IPs since the article was created. My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, the article from which this one was split, was permanently semi-protected a year ago for the same reason. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. A few good edits by IPs, so pending changes may be a better choice. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:203.14.52.67 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ip blocked keep on editing here. Andreasm just talk to me 03:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP users keep adding unsourced information from a blog. 2 weeks please.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. The edits are a little bit too drawn-out for semi-protection, but pending changes seems a good fit. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Basically every IP edit in the last several months has been reverted as vandalism. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 06:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 18 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of persistent IP vandalism. Possibly because of the notability of the article in question. Artimaean (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Plenty of good IP edits, so PC might work better. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection ongoing persistent vandalism of a good article from IPs and new accounts. Insomesia (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Article has encountered a long history of vandalism, but current vandalism is sporadic at worst. Still recommend semi protection for a longer duration, as it is unlikely to ever escape this sustained vandalism (given the hostility towards the topic, especially in the United States, a major source of the IP vandalism). T.I.M(Contact) 01:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected indefinitely. Nothing but trouble, and that's unlikely to ever change Courcelles 02:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I'm sick of anon IPs messing with me. It's my talk page it should be up to me, so please PP until I decide I'm want it opened up again, thanks. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Protection policy strongly recommends having an alternate talk page for anonymous/new users to post to. Can you create such a page and link to it from your talk page? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather not. Why would there be an issue here with protecting my own talk page? I don't intend to keep it protected for too long, but the issue now is that each time the PP expires I get a new round of harassment from IPs. IP editors can contact me at the talk pages of articles that I edit if needed. What is a better choice, to allow a registered user of 3+ years to be regularly bothered by IP sock trolls, or just simply prevent IPs from contacting someone (me) who really would rather they (IPs) left me alone altogether. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) The main issue here is that you don't own your talk page, and it's not yours. It's provided to you by Wikipedia for the sole purpose of allowing others to communicate. If you don't wish for them to talk, just create the other subpage to make IPs happy. gwickwiretalkedits 23:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you would rather risk driving away a registered user with 20,000+ edits and several FACs then risk hindering an anon IP from editing my talk page? "Users whose talk page is semi-protected for lengthy or indefinite periods of time should ideally have an unprotected user talk subpage", ideally is not a requirement. While you are correct to state that I don't own my talk page per: "They are part of Wikipedia and must serve its primary purposes; in particular, they make collaboration among editors easier." I have not ever collaborated with an IP at my talk page. 99.999999% of all IP edits to my talk have been made for the purpose of harassment. Who are you protecting by allowing me to be harassed by users who refuse to register? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide more information as to why you object to creating a subpage that is open to IPs? -- Dianna (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't see the point. I don't want to be contacted by IPs so why make a page for them especially to contact me? This is yet another reason why people stop editing Wikipedia. All an IP needs to do to contact me is to register. I'm about done here, I've had it with Wikitedium. Go on and "protect" the "rights" of anon IPs to bother me, nice choice for Wikipedia. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – User talk pages are not protected except in response to severe or continued vandalism. And for the record, hinting that you would leave Wikipedia if you don't get your own way is the behaviour of a WP:DIVA.--Jac16888 Talk 19:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, I couldn't care less what you think. Come back after you have been wikistalked for 5 straight months and then tell me I'm a Diva. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be more honest than the average person. There's no requirement that you ever look at the subpage. I suspect that the average person in your situation would have created the page, provided a link, and then silently ignored it, rather than getting his request denied over the question of the subpage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I concede. I've now created a subpage just for IPs. Do I now need to make a new PP request, or can this decline be changed? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks. -- Dianna (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Sfgiants1995 (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Mark Arsten.

Semi-protection: Recent moderate to high level of IP vandalism

The Heisman Trophy is the premiere individual player award in college football. The 2012 Heisman Trophy will be awarded on 12/8/12 8pm ET. Article is currently experiencing vandalism. Request for protection for approx 4 days (until before 2012 award announcement, when multiple editors will be actively updating it following the award of the trophy).

See timeline to award announcement here: http://www.heisman.com/index.php https://secure.sportssystems.com/events2/credapp.cfm;jsessionid=923040f4859d57ce1e8c4839ce7a7c707302 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.228.112 (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2012

Semi-protected. Expires 03:00 UTC, 9 December 2012.—Bagumba (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Thank you Wikipedia for the protection in the past but the people harassing us are still at it. The page was unprotected on 11-28 by the userbot and now the vandals are at it again. You'll see the editing war from Oct and Nov that caused you to place protection on it. These people are trying to destroy Mark's livelihood. Please freeze the page for months! The page is the way Mark wants it for now. Many thanks. Spiritual Lineage 4 December 2012.User:Spiritual Lineage

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent surge of IP vandalism; long prior history of vandal edits. Semi-protect for a month at least, please. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: persistent vandalism by IP accounts dealing with alleged date of death, although no notable source can confirm. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sri Lankan Tamil people (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – ip vandalism. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Article talk pages are rarely protected and I don't see the level of disruption that would be required to justify protection in this instance. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Dezastru (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SmartSE (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Influx of vandals creating accounts specifically for this page. Nymf hideliho! 22:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations – Lightly edited, lightly watched. Most recent edits have been WP:BLPPRIVACY violations attempting to add unreferenced birth details. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Recent moderate to high level of IP vandalism (since Nov. 30) , all deleting or undoing edits to remove/add the exact same material. Deletions include of massive amounts of text, and random deletions of in-line citations. Yankees76 Talk 21:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Regular IP vandalism, no helpful IP edits. Vandals always return after expiry of previous protection. Please semi-protect for at least six months, if possible. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: The previous text has been modified because it contained false and slanderous information, and it has been formally contested by Mr Briatore’s lawyer with a letter of formal notice to the Wikimedia foundation. We kindly ask protection of this new text, which is a precise translation of the text which appears now on Wikipedia Italy , as a result of the letter of formal notice sent by Mr Briatore’s lawyers to Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Italy, contesting the previous version for its false and slanderous content.shadow003 11:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. This is a content dispute, which will not be resolved by semi-protection. See WP:BLP/H and seek assistance if necessary at the WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. JohnCD (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLPN#Flavio Briatore. JohnCD (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Today we have requested the protection of the text because yesterday we removed the text containing false and slanderous information at 16.43 and at 16.47 the previous text containing false and slanderous information was reintroduced. Our removal is subsequent to a letter of formal notice dated November 28, 2012 sent by Mr. Briatore’s lawyer to the Wikimedia Foundation to contest the false and slanderous information contained in Mr. Briatore biography. Please contact Wikimedia Foundation for confirmation that said letter has been sent to them. The new biography we introduced in the English version of Wikipedia is in line with the biography published in the Italian version of Wikipedia. Please consider that we removed the previous biography in the Italian Wikipedia because it contained false and slanderous information (some of which was corresponding to the false and slanderous information contained in the current biography in the English Wikipedia) and we requested and obtained the semi-protection of the new biography introduced in the Italian Wikipedia. The removal of the previous text in the Italian Wikipedia was also subsequent to a letter of formal notice dated November 20, 2012 sent by Mr. Briatore’s lawyer to Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Italia. We expect that the current biography in the English Wikipedia containing false and slanderous information is immediately replaced by the new biography introduced by us and that the new text is protected.shadow003 17:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: It looks like you don't know, that semi-protection is only effective against unregistered and newly registered accounts (who registered less than 4 days ago and didn't make 10 edits). Armbrust The Homunculus 18:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

06 December 2012

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – vandalism by socks. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. for one day by Reaper Eternal. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – since coming off two-month SP on December 1, numerous anons have been Vandalizing the article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Consistent addition of premature or unsourced material. —cyberpower Limited AccessMerry Christmas 13:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pending changes should only be used for unambiguously inappropriate additions such as vandalism, BLP, or copyright violations. Violations of other core content policies should not be handled with PC. Semiprotection is more appropriate. Gigs (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Webclient101 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There was a request for protection filed by myself for this page previously. Continued personal attacks justify this second request. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 19:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 60 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Request protection from IP edits and from new accounts (if that is possible) as this page is being frequently vandalized by both kinds of editors. Readin (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let me know if problems continue upon expiry and I'll reprotect for longer. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Junebea1 (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Copyright violations. Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let me know if problems continue upon expiry and I'll reprotect for longer. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by IPs over a long period of time. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I don't know why but this article has getting hit by different kinds of vandalism from multiple & various IP-editors over the past two days, with one instance having WP:BLP concerns. . Shearonink (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let me know if vandalism continues upon expiry and I'll reprotect for longer. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Consistent vandalism from IPs over a long time. Zad68 14:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --regentspark (comment) 15:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Non-stop edit warring between IPs. – Richard BB 10:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring about a "POV template". --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined You know the talk-page of the article is there for a reason? Instead of repeatedly reverting each other, try to talk a bit to each other. Lectonar (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism. Paris1127 (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. If the Ip (122...) continues, report them at WP:AIV Lectonar (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Frequent unexplained changes by IP editors. Davidelit (Talk) 05:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Hi there is a dispute going on at Talk:Glassheart about the use of iTunes in the release history. Two clear examples have been given as to why iTunes should not be used but a certain editor will not back down despite being asked not to re-add iTunes until the dispute is resolved. . — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if the user adds back information from iTunes, an page-protecting admin should remove that before protecting the page as per the discussion at the article's page it is not supported by consensus. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ask admins to take a side in a content dispute. You can have one or the other, but it would not be appropriate for an admin to take a side in the dispute and then use their admin tools to act in the interest of that position. See WP:INVOLVED. I would again suggest to you that protection is not the right avenue for dealing with this issue, but will leave this request for another admin to review. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Lectonar (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Article seems to attract children, or people behaving like it. You will be hard-pressed to find a constructive IP edit. – Wdchk (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – People keep on changing the Box office data. It's getting crazy at this point. They write numbers like 506 crore which make no sense. Please help. These random IP addresses should stop. . Ashermadan (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Webclient101 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent personal attacks by various IP addresses. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 08:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined/ User(s) blocked.. We typically don't protect or semi-protect user talks unless there's an extraordinary amount of IP/new user attacks going on. This page has seen more than average, but all of the IPs in question have been blocked as they've come up. bibliomaniac15 08:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent addition of personal analysis by multiple IPs Likely same individual. Jim1138 (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article Kajol is a good article. Many IP addresses want to edit their favourite actress's page in Wikipedia. Kajol is one of the favourite actresses in India. So when the inexperienced editors try to edit they make wrong edit or vandalism in mistake. But a good article shouldn't be vandalized. For this reason this page should be semi-protected. pratyya (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I can understand and appreciate your views. But neither can protection be done preemptively, nor is there disruptive activity at the level that requires semi protection. Please do feel free to again request in case vandalism becomes persistent. Kind regards. Wifione Message 06:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism from IP user. Areaseven (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection requested. Slow but persistent vandalism. The page was previously protected, but the protection ended in September. Since that time almost every edit has been either IP/New editor vandalism, or a revert to undo that vandalism. It is time to accept that the topic is a vandalism magnet, and longer term (if not indefinite) protection is needed. Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 06:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Looks like it needs semi-protection again. Unsourced IP edits . STATic message me! 01:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – User talk:Fresh nu start is failing to adhere to repeated requests to not add iTunes per a discussion at Talk:Trouble (Leona Lewis song). In an edit war and discussion users should wait until their view gains consensus. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. by Kww see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full move protection Move-warring during an RM. I'm requesting indefinite protection since the RM doesn't have a fixed date of conclusion; we should add a note telling the closing admin to unprotect the page immediately upon closing the RM. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected. Courcelles 04:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page has a long standing pattern of IP vandalism that really picked up steam when Amy Winehouse died, and it hasn't abated. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Courcelles 04:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. Excessive BLP violations. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Users from class are now editing this article again, please re-protect (semi this time, as none of them are (auto)confirmed yet). :) Thanks. gwickwiretalkedits 03:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by Drmies as of now. gwickwiretalkedits 03:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ever since the previous protection was lifted, the page has been vandalized an awful lot, possibly due to The X Factor, so protecting until the season ends may be an idea. ZappaOMati 02:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It may be a better idea to protect this article under pending changes. TBrandley 03:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 04:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:81.213.126.151 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – Inappropriate use of talk page while blocked. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 21:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. - On a side note, this same user (from a different IP) falsely accused me of the same thing here :P. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – BLP vandalism from two IP's (and when those kids get home, I expect one or two more) . ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Acroterion (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP edit warring. Spidey104 02:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Monty845 02:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. —Theopolisme 01:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Full-protection: Content dispute still leading to constant removal/readding the same piece of info. Starting to think a Admin needs to get involved on the talk page. Shadow (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely.. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Many changes by non-confirmed users, mostly regarding Cupp's religion, or lack of it. There isn't a tremendous amount of activity, but it is a BLP, and I can't keep reverting. Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending change protection So I can figure out how it works without screwing up a real page. NE Ent 19:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Good idea, but I'm not sure that pending changes can be enabled on userspace. It's not giving me an option to do that when I click protect on your sandbox. Sorry! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment:: Why not try one of the Pending Changes test pages? Vacationnine 19:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Cause I didn't know they existed ... was searching for "sandbox" -- since when do we name test pages "Testing"??? geez NE Ent 20:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, maybe Sandbox would have made more sense. Vacationnine 20:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: These articles has been vandalized frequently. One user in particular (Junebea1 (talk · contribs) mass reverts these articles even undoing edits that are beneficial to article. Already spoken to him/her about this, but I was ignored, which I was expecting, User talk:Junebea1#Your mass reverting of the Bad Girls Club season articles. Semi-protection is the best option at this point, as other Bad Girls Club season articles are currently semi-protected as well. QuasyBoy (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. The user you are trying to prevent from editing would not be stopped by semi-protection as they are autocomfirmed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – 3RR violation by Alsace here. Block required. E4024 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of one day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let me know if edit warring continues upon expiry of the protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Protection:' Persistent editing by unqualified editor, reverting to his opinions on historic person pending anniversary of December 7 Attack on Pearl Harbor. Request protection through December 10, 2012 at least.TMartinBennett (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator MilborneOne. (indefinite full protection) Armbrust The Homunculus 20:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – Blanking talk page while blocked for socking. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 18:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined they only did it once, and you have not actually explained to them why we do not allow that. Also, if they persist re-blocking without TP access is a more appropriate response. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

07 December 2012

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent assorted IP vandalism Span (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – repeated vandalism from many IP addresses. Altered Walter (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by administrator Alexf. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism has already started after the protection was removed due to expire of full protection. Could an admin restore indef. semi-protection? Thanks. Torreslfchero (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Best, Mifter (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi - constant IP vandalism, socking, and editwarring against xconsensus by SPAs. MSJapan (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. (one minute before this request in fact) by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 1 month. tutterMouse (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Radio show in the news because of a suicide by a nurse at the London hospital that two of their DJs prank-called in an attempt to gain information about the Duchess of Cambridge during her recent stay.

Semi-protected for a period of ten days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Radio station in the news because of a suicide by a nurse at the London hospital that two of their DJs prank-called in an attempt to gain information about the Duchess of Cambridge during her recent stay. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 17:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Sandstein. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: High-risk template, almost 1000 transclusions. Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. Looks like it was protected on April 22, 2012. Monty845 20:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Basically every edit by IPs since September has been reverted as vandalism. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 18:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for 3 months, I don't think its bad enough to justify indef yet. Monty845 20:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protection: Semi-protection expired three days ago and now the same IP-hopping editor is back adding the same BLP-violating material to the article (see the talk page for more). Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Afterwriting (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{RFPP|d}} Are you sure you have the right article? I can not even see IP edits for some years on the one you linked... Lectonar (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing they're referring to Elisabeth Murdoch the elder who recently died, the rate of vandalism is still too low eitherway. tutterMouse (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You must be kidding! Afterwriting (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article link fixed. Please protect this article from repeated IP activist vandalism. Afterwriting (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Struck through the decline because it was related to another article, a disambig page. Revert if I'm out of line doing this.) tutterMouse (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – the same vandalism which was the reason for the protection is back within a day of the protection expiring - last one was three months, but the speed with which it came back suggests the person kept a record of it for three months so hopefully with an indef they'll lose interest. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continual edit warring from IPs. – Richard BB 09:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. That is still not enough to warrant protection. Lectonar (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Longterm WP:BLP violations. Perhaps a block of the account will do the trick, but article has been subject to persistent attempts to insert non-neutral content, apparently by someone with a grudge. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Lectonar (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: had enough - I was hoping that it being unprotected would keep the vandalism off my talk page, but let's see how it goes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of a year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I asked Diannaa to remove the protection to see if it was still required - looks like it is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Lectonar (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Increasing levels of IP vandalism on a leading presidential candidate article. Nana Akufo-Addo is a leading candidate for the presidency of Ghana in the 2012 Ghanaian presidential elections as the New Patriotic Party candidate. 7–14 days (one-to-two weeks) protection would be convenient. MarkMysoe (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Looks like only 2 reverts in the past week. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 07:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Sudden onset of IP vandalism - albeit recent, but all different IP addresses, and the same kind of BLP violations. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated. -- Patchy1 07:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Additions of unsourced content. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Almost constant IP vandalism in the last 3 days. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 05:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for 1 month, then we'll see how it goes. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 07:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Steady level of IP vandalism on MedRS article. RDBrown (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The kind of stuff coming in right now is revdel-able, and shouldn't be coming in at all. PC might be a good idea once this particular spurt of vandalism is over, though. Courcelles 05:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Many IP vandalism edits since June. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Steady level of IP vandalism on MedRS page ranked 4317. RDBrown (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Maybe PC1?. §haun 9∞76 ༆ 00:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism. BabelStone (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Looks like they stopped. Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

08 December 2012

Semi-protection: Repeated violations of WP:MEDRS, WP:OR etc by promoter of unapproved quack 'medicine', using multiple IPs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 14:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Jim1138 (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Full-protection autoconfirmed users also vandalizing. Jim1138 (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator Gogo Dodo. --Webclient101talk 07:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-posting SPI case. 24 socks, in all. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 09:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – repeated unsourced libellous criminal accusations from two IPs. No doubt other IPs will repeat the vandalism soon. Altered Walter (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Removal of Carla Hernandez's participation in PP with sources. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The IP is removing material that fails our reliable sourcing guidelines. Self-published and user generated material, such as Youtube videos, are not reliable sources. We also do not analyze primary sources such as trailers. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. Sources other than YouTube confirm the participation of this actress. I have cleaned up the article and will watch-list for a while. -- Dianna (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Seems some site has directed folks to vandalise this. -— Isarra ༆ 04:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism due to tonight's show. WANI ♪♫♪ 04:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Bsadowski1. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Numerous attempts by User talk:69.249.133.74 to include non-reliable, possibly controversial information in a BLP. . Rushbugled13 (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Katherine Schwarzenegger (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent disruptive editing on otherwise inactive talk page, disruptive editor is IP hopping, resumed after previous protect expired. He is a stalker leaving personal messages. Also these personal messages being left should be revision deleted, we don't want to give a message log to this person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. There only seems to be one IP who is adding to the talk page right now. At this point, I think the block of just the IP should suffice. If it continues, please realist and we can go from there. Icestorm815 • Talk 01:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Important, high traffic article . Danielj2705 (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to require semi-protection though, rate of vandalism is very low for such a high traffic article. tutterMouse (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Intermittent IP and New User vandalism every few days. §haun 9∞76 ༆ 15:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism; middle colonies, meet middle school. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. for a middle length of time....Lectonar (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I anticipate revisiting this, since the disruptions constitute a long term issue involving multiple accounts. My interest is middling. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it on my watchlist, to see if the IP-edits can ever be more than mediocre... Lectonar (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, though our efforts need not go beyond those required by Wikipedia. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we few, we happy few...once more unto the breach my friends. Ok, enough banter now. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Torreslfchero (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second this request to fully protect this page. There is edit warring going on and I can't keep on fighting it alone. Until the dispute is settled with this one troll named Zekatusyesu we cannot move further. He is destroying the page and apparently is a seasoned editor which is shocking. Ashermadan (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected For content disputes, the articles are not temporarily protected as editors tend to wait it out and then resume. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lots of IP vandalism going on. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

09 December 2012

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent removal of AFD template by various IP users. Cindy(talk to me) 20:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator HJ Mitchell. for 1 week. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: There have been many reports about her in the past hours after the plane she was traveling disappeared. Many IPs have been vandalizing the page since. GoPurple'nGold24 19:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: This is a Mexican entertainer whose plane apparently crashed this morning; there's been a high number of low-quality IP edits being reverted by another editor. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 36 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. - Aside from sporadic sock edits there is hardly any vandalism, so I'm not sure protection is required. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator NawlinWiki. for 3 months. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – BLP violations. Torreslfchero (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for 2 weeks. Monty845 20:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: A user that has apparently been following me around and reverting my changes has jumped in after me and another editor found ourselves in a content dispute and the page was semi-protected to further discussion. The other editor didn't respond and the protection was lifted. When that happened, my stalker jumped right in and reverted. Eik Corell (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, same as yesterday. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. -- Dianna (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Protecting admin, *try* to find a non-vandalized version of the page. I can't find it for the life of me. Also maybe issue warnings to recent vandals and connected vandals. (Is there an automated way to check all IP edits and their other contribs then check the histories of those other pages etc to find IP hoppers?). ⁓ Hello71 05:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Best, Mifter (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Protecting admin, *try* to find a non-vandalized version of the page. I can't find it for the life of me. ⁓ Hello71 05:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I've gutted the article as well - the original contributor was one of the people adding the BLP violations/vandalism, so there was no clean version. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Either that or semi. Persistent premature addition of information and unsourced material. —cyberpower OfflineMerry Christmas 04:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Seems to be some kind of IP-fueled edit warring-like behavior going on there. Midhart90 (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Less than one bad IP edit per month. GoodnightmushTalk 06:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. —Theopolisme 08:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Seems to be some kind of IP-fueled edit warring-like behavior going on there. -- I'm Titanium  chat 07:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short term vandalism relating to the Johnny Manziel winning the trophy on 08 December 2012.. -- BroJohnE (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Happens every year, you could almost set your watch by it. Courcelles 06:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection 3 week old edit war on a page that has an Arbitration enforcement of 1 revert. Semi-protection not working in this case at all. Moxy (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This protection was offered as a proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Evildoer187. It is probably better to let people comment in that thread before deciding on whether to protect. RFPP usually does not allow for much discussion, so I recommend that the RFPP admins defer this to AE. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined — For now, so that this request will archive. The actual decision about this protection should occur at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback protection: Persistent abuse of the feedback feature including BLP policy violations. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Courcelles 05:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Long term part malicious and part good faith editing by a number of sockpuppets. See here. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 23:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. given there is already a year's semi in log for socking... Courcelles 06:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Misplaced submissions landing here. Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I don't see any misplaced submission in the history of the template. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected. Standard for AFC meta-templates, due to how often folks get lost and confused, to point them back where they want to go. (And why is a non-admin declining requests here?) Courcelles 06:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make since. I've had tons of BLP violations and vandalism on that article in the past. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But none of them is recent. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment:: Article is semi-protected already; if the reason is vandalism or BLP violations Pending Changes might be a good idea to try. Vacationnine 00:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) - It's just pending changes protection, I think a month is a decent amount of time. Besides, Jens Bergensten was just protected, and it hasn't received near as bad vandalism. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined I am gonna have to agree with Armbrust here; there's been no edits at all since the 4th, and nothing vandalistic since November 2. The article is already under semi-protection, which expires on 2 February, and there are 32 active watchers. -- Dianna (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism, Vandalism Everywhere!. --Kygora 04:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 5 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short term vandalism relating to the Heisman Trophy. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – long term history of vandalism and disruption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism, adding false information, and constant edit warring. Fanaction2031 (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The article is being heavily edited with very few vandalistic changes. It's also heavily watched, so poor edits are being quickly removed. Declined, as articles like this will help serve to attract new editors to the project. -- Dianna (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection - Continued unexplained removal of large sections of sourced content by an IP-hopping editor who refuses to discuss any of the edits. - SudoGhost 21:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked.. As far as I can tell, the two offending IPs have both been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Repeated reversions by an IP range. VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent IP sock puppetry – 3 different IPs adding airlines that do not fly to this airport. Snoozlepet (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – All IP edits (at least from july to this day, I didn't check before) are vandalism. Some of them are vandalism in Spanish, which aren't detected by ClueBot. Fort is like a young version of Donald Trump but from Argentina, so IP vandalism will never stop. As this page has <30 watches, I think it would be reasonable to semi-protect this page indefinitely. Neo139 (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Being vandalised now and then by unregistered IPs and branded as a nationalist party by these vandals (when it is in fact 'other') following Alliance Party action in recent weeks for the removal of a union flag on Belfast City Hall on all but designated days causing commotion throughout Northern Ireland. Tempo River (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated unjustified deletions of all but discreditable content, probably politically motivated. Bill (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Getting a lot of vandalism from IP editors, especially in the section involving scores. Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Dianna (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Hi. I'd like to request a 30 days semi-protection to stop content dispute and edit warring by an IP user over a color of a bikeshed issue, in this case color of wordmark issue. The latest instance is [4].

A registered editor is also involved whom I have already warned twice; but, I don't think his or her involvement warrants a full protection for the time being. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. The edit war seems to have cooled off in the last day or two, and a discussion is taking place on the talk page. Please re-apply if the activity resumes. -- Dianna (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent sock-puppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--5 albert square (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism.Érico Wouters msg 01:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--5 albert square (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP-hopping banned use, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket / Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. by another admin. Only one IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection. Persistent attempts by IP editors to add scandalous material that has been judged by various editors (including Jimbo, admins) to be a BLP violation. Current edit war (note: I have repeatedly removed this under BLP) - Wikidemon (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. This is a single IP issue, doesn't belong here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent vandalisms from IP users and a constant act of vandalism. Maine12329 (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent vandalisms from IP users and a constant act of vandalism. (Slurpy121 (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Semi expired month or so ago; vandalism has resumed. —Theopolisme 02:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Junebea1 (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Consistent vandalism from different IP users. Astros4477 (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Currently on-going event, high level of IP vandalism. LlamaAl (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Katherine Schwarzenegger (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent disruptive editing on otherwise inactive talk page, disruptive editor is IP hopping, resumed after previous protect expired. He is a stalker leaving personal messages. Also these personal messages being left should be revision deleted, we don't want to give a message log to this person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. There only seems to be one IP who is adding to the talk page right now. At this point, I think the block of just the IP should suffice. If it continues, please realist and we can go from there. Icestorm815 • Talk 01:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting as above - roving IP, blocking IP won't stop this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of vandalism from IP users in recent weeks. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I agree it was bad in recent weeks, but the last actual vandalism was about a week ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article receives a high level of vandalism this time of year, which as already begun. Request temporary protection until after advent, when it goes away for 11 months. SabreBD (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Best, Mifter (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: persistent spamming which started up again after protection (for the same reason) expired. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Best, Mifter (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected; there have been no productive edits since the protection lifted at the start of October. -- Dianna (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Persistent and long term vandalism by IP editors. Michaela den (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three days. -- Dianna (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Harrassment of editor by sockpuppets. Autoconfirmed protection should do the trick. I suggest 30 days.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for four days to start. By then the account will be autoconfirmed so protection will become pointless. -- Dianna (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Subject to repeated vandalism, but doesn't seem to be at a level requiring full protection. Yet. B7T (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Semi-protected -- Dude! (dudette?) I just laid two weeks protection on it. There's actually been no productive edits (other that addition of categories etc) since the article was created in Sept 2011. -- Dianna (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short-term vandalism. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated violations of WP:CRYSTALBALL by unregistered IPs. . Myxomatosis75 (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - Most edits lately are either vandalism from IP editors or reverts. Aaron D. Ball (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks. Please re-apply for longer protection if the problem persists when the protection wears off. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Vacationnine 21:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for 1 month. Monty845 22:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Multiple IP's have vandalized this article, last protection was not enough. Webclient101talk 06:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent vandalisms from IP users. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10 December 2012

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. VQuakr (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. by Bjelleklang (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – by non-anglo user Pokajanje engaged in persistant vandalism of a topic that is of particular interest to native English speakers, and perhaps to others.

information Note: Semi-protection does not work against autoconfirmed accounts like Pokajanje. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 02:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless he can prove that I am a nazi, that's an attack an a BLP violation. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, semi-protection would reduce disruption from the now blocked IP editor who made the request and seems to have started socking... Monty845 05:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. We'll see if that is enough....Lectonar (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taoism has very few constructive contributors, but a huge amount of silly vandalism. These unconstructive edits often come from IPs. Any chance to semi-protect this article? Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Due to long term, persistent vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Webclient101talk 04:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war here Jim1138 (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected. Dreadstar ☥ 05:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: He was traded to the Phillies, so he's getting some additional attention, and as such IPs and brand new accounts are messing with all kinds of things in the article despite some hidden warnings and repeated reversion. Locking it up for a week would be prudent to prevent further disruption. Go Phightins! 03:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dreadstar ☥ 05:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - IP vandalism. This has been occurring since 2007, this must stop NOW! (PBASH607 (Talk).

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. NW (Talk) 02:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism.(Slurpy121 (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please Protect my user page so that it will remain saved from Vandalism. Greatuser (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Someone else can do this if they want, but such requests are usually only granted if the page is subject to vandalism. It appears that your userpage has never been vandalized. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Materialscientist (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Agree, I just see no reason for IPs to edit userpages. Materialscientist (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – currently featured as a Goodle doodle, the vandalism has started. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 05:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism – Editor engaged in persistant vandalism. BadSynergy (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Dennis Brown. for 1 week and User(s) blocked. by Monty845 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 01:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Excessive vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Created after CSD deletion. m'encarta (t) 18:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Created only twice, within 5 minutes, quite some time ago. Indef protection would certainly be an overkill. I'd say re-report if recreation resumes. Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection against persistent attempts by passing IPs to remove the section providing the answer to this puzzle. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Dianna (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Inbound IP attacks adding position information which contradicts available sources. Problem generic to all K-pop articles. . Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for six months. -- Dianna (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Dianna. All the best. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. C. 22468 Talk to me 13:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined; I have cleaned up the article and will watch-list -- Dianna (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP user puts some incorrect names. Possibly this user is User:Tirgil34 . Bouron (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a false report. User:Bouron seems to have a problem with those given sources. If this user is continuing with his inaccurste deletions and behavior, we indeed need a completeprotection. --82.113.122.164 (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Declined This looks like a content dispute to me. Please discuss the matter on the article talk page and try to collaborate. -- Dianna (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring from 217.30.64.34 (talk) (previously known as Smartmo (talk) ). – Davidkmartin (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Did you know this is the third request on this article in the last three days? Semi-protection won't stop him if he decides to log in again. Note the information included on the edit warring template I have placed on your talk page. Please continue to try to discuss the content on the article talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism. Constant. Statυs (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three months. Please re-apply for still longer-term protection if the problem resumes when the protection wears off. -- Dianna (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection. Persistent attempts by IP editors to add scandalous material that has been judged by various editors (including Jimbo, admins) to be a BLP violation. Current edit war (note: I have repeatedly removed this under BLP) - Wikidemon (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC) (declined request repeated - Wikidemon (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Semi-protected for six months. I did some clean-up too. -- Dianna (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: see Talk:Hayley_Atwell#Nationality_Doesn.27t_Read_Correctly. IP user(s) edit warring this change after semi-protection expired. Begoon talk 17:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by Qwyrxian -- Dianna (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The article was indefinitely semi-protected back in 2010. The protection was removed after the expiry of a short full protection (something for which there is a bug open). I'm requesting the reinstatement of the indefinite semi-protection—PC is not likely to do any good on such a high-traffic article. David1217 What I've done 00:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was fast! David1217 What I've done 00:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indef semi-protection: Long-term vandalism, probably from the same morphing IP on a big UK ISP, re-adding the same libelous vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Persistent vandalism/bad faith RFD-ing by various sockpuppets of User:Don't Feed the Zords, a notorious vandal. CodeCat (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has been targeting the page for 3+ years, is the goal to protect it long enough that he takes a break before returning in another few months, or are we looking at an indef, full protection? Monty845 18:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined: full protection is not used for vandalism like this. It would be an OK target for level 2 pending changes protection but that isn't allowed. Sorry, NW (Talk) 20:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Dubious unsourced changes. STATic message me! 16:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one week to start. -- Dianna (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Long term vandalism, infrequently edited. Vacationnine 16:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. -- Dianna (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeative editing by other IP users in grossing figures and other areas. Persistent vandalism.Anidemun (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks -- Dianna (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeative editing by IP users to "Americanise" the article and repeatedly make out the film is an all American production. Could be considered Borderline Vandelism. MisterShiney ✉ 14:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three days. The chickens sandwich edit was definitely vandalism -- Dianna (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. ⁓ Hello71 23:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection. Long-term pattern of IP editors refusing to engage in discussion on the status quo, in spite of regular attempts by registered users to engage in discussion, and several attempts at compromise (not least the renaming of the page). A block of the most recent IP to behave in this way has proved useless, and a rangeblock would likely be similarly pointless. This is merely the latest in a long line of similar behavior over weeks, months and even years; anything less than an indefinite semi-protection would be farcical at this stage. —WFC— FL wishlist 09:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three months. -- Dianna (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by Dougweller until 16 December. -- Dianna (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11 December 2012

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Since last protect expired on Dec 3, only one edit has value, rest are vandalism and vandalism reverts. Article is a vandalism target for some reason. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Holmes Temporary semi-protection: Persistent assorted IP vandalism Span (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Socking by multiple proxy IP addresses. . GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 12 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The Hernán Cortés page had a 1-year semi-protection, which expired on 30-nov. Up through that date, we had occasional edits (maybe every couple of weeks). Immediately after the semi-protection expired, the vandalism started at 3-4/day and has been relentless since. We've started missing vandalism edits. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – This title has been used twice now to circumvent create protection at Nik Shahrul Azim. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Some users keep inserting very sensitive material regarding a case in which she is involved, but where Norwegian media have overwhelmingly withheld her name. Norwegian Wikipedia has decided that nothing about the case should be mentioned in her article. Two or three minor/medium media in Norway has revealed her name. A complaint against them has been filed to Norwegian Press Complaints Commission. For the time being I strongly oppose this sensitive story to be mentioned in her article. We shouldn´t easily disregard Norwegian´s media position on this. There should be a clear consensus, preferably involving some admins, before anything about the case is put in the article. I will put up a discussion on the talk page (which I have already done in another article where her name has been mentioned in connection to this case.) Iselilja (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Also, Pending-changes protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Video game came out in North America a week ago. Was semi-protected for 24 hours on December 6th. The bulk of recent edits are vandalism, but it's not a high enough volume to warrant semi-protection. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Article is currently a bit too active for pending changes protection. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Repeated unsourced/incorrect addition of Michigan to list, jumping the gun slightly. Rostz (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ‑Scottywong| express _ 17:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continued vandalism across multiple IPs. Previously stable during last block in early November. IP edit warring has continued since then despite requests for discussion on talk page. czar · · 02:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 17:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of non-notables, unsourced content, by multiple accounts. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Hopefully it's died down now that there's been some good copy editing. Relist if it picks up again. GedUK  12:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Large number of unconstructive IP edits in short space of time. Hack (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Vandalism and genre warring by an IP changing thr sourced genre of the band on Whitechapel (band) 197666 years (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It's pretty infrequent. Short protection is unlikely to have much effect. GedUK  12:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – 24 h - while on main page?. Scray (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Off the front page now, and magically the vandalism stopped! No need now (might have been when request was made). GedUK  12:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Have noticed a slow edit war brewing over the last day. There is some discussion but the reverts continue. Sædontalk 10:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism from different IP users. Astros4477 (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – It is newly released film and so much disruption countinues here. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 18:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Not all the Ip edits are vandalism or disruptive for the moment, but I will put it on my watchlist. Lectonar (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. After watching this for some hours, I have protected now. Lectonar (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection The page was moved, the protection is not needed here. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection The page was moved, the protection is not needed here. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected and Bongwarrior already unprotected the new one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Obviously a new subject as James Arthur has won the latest season of The X Factor in the UK its attracted much attention from IPs who proceed to add unsourced information. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary protection - current today's featured article, inviting IP vandalism and other monkey business.VolunteerMarek 04:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Materialscientist (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection:-Persistent vandalism - The user with an IP address constantly vandalizes the articles and adds nonsense to the page in which me and two Administrators had to constantly revert.(Slurpy121 (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Materialscientist (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The current ongoing online chat war between Ray Willian Johnson and Danny Zappin (CEO of maker studio) is going to make a lot of Ray Willian Johnson fans come here and vandalise. I recommend both RWJ, Maker Studio pages be protected. Thanks. Sarmadhassan (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Materialscientist. for 3 days. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of non-notables, by multiple IPs. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Perhaps they just accepted a bunch of new members. Lectonar (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Would like either semi or PC. This was a nice stable Good article until various IPs starting insisting on their preferred wording for a certain passage. Discussion opened on talk page, IPs refuse to participate and revert any user who changes it back to previous stable version. Pending changes seems like a good fit but semipro would work as well. . Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with a protection here Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected....and I always thought there was only Knut_(polar_bear)...Lectonar (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: User page of deceased Wikipedian. Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 20:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected Lectonar (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – POV edits. Paris1127 (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lung cancer (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: IP attacks. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 08:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Almost all of the IP edits in the last year have been reverted as vandalism. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 08:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Currently semi-protected indefinitely, requesting change to PC. Nathan2055talk - contribs 03:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, but I'd like to go even further and try unprotecting it for a while and see how that goes. Let me get the protecting admin's opinion first - it may take a day or two. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Unprotection? Really? Look at the history before protection: [5]. It was vandalised multiple times per day, and sometimes per hour. Might be too high volume for PC protection, and I'm strongly against unprotection. Vacationnine 12:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was a long time ago. It might still be a problem, or it might not. There is only one way to find out. Whether it works or not, unprotection is almost always worth the effort (excepting obvious vandal magnets like Barack Obama or Israel). --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected. If the vandalism returns, I'll probably give pending changes a chance. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Perhaps because of the recent release of the remake, this article has received a lot of attention lately, almost entirely negative; short protection will help. The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated vandalism over past few days. Biker Biker (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Edit warring on sensitive BLP between IPs and select WP:SPAs. Page protection may force parties in to discussion, which they're very reluctant to do. Rushyo Talk 08:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article is at AFD, where there is a huge rat's nest of sock/meat puppets. The image in question is likely to be deleted as a clear copyright violation. Since this is edit warring, it would be improper to use semi protection, which would simply disadvantage new users to the benefit of older users. If anything, full protection would be used, but that isn't good to do when an article is at AfD. I will leave to another, but I would be inclined to leave it as is and deal with the individual editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, article deleted by Mackensen (talk · contribs). -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ⁓ Hello71 00:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Very high level of IP vandalism over the last few minutes, ~10 reverts in 5 minutes. Not entirely sure if something is triggering this as they seem to come from varied locations . Jonathanfu (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Materialscientist. for 3 days. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Torreslfchero (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected by Drmies for three months. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12 December 2012

Long-term semi-protection. This article has been vandalized by numerous IPs over the past three months. Please semi-protect it for a long time, at least six months, if not a full year. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection: Continuous assorted IP vandalism since last protection was removed. Span (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection This user is retired from Wikipedia and has not contributed actively since 2007. But for some reason - probably due to some off-wiki connection - their page gets repeatedly vandalized with insults and personal attacks. Since the attacks have extended over a period of years, and since the user is not active to defend their page, I think permanent semi-protection is appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Well, they were found to be socking at one point so adding the tag may have been pointless but it wasn't exactly vandalism. Some of the other edits certainly were. I have courtesy blanked both the user and talk pages to try and end the silliness. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Were they really? I found nothing in their log, and no official notification in their history - only this [6] sock claim which was posted by the same IP who is now restoring it. Anyhow, thanks for the protection. Problem solved. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – On-going edit war between registered users. Editors have been given final warning RE: behaviour. May be desirable to clean up some of the text before PP as this is a contentious WP:BLP article. Rushyo Talk 09:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has both PC1, which is set to expire, and semi, which is set to indefinite, protection. This makes the protection redundant. Please remove one.—cyberpower OfflineMerry Christmas 19:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Pending changes protection has been removed. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article has been temporarily protected several times and is often vandalized between protections, I think this article should have indefinite semi protection, or at least a very long temporary protection. -- Patchy1 13:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of IP edit warring over whether to mention the company's nationality, during the past week. McGeddon (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected I have fully protected the page, as I don't think there is a consensus on the talk page as to the nationality of the company and whether it should be included or not. Thus the revisions of both the editors and the IPs seems to be a bit of edit warring. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Perhaps until April?. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page was systematically repeatedly vandalised by several users over the course of a 2 hour period . douts (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism.This page content has been changed by some user intentionally.

Extended content
(cur | prev) 17:53, 29 November 2012‎ Majid mullazai (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,887 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎External links) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:52, 29 November 2012‎ Majid mullazai (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,885 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (→‎Education) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:34, 29 November 2012‎ Majid mullazai (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,854 bytes) (+737)‎ . . (→‎Origin) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:33, 29 November 2012‎ Majid mullazai (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,117 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Economy) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:06, 29 November 2012‎ Malcolma (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,117 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (added Category:Populated places in Panjgur district; removed {{uncategorized}} using HotCat) (undo)
(cur | prev) 04:41, 28 November 2012‎ Bearcat (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,102 bytes) (-119)‎ . . (categorization/tagging using AWB) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:58, 24 November 2012‎ Pjposullivan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,221 bytes) (-17)‎ . . (Undid revision 524675128 by Majid mullazai (talk) vandalism) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:51, 24 November 2012‎ Majid mullazai (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,238 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:48, 24 November 2012‎ Majid mullazai (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,221 bytes) (+10)‎ . . (→‎Education) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:34, 24 November 2012‎ AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,211 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (Dating maintenance tags: {{Citation needed}}) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:13, 24 November 2012‎ Pjposullivan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,196 bytes) (+233)‎ . . (grammar and links) (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:54, 24 November 2012‎ Pjposullivan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,963 bytes) (+154)‎ . . (attempted to clean this up grammatically, needs a lot of refs, why use a settlement infoxbox for a family tree?) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:21, 24 November 2012‎ Majid mullazai (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,809 bytes) (-729)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 11:44, 24 November 2012‎ Majid mullazai (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,538 bytes) (-54)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 09:50, 23 November 2012‎ Majid mullazai (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,592 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (→‎Origin) (undo)

Please save this page Aurangzebkhan786 (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Rami R 14:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Problematic IPs, but sometimes they do make decent edits. PC would be a good choice here in my opinion. Nathan2055talk - contribs 04:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined vast bulk of recent IP edits are fine. Any protection, including PC, would be over the top. GedUK  12:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Rapid vandalism by IPs and accounts. A. Parrot (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. NativeForeigner Talk 09:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Inaccurate and biased content was added to the article. Srbceditor (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined 1) Protection wouldn't be appropriate, 2) since this request the disputed text has been amended, 3) if it was protected you wouldn't be able to edit it. GedUK  12:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection or Pending Changes This article has seen vandalism from several IP users. Mabeenot and I have both had to revert in the past week. I'd like to see 10 days of protection to start.Andrew (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. 3 reverts in as many weeks is not enough to justify protection. GedUK  12:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Zorpia (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotect: it is generally a bad idea to protect talk pages, especially when the article gets deleted and/or recreated. Talk page may inform people about why the article doesn't exist as well as information which is possibly not suitable for the article itself. Moreover the Wikipedia:Protected_titles#Creation_protection policy does not cover talk pages at all, IMHO the protection is against the policy. In this special case I was pondering about removing the article and create a new one describing it as it is: a phishing / spamming / scamming site, but the references are scarce so this information would suit best the talk page. I cannot, however because it's been protected years ago (which in turn is quite unfortunate). Would be neat to check around for indefinitely protected talk pages and unlock them, this was an old, bad habit of a few admins back in the dark days. :-) Thanks. --grin ✎ 10:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support this request. The admin obviously forgot to unprotect the talk page when he recreated the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected Lectonar (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Shooting at mall; details currently fluctuating. Raymie (t • c) 00:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP editors trying to add non-notable duos to the list. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: 90.35.141.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked by Favonian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 24 hours for edit-warring. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. Lectonar (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PC changes: Persistent vandalism – No constructive IP edits since protection lapsed on 5 Dec. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Edit rate too high for PC. GedUK  12:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PC changes As every year, there is a mixture between GF edits and fancruft. None of the nominees or statistics must be changed until February. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Far too high an edit rate for PC to be effective. GedUK  12:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Indef or long term semi-protection needed because of repeat insertion of spam/copyvio text by what is almost certainly the organisation's owner or someone closely connected. I am tempted to take this to AfD and will almost certainly file a SPI. . Biker Biker (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recently deceased person. Torreslfchero (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - There's hardly any vandalism. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Constant addition of unsourced infobox statistics by IPs. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring about some records, nobody is getting to consensus. Discussions on the talk page got this nowhere. Vacationnine 12:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It's clear that PC isn't working on this page, nor that the dispute is close to resolution. GedUK  12:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Marked increase in vandalism over the past several days. Many different IPs involved. Rivertorch (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Ongoing problem every single time protection expires. Courcelles 05:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistant anti-Anglo vandalism by non-anglos. This article, as should all articles relevant to Anglican exceptionalism, needs to be protected from religiously motivated hate criminals - as are articles on Judaism from anti-Semites. Just like the Nazis engaged in what Churchill called "perverted science" to justify their persecution of Jews, the vandals of this page used perverted reasons to justify their vandalism: 1st by removing the tables that are relevant to the entry on Dodgson's method, thereby making his entry non-sensical, and so cast doubt (via their allegations without proof) on his entire method; 2nd by replacing a method compatible with the ISO 8601 standard, by one that's incompatible, yet nonetheless assert without proof or citation, that their method is standard, which couldn't be a more perverted reason. As the vandals were all non-Anglican, it evidently explains their motivation to attack anything relevant to the only Anglican mentioned in this article, Charles Dodgson, as well as to the Old Style calendar historically used by Anglicans. Their hatred is so intense that it offends them to see any reference to Anglican exceptionalism to the extent that they can't just simply skip over reading it. Instead they feel the need to attack it by unsupported subjective allegations of "confusing" on the one hand, and on the other dream up conjectures that it "MIGHT contain misinformation" - likewise entirely unsupported, as well as imaginary. As it would be no more surprising for such vandalism to be performed by Catholic predators/perverts/IRA members, than for Jewish entries to be vandalised by Islamic fanatics/mujihadis/terrorists, this page needs permanent protection.

Declined ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 02:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection until 31 December 2012: Some editors (mainly IPs) are constantly adding unofficial ratings into the article. It has been established at [7] that we should use only official ratings (i.e., those published at http://www.fide.com). Official information will be published on 1 January 2013. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant BLP vandalism. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: This article has been edited by an autoconfirmed user who is of the opinion that the need for references expires and, in one instance, references are unnecessary. I've approached the editor on their talk page but the response was less than encouraging. As this editor has been pursuing their philosophy for a couple of months, I do not see them stopping soon. Therefore, I'm requesting full protection until such time as this individual can be convinced that verifiability is a policy. Thanks Tiderolls 00:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. I would (and will) rather block that user than full-protect an article because of his/her unilateral actions. I've posted a note on their talk. Materialscientist (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: The series has started much controversy due to it's depiction of citizens whom reside in West Virgina. A few IP users have vandalized the page, mostly including things about the series/cast being "redneck". I'm asking for temporary semi-protection, at least until the series airs on January 3rd. Recollected (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. NW (Talk) 21:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism (resumed as it was unprotected). Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Dennis Brown. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Recent spate of persistent vandalism by IPs and near-new accounts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of ten days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Three similar IP users are vandalizing the page. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 18:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: A user is persistently adding great slabs of text from a non-authoritative source. This particular text, a supposed speech by the subject of this article, is added from time to time by various users when they discover it at various places on the Internet. The reason why it is inappropriate was discussed on the article's talk page earlier this year (see first part of "Name and speech deletion" topic). Even if the speech is not fictitious, it would not be appropriate to copy the whole of it (more than the rest of the article put together). There is a link to it in the External Links section of the article for those who do wish to view it after they have read the accompanying warning. MisterCDE (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just an observation: you should perhaps try and talk to the user (whose talk-page is a redlink at the moment). Edit summaries are no substitution for a nice little chat. There is also the article talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined follow the excellent advice given in the above post. If that doesn't work re-request protection then. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now That's What I Call Music! 45 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now That's What I Call Music! 46 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now That's What I Call Music! 47 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now That's What I Call Music! 48 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now That's What I Call Music! 49 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now That's What I Call Music! 50 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now That's What I Call Music! 52 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now That's What I Call Music! 53 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now That's What I Call Music! 54 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now That's What I Call Music! 55 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lengthy Semi-protection Recent and long term vandalism from multiple IPs, particularly 86.45.*.* and 86.46.*.*. Recent example [8], and other examples of this pattern are found in [9][10][11]. Volumes 45 to 55 listed as known examples; consideration should be given to semi-protecting the entire series of Now That's What I Call Music!. This vand pattern has probably become WP:LTA by now. Dl2000 (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 17:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: It seem like the same IP User who is constantly reverting the page User talk:152.131.8.131.--Corpusfury (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 17:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13 December 2012

Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Until dispute gets resolved. The protection already in place expires tomorrow while the dispute is on-going.Discussion is going on at WP:DRN. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator CambridgeBayWeather. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think you misunderstood that I am requesting an extension, as the dispute is on-going. I wrote in my second sentence that there is already protection. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 16:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: info about free release removed every few days with misleading descriptions. Tnhsr2014 (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  13:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: As discussed in the talk page The Walt Disney Company and LucasFilm Ltd. have received clearance from U.S Government officials but a definitive date that the merger will be consumated has not yet been announced, see referenced article from the Las Vegas Sun, click here. Unfortunately there are some Wikipedians mostly unregistered IP users who are constantly reverting the Ownership from George Lucas to The Walt Disney Company without properly researching it or even going onto this talk and discussing it first. I'd like to request that it be Semi-Protected until such time as an official announcement has been made either on The Walt Disney Company's website (http://www.thewaltdisneycompany.com/) or the LucasFilm website (http://www.lucasfilm.com/) stating that the acquisition of LucasFilm has been officially consumated and not just based on third party news reports. MisterShiney ✉ 22:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. At the moment it's still quite low level/infrequent. Relist if it picks up. GedUK  12:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persisent daily IP vandalism

Pending-changes protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring and socking

Already protected by administrator JamesBWatson. GedUK  13:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – vandalism from various IP addresses over past few days . Altered Walter (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. GedUK  13:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An uptick in vandalism over the last few days; a little bit of constructive IP edits, but a distinct minority. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Ongoing edit warring. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Semi-protection would be innappropriate. GedUK  13:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: repeated blatant vandalism and disruptive such as adding non-sense by IPs on current Good Article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High activity of disruption from IP addresses. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – This is a recent, high-visibility event article. There have recently been several unsourced, potentially libelous BLP edits made by IP editors. - MrX 00:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term Semi-protection: Page is constantly changed by unknowledgeable sources who write in false facts and add insufficient detail. Page is constantly edited to put the subject under a negative light. When the page is corrected, they go back in and vandalize. Please lock it if possible. Klove18 (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Too soon for long-term protection. GedUK  12:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent full semi-protection Because of constant never ending vandalism by IP addresses and new users, please just go ahead and block all IP addresses from editing forever. They love griefing the griefer article. Dream Focus 22:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let's try PC for a bit and see how it goes. We can then either extend, or switch to semi. GedUK  12:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – as mentioned above. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent vandalism. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated copyright violations by anon editor(s). John of Reading (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection An ip hopping editor (possibly socks of User:Andygsp) have been edit warring on the article over the past few days. He's been reverted by me and Jayg, but won't stop warring. Semi-protection for a week or so might encourage him to use the talk page. It's likely semi-protection for longer will be necessary after that, but one step at a time.   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated warring over the interpertation of WT:MMA#RFC on WP:MMA's use of Flag Icons in relation to MOS:FLAG and if it applies to the article by both relatively new editors and IP addresses. Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Both anonymous and autoconfirmed accounts are involved, meaning that its either full protection or nothing. I considered PC, but it's not appropriate for high traffic pages. If the sanctions suggested at WP:ANI pass, this page could be a candidate. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 06:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Falcon8765 (TALK) 06:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 06:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated, identical vandalism by various IPs over the past month and a half.--ShelfSkewed Talk 06:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 06:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Adel (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. I've blocked one IP though. Materialscientist (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – A new editor is constantly moving the page against WP:TITLE norms by adding acronym to the title. Message on the user talk page didn't help. A temporary move protection for a week is necessary to prevent disruption. Amartyabag TALK2ME 04:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes. NTox · talk 22:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not in main or WP namespace, so no PC. (Even if I wanted to, the button physically isn't there) Courcelles 05:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Oleola (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Many IP vandalisms over the last 3 or 4 days. Manway 03:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Article has been the target of persistent IP vandalism related to the YOLO meme. Yolo County, California may also qualify, although it has experienced less vandalism. BDD (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There have not been any edits to this article since November 23rd. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Perhaps until mid-May. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined the problematic IP has been blocked for one month. Please report back if he pops up using another IP or add it to the sockpuppet file at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RealEarthquake. -- Dianna (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I understand that there are a few IP contributors who actively contribute positive info to this page, "Malaysia national football team". However, I have also noticed many vandalism attempts by other IP editors on the article over the past few days.

Is it possible to semi-protect the above-mentioned article... 1. Reduce vandalism on Wikipedia 2. Temporarily reduce vandalism on this article, and decide again after the semi protection expires whether or not to continue semi protecting it. 3. I understand that this may inconvinience the "clean" IP editors, but they just need a few minutes to create an a/c and they can continue to contribute.

Thank you. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 07:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. The level of probelmatic edits is not very high. Please continue to maintain the article manually and report back if the situation worsens. -- Dianna (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lots of vandalism looking at the history by IPs. Techman224Talk 00:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced content, based on news that the coach is interviewing for a new position. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The kerfuffle seems to have died down and there have been no disruptive edits today. Please re-report if it picks up again. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Gloria Trevi page was locked 2 years ago in March 2010 by User:Rodhullandemu who is now banned. Please unlock. I'd like to edit info. She [redacted]. Thank You. 108.56.237.111 (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

14 December 2012

Temporary semi-protection: This situation could get out of hand quickly, and I feel it would be best to let only registered users edit the page. MTG1989 (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. NativeForeigner Talk 20:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – The constant adding and reverting of awards and honors starts to be disruptive. Involved editors must come to conclusion via talk page, and others must stick to it afterwards. SchreyP (messages) 15:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected NativeForeigner Talk 20:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection: Persistent IP disruption claiming 12 years-dead channel has come back to the air with new shows. Last block was for six months but the IP's just keep waiting out the end to resume disruption. Nate • (chatter) 04:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected For a year, hopefully the sock/vandals give up. If not I'd say next go around is indefinite. NativeForeigner Talk 20:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent Vandalism from multiple IPs. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NativeForeigner Talk 20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Highly visible template – highly visible breaking event. Innacurate information being added without sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't even see a case for semi-protection here, let alone full protection, and what template are you talking about? The nature of the page means it's going to be edited frequently as more information is added, full-protection would be extremely counterproductive to that. I'm not seeing any vandalism, and very little unsourced content being added, and what is being added is usually being reverted within 60 seconds (because, as you mentioned, it's a highly viewed page, by both readers and editors). This doesn't have anything to do with your annoyance over the AfD does it? - SudoGhost 19:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - lots of good edits are happening. Against the current (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. Already has been done. I didn't realise, saw few IP edits. NativeForeigner Talk 20:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. — ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Icestorm815 • Talk 15:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A recent parade of vandalism. DPH1110 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected NativeForeigner Talk 20:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Until dispute gets resolved. The protection already in place expires tomorrow while the dispute is on-going.Discussion is going on at WP:DRN. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{RFPP|ap|CambridgeBayWeather}} Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think you misunderstood that I am requesting an extension, as the dispute is on-going. I wrote in my second sentence that there is already protection. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 16:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Feel free to unprotect early if DRN discussion conclude before then. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 17:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Harassment. Makecat 09:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)- User(s) blocked. by Materialscientist. Torreslfchero (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: This page has been experiencing a massive amount of vandalism, with the majority of the edits from elementary school students who are making bodily jokes and adding in their personal input. DarthBotto talk•cont 07:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – I'm not yet familiar with the new pending changes policies here, but I think that it would do good on this article; where some IPs are helpful, however many are not. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Pending transaction, requires the passing of a physical exam before the player can sign. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: There are some uninformed Wikipedian editors who keep changing the ownership from George Lucas to The Walt Disney Company. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Ceaseless edit-warring about positions. Unsourced BLP material added by IP socks. General problem for all K-pop articles. . Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection TFA. Excessive BLP violations. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Very high level of IP vandalism. Page is currently at the top of the reddit front page, 24 hours should be more than enough. 92.29.12.2 (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I gave you more than you asked for, and given the subject matter, I'm not sure it's enough. Seems a shame, though, to semi-protect the article at all given the many non-confirmed accounts that are reverting the vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection- SPA adding unsourced claims that run counter to the established consensus that claims of alliances or rivalries need to be sourced. SPA was notified in their talk page and in edit summaries what the issue was and has simply ignored it. Request semi=protect for a week.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. I'm not going to semi-protect an entire article because of a reported problem with one new editor who's made only 3 edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. full-protection: ongoing disruptive edit warring preventing discussion from occurring on changing consensus. Sport and politics (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I don't see any immediate need for full protection. There's been some small amount of fighting in the last few days, but nothing for over a day. I'm aware of some of the animosity between the editors, but the article itself has lately been spared most of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Different vandalism, possibly influenced by Grandersons' tweet about inaccurate info on his Wiki bio regarding his middle name. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also due to the coverage it has received. Not front page NYT stuff, but high profile enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done by Bagumba. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: With the article's appearance on the main page, there has been a heavy influx of IP edits that have been persistently vandalizing the page. Perhaps a day or no more than two will help discourage them. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would be helpful if somebody would protect this. The vandalism is still ongoing. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Webclient101talk 20:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Reaper Eternal. for 1 week. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15 December 2012

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Oleola (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 21:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continued vandalism after recent period of semi-protection. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. Already pending-changes protected. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 21:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Multiple sock puppets are adding spam on the page. McSly (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. and Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 20:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – since September 24. SMP0328. (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected ‑Scottywong| babble _ 20:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 20:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 20:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. (See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Professor Washington) — Dawnseeker2000 19:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Belchfire-TALK 14:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. The edit-warring is between two editors. You've properly warned them both (please remember to sign your contributions). If you're willing, try to help resolve the content dispute. Either way, if they continue to edit-war, report it at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Rcsprinter (babble) No, I'm Santa Claus!@ 12:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Edit-warring indeed, by both of you, and both have been warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of edit warring and disruptive editing by IP users. See also Talk:Christian_Science#Semi-protection Alexbrn (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Consistent censorship of article about criminal past of the person listed despite much secondary evidence it happenedDutchy85 (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Content dispute. Consider WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short term anon vandalism. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: An IP user keeps adding false information that contradicts from the sources and vandalizing this article under various IPs. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Page was protected for one month on 25 September 2012, within 3 days of protection expiration, vandalism returned. Very few edits over the past months haven't been reverted [12] Wbm1058 (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Mervzi (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither have high levels of vandalism, Abu Musa hasn't been vandalised in two months prior to this recent blip and Arab States of the Persian Gulf has slightly more but it's still intermittent. Could do with more eyes though, what reverts there are are incredibly slow moving. tutterMouse (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask to unlock the List of WWE personnel page. Due to the actions of one editor, the entire page was blocked. There is a group of core editors who do most of the eidting on the article, and we usually agree on most topics. But there is one in particular who refuses to go along with no matter what kind of consensus we reach, and has a "my way or the highway" approach. User:Qwyrxian fully protected the page, which I feel is going kind of overboard. I feel the better approach would be to unlock the page, and deal with the editor in question. If a group of editors can agree and reach consensus about the article, then they shouldn't have to pay the price for the actions of one rouge editor. Vjmlhds 03:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ask Qwyrxian about unprotecting? tutterMouse (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. And he refused. According to him, he feels the need to see all of the editors working under Wiki policy. The thing is, we have been. We usually reach cosensus on most topics. It's one editor in particular (User:WWEJobber) that simply refuses to go along with whatever consensus the rest of us come up with. I feel Qwyrxian is over-reaching a bit. And also an article like that needs to be able to be edited because so many things change quickly (guys get signed/released, titles change hands, etc.) and it hurts the integrity of Wikipedia to allow an article to sit by, collecting dust, with outdated information just because a well meaning--don't get me wrong--but over-reaching administistrator feels the need to "teach us a lesson" like we're in grade school. There's better ways (I feel) to get the point across than just to shut down a whole article. At the end of the day, Wiki's job is to give accurate information, and when an article is allowed to go unchanged with no updated info, it defeats the purpose. Vjmlhds 15:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point to the discussion between you and Qwyrxian?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the List of WWE personnel talk page. Vjmlhds 03:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Declined. That's not consulting with the protecting admin. The only thing I see is Qwyrxian's basis for locking the article. I also see: "Once you can demonstrate that you can all work well together, then you can request that the page be unprotected by filing a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP." Your beef is with the imposition of the lock, not what's happened subsequent to the lock, which was only in place for a couple of days when you made this request. I suggest you go back to the drawing board. BTW, some of your shouting edit summaries in the article before the lock don't support the notion that you are willing to edit collaboratively and within policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring over url / possible malicious url insertions. Begoon talk 08:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated vandalism of the page, going on for over a week. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: The IP vandalism stopped only a couple days longer than the previous semi-protection lasted. Please protect for longer than a week on this second time of protection. Spidey104 01:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Persistent disruption by multiple accounts and IPs. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NativeForeigner Talk 08:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – History of vandalism by IP users. Paris1127 (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Materialscientist (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Request withdrawn. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined For the good of the bot. NativeForeigner Talk 07:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. –sumone10154(talk) 05:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 18 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Chubbles (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection. Persistent vandalism by several named user Skamecrazy123 (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected by Kaldari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (3 days) tutterMouse (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – On-going BLP violations by numerous new SPAs. SummerPhD (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Continued re-addition of unsourced opinion by anonymous editor(s). Doesn't warrant semi-protection, as the edits are not malicious, simply unsourced. tlesher (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. NativeForeigner Talk 23:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HiLo48 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/HiLo48 (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary full protection: Contentious RfC/U that was attempted close 3 times (by 2 different editors). Contributors to RfC/U have resisted attempts to de-escalate drama and advice from administrators and users to disengage from the subject of the RfC/U without success. Reccomend a 3 week protection to encourage editors to move on. Hasteur (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined It's been almost 24 hours now, things really do truly seem to be calming down. I've watchlisted it, but it looks like things are going to cool down on their own. NativeForeigner Talk 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated changing back and forth after editors/IP addresses/SPAs choose to willfully ignore the consensus established at a recent RFC about flags on MMA event articles. Hasteur (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Semi-protection is fine here, because IPs were violating MOS:FLAG and agreement at MMA RfC. If it resumes after 1 week, let me know (if I don't notice myself) and I will semi-protect the article indefinitely per the new MMA discretionary sanctions. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring since the 20 October 2012. . ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated removal of content. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Its slowing down, not enough edits to justify it. It's fairly clear who is in the right here, but as recently as a week ago there were constructive anon edits. NativeForeigner Talk 21:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated additions of non-notable/unsourced/red-linked names in violation of WP:NLIST. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection Edit-warring. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week one week or until resolved, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NativeForeigner Talk 23:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated vandalism from anons in the last couple days. Michaelm55 (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. NativeForeigner Talk 20:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism as the player is subject of numerous trade rumors at the present time. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hopefully rumors die down. NativeForeigner Talk 22:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Too much IP vandalism. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NativeForeigner Talk 22:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection Edit-warring, coupled with vandalism (users removing cited and valid content from the page, adding false statements of fact to the page, and disinformative statements). Please see edit history. Please preserve the cited facts about Bitcoin that users have attempted to remove and vandalize, including concerted "for the lulz" efforts by Something Awful goons http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3486823&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=261#post410545055. Rudd-O (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Semi only. Not so much edit warring as continual changing of information and vandalism. I'll let things cool down. NativeForeigner Talk 22:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Lady Lotus (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NativeForeigner Talk 22:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lots of vandalism from IPs for a few weeks now. Caldorwards4 (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NativeForeigner Talk 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: School shooting information being added without any sources from unverified users. Jsderwin (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator The Blade of the Northern Lights. for 2 days. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

16 December 2012

This page is being parsed down by vandals at an alarming rate, the habitual recurrence of certain "edits' appears consistent with sock-puppetry. Evidently the subject of this page has intrepid online enemies. A reversion to the last "locked" event would return substance to this page. Semperfly (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – I see no indication that persistent attacks upon this article will not continue until the sun goes red giant. Mike18xx (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined No sockpuppetry since the last protection expired. Semi-protection isn't for preemptive action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection Persistent spamming by IP editors, long term link dropping. The constant litter cleaning creates burden for editors. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This could work as a pending changes protection. TBrandley 03:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for two weeks. Pending changes will not reduce the burden on the watchers; each edit would have to be reviewed (and thrown out - there's been no keepable edits from IPs as far back as August). The page has never been protected before so I have semi'd for two weeks to start. If the problem resumes when the protection wears off, please report back. -- Dianna (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. Persistent vandalism from anonym editor. None of his/her edits are based on reliable sources, therefore he/she pretends to refer to the existing sources. Borsoka (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined This looks more like an edit war, and I've warned both you and the IP about calling each other's edits "vandalism". Since there is only one IP, semi-protection would be inappropriate, as favoring you in a content dispute. You need to discuss on the talk page, or take to WP:DRN, or show some good discussion somewhere. The IP has already started on the article talk page, but you haven't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism from IP-hopper. Behaviour pattern consistent with earlier blocked IP. The Banner talk 08:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection Persistent vicious BLP violations by IP editors. I'm pretty sure that this is not on many people's watchlist (God knows why it's on mine!) and there's basically been no productive editing on the article in over a year and the article was already semi-protected in October last year due to similar problems. Pichpich (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: requesting change from pending changes to semi-protection. The vandal is using muliple IP addresses to continue attempts to disrupt and vandalise the page. The page history of rejected changes is becoming a joke. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified protecting admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected, but only for 10 days...hopefully that will allow them to calm down, and if not I can change the remainder of the PC to semiprotection. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 10:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. Persistent vandalism in relation to upcoming prediction. Request semi-protection for 2 weeks until this whole end of the world on December 21 fad blows over. Freikorp (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – user:Copyangry7fcvc and user:Quickbest5t6 appear to be sock puppets making disruptive edits. Readin (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The event is fast approaching, and a number of IP users have begun adding false results that have to be quickly removed. Requesting temporary semi-protection until after the event on December 19. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Vandalism is continuing, and this time it is from registered user accounts, so please protect the page fully and leave the properly-cited facts that vandals are trying to remove. Rudd-O (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. by User:Bbb23. Vacationnine 00:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: (please extend the expiration time). I read in an email discussion that SudoGhost (the person who maintained slanderous comments in the Bitcoin page) and others are conspiring to change "Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency..." to "Bitcoin is a digital payment scheme..." in a further attempt to delegitimize and malportray Bitcoin across all of Wikipedia. Thanks for hearing us on the matter. Rudd-O (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. pretty much, it's already indeffed until an admin decides to unprotect. tutterMouse (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An appropriate level of protection. An editor has begun to dismantle this page into sections without material discussion of whether this is necessary, or if so, what would be an appropriate way of dividing it up.Bmcln1 (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Please continue the talk page discussion and report back here or at WP:3RR if the edit war continues. For what it's worth, I did not find load time for the page to be "modest" at all, and once it is loaded, the scroll bar fails to work. I couldn't even get out of the "A"s. -- Dianna (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit-warring about a simple addition. Full description of justification for addition provided at talk page. Rocketrod1960 appears to be gaming the "STiki" leaderboard from what I can see, as his initial justification of "irrelevance" is simply flat out ludicrous. More in the talk page.
--OBloodyHell (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined This is a content dispute. Please try to engage the other editor in discussion on the Talk page. By the way, your aggressive post there is hardly likely to lead to collegial editing. -- Dianna (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17 December 2012

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long term vandalism. No need for ip or new users to edit. Vacationnine 00:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I am just not seeing the problem. Could you post some sample diffs? Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place? -- Dianna (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much every edit to this page by non-autoconfirmed users are vandalism. Sure, it's not frequent, but there is no need for non-autoconfirmed users to edit this, and this page is used quite frequently by autoconfirmed users. Vacationnine 19:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This page is intended specifically for use by new and unregistered editors, in case they see a problem or know of an addition or change that should be made. It's an integral part of protection Policy in order to maintain the principle that anyone can edit. Altering this would need a policy RfC. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's quite right. It's a category page, intended to categorize the use of {{edit semi-protected}} across various talk pages. New users request edits with the template, not by editing the category page. I agree with the requester that there's usually no need for new users to edit the category page, but it's hardly much of a problem - it has only been vandalized a handful of times per year. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Xe's requesting protection of the category page, the page that lists the talkpages with the {{Edit semi-protected}} on them in a category, and contains instructions for volunteers to respond. I think protection (semi) indefinite shouldn't hurt anything at all. gwickwiretalkedits 23:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Could an admin please close this now? As has been said, semi-protection won't damage anything and there is no need for non-autoconfirmed users to edit this page, as this is only a category showing {{Edit semi-protected}} requests. Pretty much every edit in the history by non-autoconfirmed users or ips are vandalism and are reverted. Vacationnine 12:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. -- Dianna (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is this pre-emptively? Look at the history ... long term vandalism is obvious. Vacationnine 16:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please un-protect UFC 155 and UFC 156 pages to allow a page to be created. Currently they are being protected only as a loop hole to delete the page. By the time the protection is lifted data and information on the event's unique details will be lost. Thank you, 173.168.140.188 (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined It seems very unlikely you will be able to draft an article that overcomes the delete consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155. If you insist on trying, you must draft a complete article either at WP:AFC or if you register an account, in a userspace sandbox. When your draft is complete, you can request it be moved to the title, note that it will still need to overcome the reasons for deletion that won out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155. Monty845 16:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current page for Alison Rosen redirects to The Adam Carolla Show (podcast). Alison has her own persistently high-ranked podcastAlison Rosen is your New Best Friend and a career/personal history apart from The Adam Carolla Show (podcast) that is being made notable by her own popular show.

Declined The best course of action would be to draft an article about the subject either at WP:AFC or in your userspace to show that she passes The notability guidelines. Popularity of her podcasts only matters if the podcast has been the subject of substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Monty845 16:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protection - Persistent vandalism. Although it isn't vandalised every day, vandalism is a high proportion of the total edits because it has a low edit rate. Most of it is reverted quickly but I have just found (and undone) some vandalism that had been on the article for months. This indicates that the article would benefit from the extra eyes that PC would afford it. Yaris678 (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Persistent addition of bogus/nonexistent flights addedmade by Bangladesh Airport Vandal. Snoozlepet (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. There has been an increase in genre fiddling stemming from IPs since December 1 UTC time. I would recommend but not command it be protected for one month, or two weeks at the very least. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would an admin add <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2012 October 3}}</noinclude> to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trypophobia, which was fully protected? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 19:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would an admin add <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2012 November 20}}</noinclude> to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155, which was fully protected? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 19:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi protection: Persistent vandalism. - Different unregistered IPs changed the logo of the Company, (though it's the right/false positive logo, he replaced the newer version into an older version of it), also added some upcoming films for 2013 without trustful sources. Alphonsewan | Contact Me 09:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Deliberate hoaxing by registered accounts, i.e. by Jaroszek512 and Veki965 despite having the article semi-protected. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Blocking might be the better option. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Change full protection to semi since the transclusion count (per this tool) is 399. Forgot to put name (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion count is not the only factor in template protection. Please contact the protecting admin, or point to where you already have.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified protected admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected, thanks. Please add it to your watchlist. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Requesting immediate archiving... ‑Scottywong| express _ 19:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – From what I see, the history has just been 2 IP editors Edit Warring over the past week. §haun 9∞76 ༆ 03:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. While it was just IP editors edit warring, it still makes more sense to me to fully protect for a week. We'll see if anyone actually tries to have a discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. krZna (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CONTINUED vandalism from user [Alan Stenberg] and various sock puppets despite repeated warnings. Page still not locked.

Done by Drmies. Materialscientist (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. –sumone10154(talk) 02:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Recent spurts of persistent IP and registered-user vandalism. Today alone has seen a strangely high number of vandal edits. dci | TALK 01:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP adding contentious material purportedly sourced from unreliable website (as discussed at WP:RSN), but in fact going beyond what even that site is reporting. This is a sensitive article with legal implications - another potential major UK sexual abuse scandal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Same group of bitcoin true believers are trying to shoehorn it in here, too. Your Lord and Master (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long term vandalism and BLP disruptions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Sorry Luke, I don't really see it--I see lots of IP edits on stats and stuff, that is, the usual for such articles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the edit summaries (including reverts) don't suggest excessive vandalism to me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection - a few months edit warring over a sixth series announcement. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article is subject to periodic vandalism from IPs, worse than other state articles IMO. There is very little (close to none) scholarly edits from IPs, so little would be lost. A long term protection would be helpful. Student7 (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Edit warring over the results of the AfD which determined that the article should be a redirect. Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Long-term rather than indefinite semi-protection tends to be preferable since consensus can change. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent blanking, vandalism, support comments etc. Kevin12xd... | speak up | take a peek | email me 19:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Pending changes seems like a useful alternative to indef semi in this case. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Excessive POV editing to the "critical reception" section. Fanboys are going into meltdown over the Hobbit's lackluster reviews. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Added PC for a week to start, there are both constructive edits and vandalism coming from IP editors. Monty845 01:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism only for a year or two. I propose a six months semi protection. Fama Clamosa (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 1 month. Given the spread of the vandalism, even a long initial protection of a month probably wont work, but I think it needs to be tried before going to anything longer. Please make another request if the vandalism resumes in a month. Monty845 02:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent level of IP vandalism. Briarfallen (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected 1 month. Monty845 02:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are approaching the alleged date for this... event, and so the vandalism is increasing with the view count, to the point where reversions are being missed. I think at least it should be protected until the new year, when the date has passed. Serendipodous 09:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistant vandalism from IP-hopper. Behaviour same as an earlier blocked IP. The Banner talk 08:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. It's been protected many times before; time to indef it. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Not sure if these are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but 3 IPs have shown up in the last 2 hours to remove a relevant template from this article. Dougweller (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three days. -- Dianna (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Webclient101talk 07:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Anon vandalism is very frequent at the moment. Cawhee (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three days. -- Dianna (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Ridiculous amount of vandalism coming from 4chan's videogame board. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 05:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The attack ended some hours ago. Please re-report if I am wrong. I have rolled back to a version from November to remove remaining hidden vandalism. -- Dianna (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Occasional vandalism. §haun 9∞76 ༆ 03:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The last unproductive edit was two weeks ago. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection. Recent history before latest semi-protection did not show enough disruption to warrant it. Protecting admin was contacted but is not providing any justification to what looks like a pre-emptive semi-protection, or perhaps (I can only speculate based on the article's talk page) an attempt to prevent one particular IP from editing, both of which are at odds with site policy, BLP or not. Please unprotect. 219.79.91.100 (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I may want to add to that article is irrelevant to my request. 219.79.91.100 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your dodging of the question is a good argument for keeping it protected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not, and frankly, for someone who's been around for such a long time, and what's more has the nerve to reply to requests for unprotection, you seem to be fairly clueless about the process. I questioned the semi-protection of an article, and you assumed that I did that because I wanted to make a change to it, and failed to notice the existence of the editsemiprotected template. If you must know, your assumption is wrong, and even if I did want to make a change, I would argue that the nature of one change from me would be practically irrelevant to this RUP, compared to the potential impact of unprotecting such a prominent page. 219.79.91.100 (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this was an extension done before the first semi elapsed, so obviously the history link I offered above is not showing any non-confirmed user activity. Still, I don't believe there was enough disruption before the first semi to justify this either, and in fact I can see good non-confirmed user activity there, as well. Some supposedly bad activity has been struck, so I cannot judge. Anyway, please unprotect and see how it goes. Thanks. 219.79.91.100 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Article was originally protected for BLP violations of the shooter's brother/shooter himself/others involved and factual errors that were unsourced, along with speculation. Based on the talkpage, no reason to think that it will stop if we unprotect the page. gwickwiretalkedits 02:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Please leave this article protected for the foreseeable future. Shearonink (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, this by itself is a rather weak argument. Why not fully protect Wikipedia forever? That would insure that no violations of any policy will ever occur. Do you not see a downside? Protection is a matter of balance.
Still, a considerable improvement over "WP:COMMONSENSE" and "not going to happen", I'll give you that. 219.79.91.100 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. I support Dennis Brown's decision to not unprotect. If the whole encyclopedia were semi-protected or if account creation were required for editing, the burden on the patrollers and administrators would be reduced quite substantially. But "anyone can edit" is one of the Five Pillars, which are not likely to change anytime soon. So in the meantime please post your suggested edits on the talk page as an edit request. I know this is a lot more inconvenient for IPs, but protecting the privacy and reputation of living people is the primary reason this protection was laid down and that issue is the most important right now. -- Dianna (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we really have IPs wanting to edit, PC may be good here, I'm sure tons of reviewers have it watchlisted, and we can slap a big ol' Page Notice on it saying Warning: If you add unsourced information to this page it will be removed, and nobody will see it anyway. Also, I've been meaning to ask if we can apply some sort of either probation or general sanction of a 1RR/No unsourced content edits to this. gwickwiretalkedits 23:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I accept Dianna's decision, I must say I am puzzled by the rationale.
If the whole encyclopedia were semi-protected or if account creation were required for editing, the burden on the patrollers and administrators would be reduced quite substantially. But "anyone can edit" is one of the Five Pillars, which are not likely to change anytime soon.
Although it fails to mention it explicitly, the last part points to the fact that there is benefit in not semi-protecting, which is precisely the point I'm trying to make here. And like I said, I was seeing good non-confirmed edits (or "IP" edits, as you call them) before protection.
In any case, Dianna, I invite you to read more carefully the case above. I do not have any edits to make to that page. I am aware of the editsemiprotected template. This request for unprotection is not about me, and you should not assume that that is the case.
Finally, I am saddened to see so much prejudice against IP editors, and lack of understanding of the protection policy:
"could you indef (not permanent) the protection? I don't want us to have to scramble with edits from IPs that aren't sourced and are speculation" (registered users can add unsourced speculations, too, you know?)
"it needs longer protection to insure BLP violations do not continue" (ditto, no guarantee at all, unless you fully protect)
"Been having lots of fun there, with one IP in particular. Articles like this bring out the worst in some, and bring in self appointed experts on Wikipedia, who are usually clueless." (Issues with one IP in particular are not a good reason to semi-protect. There are other tools for that.)
"((please indef the protection to avoid)) edit conflicts from those ((IP)) edits and having good edits being erased by IPs copying to resolve an edit conflict" (Convenience is not a valid reason for protection, let alone an indefinite one)
219.79.90.4 (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18 December 2012

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. –sumone10154(talk) 18:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. –sumone10154(talk) 18:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to ask for but semi-protection is a start (there's registered editors active too) to prevent the ongoing BLP violations related particularly to the subject's arrest and criminal record, sourced to blogs and metalzines. I'll post a note on BLPN as well; this article could do with some extra eyes (yours) and some extra thinking (not mine) on what needs to be done here. See the article history, and explanations on the (now-blanked) talk page of Capchars2 (talk · contribs). Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Take your sweet time, fellow admins. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I have some mixed feelings on this request. While I share your misgivings about the edits you're reverting, many of those allegations could be argued to be reliably sourced, and I'd like (as you would) more eyes sorting it out. Which is why I passed this over the first time, hoping someone smarter than myself would come along, but that doesn't appear to be happening. So I've frozen the article while it's sorted out at BLPN, where you've indicated you'll take the issue. I would guess that 4 days will be ample time for some consensus to be had there, and at that point, the protection can be lifted, modified, adjusted, etc., to reflect that. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection WP:BLP violations at irregular intervals going back several months, always from anon editors. Not sure how long it should last (or even if I'm justified in asking for semi-prot), hence not carrying out the protection myself. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This might actually be a decent use case for PC1. Low volume of edits, low absolute volume but high proportion of vandalism, but vandalism is somewhat serious (BLP), longer term, and generally from IPs. Some constructive IP work. Vandalism tends to be overt rather than covert, reviews would typically catch it easily. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected for a period of 40 days and 40 nights, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – a target for vandals. Forgot to put name (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Snoozlepet (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. From looking at the last 50 edits on the page's history it appears that there's only been a single revert since September. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Please can this page be protected temporarily for the duration of the AFD as an anonymous ISP is repeatedly trying to remove the AFD tag, claiming vandalism/that the AFD is for another article (which it isn't). Mabalu (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I've warned the IP. As it's only one, protection at this stage would be overkill. If they remove it again, report them to WP:AIV GedUK  10:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The article's in a poor state, but the many edits by new accounts which make just one edit each and to this article only are not not improving it. Some are marked as minor, some have plausible edit comments, some are juvenile graffiti. They're happening all round the clock so probably not a single school class. 4Chan, maybe? . NebY (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Whilst there's been a huge pick up in editing volume, there vast majority seem to be fine, so protection seems unneccesary GedUK  09:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: New editor has replaced information that is neutrally worded and cited with information that is biased and uncited. I risk 3RR violation. Thanks! Location (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Better to take action against the user, at the very least you should drop them a note on their talk page. You're unlikely to breach 3rr if yuo're reverting vandalism, and the removal of cited stuff for uncited would class as that. GedUK  09:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection - User request within own user space. Except for accepted username changes, there is no reason for the page to be moved by anyone. Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 12:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of the request: [13] Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 09:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, No need for protection at this point. It's highly unlikely it'll happen GedUK  10:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salt; repeated recreation. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 02:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fully protected in light of the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan D. Lovitz that this article was being used to advertise a non-notable person. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Kevin12xd... | speak up | take a peek | email me 00:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I can't see any vandalism in the last week. GedUK  09:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - Anonymous users to change their pleasure the page, forcing registered users to check the page everyday and delete any changes. It's happened several times in last week. Their delete our changes too. --Wind of freedom (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 I requiring semi-protection because if you look at history you will see how anonymous users deleting my corrections and news on page. --Wind of freedom (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It's really not a protection levels yet, sorry. I guess pending changes *might* work, and could be considered if it carries on. GedUK  09:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent spamming. The only official link is www.asd-ste100.org, but anonymous and other users keep adding links that probably belong to Shufra Consulting. Temporarily, such websites such as www.asdste100.org (without the hypen) are temporarily redirected to the official webpage to make the link look official, only to later redirect it to the Shufra website. This issue has been going on for some time, and they are using all kinds of tricks. Tobias Kuhn (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Yeah, seems to have abated. Blacklisting is probably better. GedUK  09:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Page is a common target for vandalism and unexplained removals. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Constant spam related to his appearance on Project For Awesome stream. Kobitate94 (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Materialscientist. GedUK  09:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant restoration of original research paragraph by IPs (and ClueBot...). Laurent (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Often IP Vandalism and incorrect info. §haun 9∞76 ༆ 01:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated tagging (3 times in one month) by IP editors. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Inflation and additional of unsourced (and made-up) peak positions. Statυs (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection until after release date of game in February Nothing but unsourced vandal from IPs EVERY SINGLE TIME a protection is lifted. Please don't protect it for a couple of weeks again. It is way too exhausting having to revert IPs persistent edits with the warning over the section saying not to add unconfirmed characters. Please semi-protect until February 28th, 2013.--Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 17:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Recent vandal edits from IPs include many unconfirmed characters and also added "Michael Bay" and "George Washington". They yet still refuse to abide by the note placed above the section.--Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The lead actor Vijay has millions of crazy fans, who mess with this article to show their "idol" in positive light. They mostly mess with the box office reports, and strongly violate wiki's neutrality policy. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator DMacks. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Not sure Edit warring / content dispute or pov pushing. Seems to be an ongoing problem Jim1138 (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism/original research and "coatracking" due to the recent shooting in Connecticut. Repeated violations of the guidelines at WP:OR, WP:GUNS, and WP:NPOV. See these contribs for example. ROG5728 (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Nick-D. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism/original research and "coatracking" due to the recent shooting in Connecticut. Repeated violations of the guidelines at WP:OR, WP:GUNS, and WP:NPOV. ROG5728 (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. –sumone10154(talk) 21:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I can't for the life of me see why but virtually all the edits to this page seem to be anonymous vandalism. It's intermittent though so I don't know if it qualifies for protection. 3 times so far this month, 5 last month (of which one progressively blanked virtually the whole article). Noiratsi (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Twillisjr (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 30 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dawnseeker2000 03:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 30 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tinton5 (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism. Span (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. –sumone10154(talk) 21:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. with a rangeblock. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Change from PC to Semi due to vandalism and vandalism only. Vacationnine 19:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um... [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] This needs semi. Vacationnine 19:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You noted in your request that the change was required as there was "vandalism only", which I pointed out was incorrect. I see no reason to change the type of protection currently on the article. Another admin may disagree and decide to change from pending changes to semi-protection however I'm not going to semi-protect it when there is a very recent helpful IP edit and the current protection is working fine.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, maybe there isn't vandalism only, but I disagree with your statement that current protection is working fine. There has been massive vandalism as shown above even with PC protection. We can't have pages like Christmas un-semied and PC protected because of the same reason: there would be large amounts of vandalism. Vacationnine 19:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked.. Let's see if the block slows them down - if not ping me and I will take another look.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism most probably done by students towards the sports house section persistently Xanablaka (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Bjelleklang - talk 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. Editing conflicts with Crock81 (talk) on this article and the related article List of indigenous peoples. Over the past couple of days the aforementioned individual has conducted upwards of 20 edits on the article, reverting my edits and at least one by ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· with which I am in accord and have since reverted only to have that again reverted for an illegitimate reason, his description not even reflecting the actual state of the article. Please see the discussion here. He is not a native speaker of English and has communications issues. Nonetheless, I have tried to reason with him repeatedly to no avail.

I filed a request for mediation but he refused to accept. Please see relevant comment by Crock81 under the "I have a concern" section on EdJonston's Talk page, as well as the Request for mediation here.

The editing problems are related to the RfC on the related List article Indigenous peoples list, and I would like to request protection for at least the period during which that is pending to see what results are produced.

Refer here Crock81 (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crock81 has now come forth with an expression of his intention to unilaterally rescope the article on the Talk page. That would seem to contravene the results of an RfC from earlier this year Talk:Indigenous peoples/Archive 3#RfC: Scope of this article.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Consistent disruptive edits from IP users. These might not appear to be vandalism at first, but are obviously false information. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – User:Qjtv2911 is always trying to revert all my edits. The only thing I do is just to improve his edits and make the article good to look at. Renzoy16 | Contact Me 10:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – The article is being persistently vandalized, as one can probably see from the edit history, and it is probably best if this is placing on pending changes protection, so a reviewer may check edits before they are visible to the rest of the public. Thank you. TBrandley 21:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Sorry, but I don't see enough vandalism to warrant protection--two this month by IP editors? Drmies (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem with pending changes protection, but there was over 5 within the last month and the start of this month. TBrandley 18:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19 December 2012

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Currently being targeted by Nangparbat. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There's only one edit, so a bit much to say it's being targeted. GedUK  12:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Currently being targeted by Nangparbat. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There's only one edit, so a bit much to say it's being targeted. GedUK  12:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There has been a handful of vandalism recently. ZappaOMati 05:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  12:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long term vandalism by probable sockpuppet IPs replacing the self same boilerplate text into the article as soon as it is unprotected. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent sockpuppetry by one user, but intermittent and easily identifiable (and almost always revertable on a content basis alone). Writ Keeper semi-protected this article about a week ago, along with Lesbianism in erotica which the sockpuppetteer (MikeFromCanmore (talk · contribs)) was also involved with; Bwilkins, with WK in agreement, switched to P.C. shortly thereafter, and it's worked quite well, allowing a number of positive contributions by at least one unregistered editor. Anyways, seeing as Mike hasn't worn himself out yet, but isn't a big enough nuisance to warrant semi-protection, I request pending changes protection. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Forgot to put name (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected GedUK  13:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant POV vandalism by IP socks of JarlaxleArtemis. RolandR (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Closedmouth. GedUK  13:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Person has been arrested on child sex charges, attracting a lot of attention and vandalism. Have reverted some but think it's going to be a magnet for the next 24 hours doktorb wordsdeeds 10:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 7 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. A few blocks and a generous helping of revdel distributed for good measure. BencherliteTalk 11:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Excessive violations of the BLP policy. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Persistent IP disruption and sales inflation with no references. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Excessive violations of the BLP policy. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 08:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. No. Your vandal is blocked, and it wasn't that persistent anyway. Please don't clog up the system with needless requests: two vandal edits is nothing. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what are you talking about? Since September I count five cases of vandalism alone, not to mention badly sourced content. What are you talking about when you say "my vandal is blocked"? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of badly sourced content is rarely a reason for protections. Your vandal--I'm referring to this one. Five instances of vandalism in two months or so, that's not enough to warrant protection. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the template below to the top of the article and remove the first citation, Satoshi Nakamoto's paper. This citation among others are primary sources and unreliable. - Play Money for Dummies (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it looks to me like a large number of the sources in the article are from independant sources. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined for the bot. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  • Well, a lot of the sources are good, but I see the poster's concern regarding the first source. It's from a PDF file of a document released by the proponents of Bitcoin. dci | TALK 03:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Maybe for a few months, until the euphoria of a new release is over. §haun 9∞76 ༆ 00:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: There's a slow motion edit war by various IPs and new accounts to change the sort order of a table. None are participating in the talk page discussion and some of them are specifically changing the hidden inline comments. Per WP:INVOLVED, I am making an WP:RFPP request. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is temporary full protection what you're after (as opposed to create protection)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, copy and pasted the wrong thing. Mumble -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I just realized that I went over the 3RR limit and have reverted my last revert. It leaves the article and the hidden comments in a contradictory state though. The beginning of the article is listed alphabetically and the later part of the article is per the hidden comment and talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I finally get to block you, Dodo. You're extinct, pal. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism over the years from various IPs pushing variations on the same theme. Blocking or temporary protection would be ineffective. Pending changes seems the best medicine. --ELEKHHT 21:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Drmies (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Vacationnine 03:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second. Seems to be an attack. BollyJeff | talk 03:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected Just three little friends with nothing better to do. They're all blocked now too. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Considerable IP (and non-confirmed user) vandalism. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Disruptive, unsourced nonsense edits by multiple accounts. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: The subject of this page has been a great deal of attention in relation to the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I've seen it gaining momentum via social media (puke) but that may be anecdotal. Most importantly, there seems to be some edit warring and ownership issues occurring on the page with the talk page mostly receiving soap boxing and no real discussion. . OlYeller21Talktome 19:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – In the past week this page has been recreated three times, every time as unambiguous advertisement and speedily deleted. GailTheOx (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by RHaworth. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – plus some sockpuppetry. PC won't work given the number of edits and that there would be no PC reason to reject most of the changes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Sorry, but no. These edits are an article improvement: the IP editor is totally correct. However, they are edit-warring and I have blocked them for that. It's very unfortunate that they didn't seek other means to lighten that crufty article. I don't see any evidence of socking, and with the IP blocked I see no reason to protect. I hope this will find a way to the talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Would an admin add <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2012 December 18}}</noinclude> to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although it looks like that's already closed. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20 December 2012

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP editor adding poorly sourced bio catergory, adding poor links and refusing to discuss. Murry1975 (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:66.30.138.33‎ (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protect to dissuade the IP from continuing personal attacks, from that IP address or any other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. courtesy of The Anome--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – joke and attack pages on non-notable student. Altered Walter (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism + adding copyrighted contents (see history) by unconfirmed users and also change in box-office numbers. Torreslfchero (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated by sockpuppets of banned user: see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Blurred Edge/Archive – Unlikely to be notable within the year. Altered Walter (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected GedUK  13:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Nominating this article for deletion has resulted in an edit war sparked by incoming users on two outside sites with conflicting opinions (basically, the .com and .org websites are different organizations and they keep removing references to the other side's dogs/sites/etc), and myself who keeps trying to revert the edits (uh, oops). Seems to be being edited by at least one sock puppet. It's just a complete mess. Requesting semi-protection until the end of the AfD when this will hopefully die down a bit. TKK bark ! 08:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Various editors & IPs removing sourced content. I would protect myself but am INVOLVED. GiantSnowman 10:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one is quite urgent could someone have a look quickly, it would be appreciated. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism. Sockpuppetry may be involved judging by the high number of very new accounts recently editing the article. • Jesse V.(talk) 07:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Featured on Google. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – the Grimm brothers are currently featured as a Google doodle, so the article is attracting some attention. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Damn googledoodle. GedUK  12:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – Three months. IP socks of User:MariaJaydHicky. Not practical to block. EdJohnston (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected GedUK  12:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism by many different IP addresses. Tate was fired from his band several months ago, and fans still express their discontentment/resentment due to the ongoing feud. Any semi-protection should at least be extended to beyond November 18, 2013, when a trial is held over the use of the band name. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I've put a month on for now, but that can be extended if it carries on after that. GedUK  12:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. The page has been rife with genre warring in the last few days, and this genre warring has been marring the page as of recent. Although I wouldn't mind pending changes protection if the consequence is deemed necessary, I would prefer semi-protection. Most but not all of the genre warring stems from IPs. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Dubious unsourced IP edits. STATic message me! 20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 20:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ips removing information about the grammar errors in the song or adding information which is not referenced or supported. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: repeated BLP violation by (now) two IPs, same edit. Jim1138 (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – given the topic it seems that this article is a popular target, since it's just come off a 3 month semi suggest another 3-6 months. I don't think it's worth PC, as there are no constructive edits from non-(auto)confirmed users, so rejecting edits is just going to clog up the page history (as is reverting them).. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. One revert after sprotection expired. Reported too early (I'm watching it). Materialscientist (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ip-hopping. Tomcat (7) 18:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Not sure this is actually vandalism. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 05:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite full protection: No reason for this page to be edited. Iamthemuffinman 16:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Declined – User talk pages are not protected except in response to severe or continued vandalism. - I'm sorry that your a little disillusioned with Wikipedia at the moment, if you need help with anything or have any concerns, don't hesitate to leave a note at my talk page :). Best, Mifter (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. nableezy - 15:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 15:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Better to block the IP (or add an edit filter if they're hopping IP's) than to protect every page they edit. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 04:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. nableezy - 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Better to block the IP (or add an edit filter if they're hopping IP's) than to protect every page they edit. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 04:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. nableezy - 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Better to block the IP (or add an edit filter if they're hopping IP's) than to protect every page they edit. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 04:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. nableezy - 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Better to block the IP (or add an edit filter if they're hopping IP's) than to protect every page they edit. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 04:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made this request last month (see here for the old request) saying that the article was seeing much lower rates of vandalism recently. The request was denied on the basis that "The reason it has not been recently vandalized is because of the semi-protection". I disagree, so I'll be more explicit in my reasons.

  • I have had this page on my watchlist for over a year and a half, and I basically wrote the entire article. It's been protected almost its entire life, and we haven't had a chance to see whether or not it's the protection that is preventing the vandalism, because it's been protected 99.5% of the time.
  • The sister article Mormonism had its protection expire several months ago, and though it still gets vandalized I'd have a hard time nominating that page for protection again.
  • When both pages were semi-protected, Mormonism got more disruptive editing than Mormons, if I remember correctly.
  • In the protection log for Mormons, it says, "Make protection consistent with Mormonism." If we're going to follow that, either this article should be unprotected, or Mormonism should be protected.
  • This page has not received a single edit since November 7. I don't mind having the article frozen the way I wrote it, but I'm sure I made mistakes that IP readers would fix if they had the chance.
  • Lastly, the decrease in vandalism is more likely related to the fact that there is no longer a Mormon running for U.S. President, so the article's subject is no longer as politically charged.

Trust me, if there's a huge spurt in vandalism, I'll be back asking for protection, but until we know what things look like without protection, let's not be preemptive. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected -- After a discussion elsewhere to get another opinion. Thanks to Good Olfactory for his comment. I also suspect that vandalism may return and protection may need to be restored. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may very well be right. If I'm wrong I'll be back in a couple of days apologetically asking for protection again. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full–protection has been requested by TBrandley here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking to see if protection is necessary. ‑Scottywong| express _ 05:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 05:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. IPs have been changing the band's years active from 1991-present to 1993-Infinity. The joke stopped being funny about nine months ago. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 21:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – Three months. This is a long-running problem. Protection will also stop any good-faith IP edits but I did not see any such in the last few months. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: recent persistent IP and SPA pov editing, and general refusal to discuss controversial edits on the talk page. Frietjes (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 05:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection - the article has been the subject of ongoing vandalism since August this year and all vandalism seems to be from the same source with the same purpose - to reduce the importance of certain historical brands while promoting/puffing up the importance of a particular contemporary brand. Historical revisionism that involves the deletion of reliably-sourced content and the insertion of entirely un-sourced promotional content. Stalwart111 22:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – Three months due to an IP-hopping spammer. A range block would not be practical. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism from IPs who keep managing to find different accounts to edit on. . AARON• TALK 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 05:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected indefinitely by Drmies. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 05:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. nableezy - 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC) 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – One month. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Looks like a 24.x.x.x IP really wants to delete the rules of Mao. McGeddon (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Dreadstar. - Best, Mifter (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: The game is at the center of a veritable firestorm of controversy, after a seriously flawed launch a couple days ago, accusations of false advertising, possible fraud lawsuits, and lots of angry gamers. It has been getting hit with vandalism this morning, and I think it will only increase while the news keeps rolling in. I recommend maybe a week for starters; see if the story calms down by then. —Torchiest talkedits 20:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Best, Mifter (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ip vandalism over genres and content removal. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 11:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 04:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection Unneeded for this redirect. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected – I'm not expecting that unprotection will be beneficial, but I see no reason to deny this request. The main article, United States presidential election, 2012 is currently unprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21 December 2012

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and possible continued sockpuppetry. Webclient101talk 19:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Widr (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: This template is semi-protected to prevent vandalism. Basic Editor (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined No recent vandalism, and six transclusions. Protection is not preventative, and while there's some debate about the precise level of inclusion necessary to reach the level of a "highly-visible template", this isn't in a grey area. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 14:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 48 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Editor using multiple IPs keeps adding a "fact" from IMDB trivia (user edited section) unreliable source. Has been told this on their talkpage refuses to discuss.Possible BLP vio. . Murry1975 (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 7 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't know if this will be enough to bring that editor to the table, but it's worth a shot. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Since this is not independently notable, this was a redirect to Brave series. but the creator is persistently recreating the article. Forgot to put name (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined It seems to have resolved as the creator has also set the redirect. I@ve closed the AfD too. GedUK  13:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Magnet for vandals due to Cluebot. Widefox; talk 15:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected ·Add§hore· TalkTo Me! 16:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP concerns.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  14:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent full protection: The Banner (talk · contribs) is ignoring the result of the RFD discussion that he initiated. 👝 is supposed to point to the disambiguation page per last month's RFD result. 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected No need for the page to be edited without further discussion. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent LOL vandalism a.k.a Adding the term "Comedy film" when it (seems like one now) but isn't. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Requesting pending changes for this article. Dynamic IPs keep adding "he can kick your ass" to the article. This has been going on intermittently since July. It's likely one person as the behavior is the same (adding phrase in same area, reverting their vandalism back in and claiming Cluebot/editors who remove the phrase are vandals). Protection will work too, but a long-term PD might be more ideal since this is ongoing and likely won't stop. Pinkadelica♣ 08:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. THe edit count's a bit too high I think for PC to work. GedUK  13:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated spamming by IP user. . Biker Biker (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP-hopping troll is now disrupting this page after sister page, List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (North America) was protected earlier today. Attempts to get IP to stop have been unsuccessful, and IP has been reported for 3RR violation. Anon's propensity to use multiple IP addresses (all geolocate to area in west central Indiana/east central Illinois) means the anon will be back on another IP if this one gets blocked. Need short term protection to get this nonsense under control. McDoobAU93 05:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. nableezy - 03:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 03:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Ironholds. GedUK  13:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. nableezy - 03:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 03:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Ironholds. GedUK  13:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. §haun 9∞76 ༆ 02:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medium term semi-protection or pending changes Once again a large block of copyvio material (see talk page) is being inserted intot he article on a regular basis. Has been semi'd before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Once again, I'm not familiar with the new pending changes policies. Semi-protection may be better here. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Named user logging out to revert to a version where the quotes don't match the source. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Kaysih (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism over genres, adding unverified information and changing that which is already verified . — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 15:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 23:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A handful of users have been vandalizing and adding various factual errors to the page. ZappaOMati 00:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP's are consistently adding "Idiot" to his bio. Rocketrod1960 (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism due to the Maya Calendar. Vacationnine 00:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Will.i.am - Scream and Shout.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary upload-protection Upload-warring. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article has been vandalized multiple times in the recent months and some of that vandalism might not be being caught right away. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. The page receives regular unconstructive IP editing, and this has been going on for a while. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 23:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Mifter Public (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Full Protection: Arguement over the inclusion of a table; probably best to protect until it cools down.... Mdann52 (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the table has been discussed and no logical reasons to included it have been presented. Removal of the table as per the discussion is repeatedly reverted by a user that can not even be bothered to contribute to the discussion. Prof IP (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Discussion is taking place on talk page. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 14:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

22 December 2012

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Previously deleted article, recreated, sock puppets keep removing speedy deletion template. Please speedy and protect. Mike (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protection: The same IP-hopper showed up the day the most recent protection expired to start restoring the contentious material (see talk) to this BLP. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 18:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Continuing IP vandalism. (including link posting / falsifying meanings) ► robomod 12:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Tiptoety talk 17:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP vandalism and dispute/edit warring. There is no official statement about a move to Club America. Yoda1893 (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 18:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: An IP hopping user repeatedly adds an unreliable blog source to the article, despite repeated warnings. --smarojit (buzz me) 13:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 18:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent anon-IP fans who sometimes plot-bloat but more consistently keep changing "mixed to positive reviews" to "positive reviews" despite consensus and basic literacy: Rotten Tomatoes gives 6.5 average out of 10, and Metacritic 57 out of 100. Been going on for several days.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Tariqabjotu. --Webclient101talk 17:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 18:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP violations/Contentious topic. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring by an IP address. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism – This article is already semi-protected, but some autoconfirmed users are vandalizing this article by changing the names of actors. Forgot to put name (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite semi-protection: Legal threats by socking IP addresses. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 02:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. Materialscientist (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is awkward. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 02:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Please protect page for 24hrs . Intoronto1125TalkContributions 22:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Best, Mifter (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long term anon disruption and BLP violations. -- LuK3 (Talk) 04:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month. Tiptoety talk 04:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent recreation despite of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Piggins Medal. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Tiptoety talk 04:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Niteshift36 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protect: New IP vandal. Also protect user page. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. As long as they are doing it from one IP a block is the best solution. If they start harassing you from alternate IPs then semi-protection will be justified. Monty845 21:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. See also User_talk:NawlinWiki#91.154.96.0.2F20. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it looks like the person has a source for their edit. I don't know whose sock they are, the link to Nawlin Wiki's page doesn't clear that up. They're using the same source as you are, but interpreting it differently. More info is needed before I would protect the page. -- Dianna (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites Sputnikmusic is a reliable source as long as the review was made by an staff or emeritus member, for example No Heroes. Music review was not made by an staff or emeritus member, but it was made by an user, whose credibility hasn't been proven. I don't know if s/he is a sockpuppeteer, but has started to abuse multiple IPs. Two articles have been protected because of this socking problem, Let There Be Love (Christina Aguilera song) and Red Hot Kinda Love (song). Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a week. Thanks for the additional info. -- Dianna (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Ongoing edit war. Full protection will enable the users involved to discuss their differences at the article's talk page. Jetstreamer Talk 00:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for three days. -- Dianna (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – This page suffers from ongoing sockpuppetry by indeffed user. See [[36]]. Belchfire-TALK 00:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already Semi-protected by Elockid until 5 January. -- Dianna (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Widespread IP vandalism since early December -A1candidate (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I went with semi-protection, as none of the IP edits are being retained. Semi-protected for two weeks. -- Dianna (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Hot topic in India - I have just chopped out a bunch of BLP violating stuff. Suspect that attempts will be made to add it back. ukexpat (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one month, per precedent set at Sandy Hook School. Pending-changes protected Pending-changes protection for one month. -- Dianna (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page receives persistent, high traffic vandalism (around once a week) every time the protection expires. Staticd (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks to start. Please re-report if the problem resumes when the protection wears off. -- Dianna (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent removal of cited info. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's never been protected before, so we start out small. Semi-protected for two weeks. Please re-report if the problem resumes when the protection wears off. -- Dianna (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – no-one knows to edit the article well, and the most vandalized part is the critical reception. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three days. Please check over the recent edits and revert to the last good version. -- Dianna (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: There is a I.P users from Indonesia and Thailand keep doing a good faiths edits and adding unsourced contents to this article. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 06:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks. -- Dianna (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Edit warring by IP, continuing edit war with sockpuppets after being blocked. Details at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/121.72.121.67. Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected - Two months. EdJohnston (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, due to it being today and end-of-world silliness. Abductive (reasoning) 21:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 Days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hopefully the silliness will die down by then. Monty845 21:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – Continued vandalism after semi page protection expired. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nothing there to justify full protection, and not enough history to justify indefinite semi-protection. If vandalism resumes after the protection expires, please request another extension. Monty845 21:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Maurice White (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Unfounded Twitter rumor he has died. Librefgirl (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Since 2008, the only edits have been a bot edit, someone rerating the article, and someone adding it to a wikiproject. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you perhaps mean the article itself? It's had a bit of editwarring, and I've semiprotected it for a week. Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

23 December 2012

Permanent protection: persistent vandalism - anyone and everyone, when they first stumble across the article feels neccessary to add their own favourite movie or comical aside into the two lists there. This happens, well, not often, but is exceptionally persistent and as the only person who seems to moderate the page with any regularity, it has become extremely tiresome. The page was semi protected for a few days a little while back, but this did nothing as the attacks are sporadic. I am hoping that permanent protection can reduce the number of these to as little as possible. -Gohst (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you requesting permanent Semi-protection or full protection? From your request it appears you are requesting full protection which restricts editing from all except administrators. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. MikeLynch (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Content dispute with IP editor who isn't interested in using Talk page. Belchfire-TALK 05:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've blocked the IP. I don't think any protection is necessary at this time, but I'll leave that for someone else to decide. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Page is getting vandalized regularly, with few helpful edits by IPs and new accounts. MikeLynch (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. The creator of the page has been communicative so far, and hasn't tried to recreate the page since 12 hours ago. I've left a note on their talk page; I'll salt if it is recreated again. MikeLynch (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: There's a sudden flood of IP vandalism on this page today. Currently at a rate of about one a minute. AtticusX (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 12 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. MikeLynch (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection or Semi-protect:Page is very dated and as a result gives poor/incomplete/misleading advice. i.e Firefox version and solutions on iOS. Protecting admin(User:Fran McCrory) is no longer active. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 01:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a justification under the protection policy, but the protection rationale does make pretty good sense. Monty845 06:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly good common sense doesn't necessarily need to be spelled out in detail in a policy. Don't forget, Wikipedia's first policy was IAR. Changed to Semi, and good luck updating, and thank you for thinking to do so. I'm sure the information will be valuable to other editors. KillerChihuahua 03:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for zee bot. tutterMouse (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Copyright infringement two times within a day. A temporary salting would be fine. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. MikeLynch (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jim1138 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

'Unprotection: IP hopping vandal seems to have retired. I do get numerous requests from IPs I have reverted and protection should not remain too long. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shout something if they resume. Materialscientist (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection. Article was nominated for deletion on Dec 22 at 0100 hours, and rushingly redirected by User:Beeblebrox, an administrator, to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on the same date by 1350 hours (a mere 12 hours timespan). I reverted the AfD per WP:IAR, WP:POLL, WP:VOTE, WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, WP:NOTPAPER, and precedents such as Rachel Scott and William David Sanders. User:Bwilkins, another administrator, then reverted my revert and accussed me of moving the page maliciously per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (huh?) even though my revert was explicitly explained on both the edit summary and the article talk page at Talk:Victoria Leigh Soto. Not only did he reverted it, but he also protected the article until March 22, 2013 -- a decision made unilaterally and done simply because he has administrator priviledges. I'm requesting an unprotection on the page, a full revert, and to be able to fully discuss this matter rather than rush things through. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I notice you are complaining about this everywhere except on the talk page of the admin (me) who closed the afd. I suggest this request not be granted. This is not a "normal" situation and the admin corps is dealing with all the changes as best it can. If all you are looking for is a unilateral overturn of that afd you are not going to get it, you could pursue WP:DRV if you like though. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution., and also consider reading WP:FORUM for some tips on not carrying disputes across multiple boards. KillerChihuahua 03:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Multiple editors edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

m:The Wrong Version fully protected for two weeks. KillerChihuahua 02:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. (fer th' bot). tutterMouse (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would like this page locked due to persistent vandalism and false information

Indefinite move protection: This article, along with all articles related to the Senkaku Islands are under discretionary sanctions. An RfC was held last year on Talk: Senkaku Islands which reaffirmed the current naming. As such, an uninvolved admin ruled that we cannot even discuss new names until 2013, much less actually try boldly moving them. This should really be fully move protected indefinitely, being moved only if a new RfC demonstrated a change in community consensus. . Qwyrxian (talk) 08:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs have been writing all-caps rants about being able to kill people with pencils like the Joker in the Dark Knight. ZappaOMati 04:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 36 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 21:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. KillerChihuahua 02:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: edit warring over the inclusion of a link to LGBT rights. Frietjes (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Indefinite Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism, high level of IP Vandalism.99.137.149.253 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect article on 1 month. Reason: Edit war. . Kolega2357 (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection This article has been for many years been the target of ip vandalism, most likely by Patrick Syring himself, as that article often gets vandalized at the same time by the same ip (see the article for details). Requiring a login to edit the page would probably solve this problem once and for all. Dlabtot (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been going on for years and years and it clearly will continue to do so. Thanks for nothing. Dlabtot (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism and BLP violations this whole month. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected KillerChihuahua 02:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Editing by user blocked from AfD discussion on this page. Auric 01:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected KillerChihuahua 02:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Widr (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. KillerChihuahua 02:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Transfer speculation. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a month. KillerChihuahua 02:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Deleted twice, and now redirected as the result of an AFD. I think it's fair to require admin approval before turning this back into an article. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected indefinitely. -- Dianna (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – As soon as protection expires, new (old) ip nationalistic fanaticism. Protect this against ip POV fighters. WhiteWriterspeaks 21:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for six months; we can always reprotect. KillerChihuahua 02:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tomcat (7) 21:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - semi'd for two weeks, if the IPs come back after that relist here, and mention this previous semi. KillerChihuahua 02:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – An editor keeps adding large amounts of unsourced information even after it being reverted by several editors. Appears to be using socks to re-add. Can we protect the page for a week or so to try to get them to talk about it instead of ignoring everyone. noq (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - I went ahead and performed a CheckUser and have blocked the socks involved. Hopefully this should resolve the issue and negate the need for protection. Tiptoety talk 17:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24 December 2012

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations – Long-term pattern of BLP violations from IPs and named editors. . Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 21:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article is linked from Google's main page doodle, and is seeing a large quantity of IP vandalism. | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of four days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection: temporary; perhaps through the end of January. The English speaking fandom is trying their damnedest to change the title of the list on Wikipedia, despite no reliable sources existing to support that change. Today was just the first actual move by a registered user, but there have been edits to change the title in piped links by IPs for weeks now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Just one move isn't really enough to warrant protection. Feel free to file another request if there are any other moves against consensus, though. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent vandalism and introduction of unsourced material. Qxukhgiels (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Just like the previous one, this page is about a controversial subject (too contentious for some to resist vandalistic temptations) and is being assailed by IP-socks, most probably by nangparbat (as alleged by the previous requester also). It is getting increasingly harder for us to repeatedly engage in an never-ending revert-loop. Merry Christmas, Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – This is the second request for page protection this week. This page is about a controversial subject (too contentious for some to resist vandalistic temptations) and is being assailed by IP-socks, most probably by nangparbat (as alleged by the previous requester also). It is getting hard for us to repeatedly engage in an never-ending revert-loop. Merry Christmas, Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – This might need a short protect, getting a few blp violations due to the subject's recent DUI. Safiel (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 7 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi protection Too many trolls intervening. -- I'm Titanium  chat 15:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pending changes protection is still applied indefinitely. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - IPs repeatedly adding unsourced content. Johannes003 (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one month. I'm guessing you meant List of Tamil films of 2012 and not the above redirect. —SpacemanSpiff 17:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Requesting immediate archiving... ‑Scottywong| spout _ 21:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Adding numerous votes after AfD was closed. ApprenticeFan work 13:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected indefinitely. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. The Banner talk 12:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Content dispute continues again. No improvements allowed to remove systematic POV. Looming edit war. Article is just back from earlier protection for a content dispute and failed Dispute Resolution. The Banner talk 12:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – please salt my userpage before another vandal creates this. Forgot to put name (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Courcelles 17:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – People messing with this article, a friend of mine redone the years, but I decided to make it copyright years. Still, people are messing with this article and putting the wrong edits. 𝕁𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕒𝕟 𝕁𝕒𝕞𝕚𝕖𝕤𝕠𝕟 𝕂𝕪𝕤𝕖𝕣 13:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Vandalism. Users removing lots of information without using the talk page or even providing an explanation. Fanaction2031 (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Birth control (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Belchfire-TALK 03:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by SarekOfVulcan. The protection has already expired, but it looks like it did the trick. (I presume you mean the article and not the talk page.) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Athenean (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by Materialscientist. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – DPL bot is creating this page with the only text {{dablinks}}. The page was speedily deleted under A10: was duplicating History of the British Isles . I think the original page consisted of more than 7 links to disambiguation pages; probably that's why DPL bot is placing {{dablinks}} on it. Before DPL bot creates this page again, please salt it. Thanks!. Forgot to put name (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Nationalist Ip struggle over ethnicity. . WhiteWriterspeaks 14:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Still a little soon to semi this. Please relist if this persists. Spartaz Humbug! 08:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Temporary semi-protection: The article has been blanked repeatedly since early Dec 2012, probably by the same user w/ dynamic ip. (every time the blanking are very similar, w/ most of the content removed but 2 paragraphs, eg [37], [38]). Warning was posted on 1 of the ip's talk page ( [39]), but the vandalism continued. Please kindly consider to lock the page for non-registered users for a period admins see fit, Thanks! Da Vynci (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Very high level of persistent IP vandalism. BlackHades (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Judging from your contributions, and from the lack of recent vandalism on Genetically modified food, I assume you meant Genetically modified food controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I meant Genetically modified food. Last vandalism on this page was 3 days ago. If you look through history of that page, you would notice that most edits on that page is related to either vandalism or reverting vandalism and it just never stops. Week after week. Month after month. The page likely needs permanent semi protection but for now I would request a couple more attempts of temporary semi protection. BlackHades (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Materialscientist (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Since gaining prominence, this article has attracted a plethora of unconstructive edits in such a short time: four these past 24 hours, [40], [41], [42], [43] (all 23rd); then this on 22nd late, and some others all recent but can be located among genuine edits. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 96 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 08:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: There is a high level of malicious & openly vicious & abusive comments from IP editors. Many of the IPs seem like the same user, but the last octet of their IP changes. Are they at an Internet cafe or something else? Regardless some action needs to be taken. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. Spartaz Humbug! 08:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from different IPs. Plant's Strider (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recently unprotected and the same editor came back with the exact same additions to the article that caused it to be protected in the first place. Request a longer (or permanent) period of semi-protection. Biker Biker (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP vandalism / wars going on the past 48 hours PeterWesco (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Webclient101talk 02:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes or semi-protection: BLP policy violations – BLP violations along with persistent vandalism. JayJayTalk to me 00:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Materialscientist. --Webclient101talk 03:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Pending transaction, not yet official. IPs don't listen. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

25 December 2012

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A dynamic IP user in the 65.150.215.* range is repeatedly inserting fake refs and seems to be attempting to hijack the article for some POV purpose, They have been reverted by numerous people over a period of several days but keep reappearing. Sitush (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not long prior to the recent activity of the 65.* IP, there was a drawn-out campaign by a series of 178.* dynamic IPs. Both the 65 and the 178 geolocate to the same area of Kuwait. Just before the 178.* turned up, there was similar disruption from Pillai100. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: There have been rumors that Hanrahan has been traded to the Red Sox, so naturally, despite an edit notice within <!-- -->, IPs have been continuously marking the deal as official. If this page could be semi'd for a week, hopefully by then the deal will either be announced as done, or have fallen through. Thanks in advance. Go Phightins! 19:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent "coatracking" and edit-warring (mostly by IP users) due to the recent shooting in Connecticut. ROG5728 (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes. Persistant Vandalism - §haun 9∞76 ༆ 15:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Dianna (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Pending changes protection: - Content dispute/edit warring - A user is repeatedly adding unsupported formatting, repetitive lines of minor features that frankly can be concluded in such a sentence, and various external links that are not affiliated to the official authors. Therefore, I would like to protect this article to prevent vandalism to the article. Wongie2009 (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined; pending changes protection will not stop the other editor from editing as they are auto-confirmed. There's been no talk page discussion since August, so that route needs to be tried first. I will warn the user again about the addition of inappropriate external links. -- Dianna (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: My user page faced minor vandalism. Rohini (talk) 12:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Dianna (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – A user repeatedly is reverting multiple users to restore his controversial deletion of material even after the discussion process has begun here. Requesting full page protection until the matter can be sorted out. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. I have placed a personal note on the user's talk page and will watch the article and see if this has the desired effect. If not, further action can be taken depending on how he responds. -- Dianna (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. Persistent Vandalism -TEDickey (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three days. -- Dianna (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: I would like to protect this article, since I've been researching and adding relevant information on the subject but my work is often erased or changed at a stroke by a few editors, without consulting the sources or raising discussions that may take place on the Talk page. That way is very difficult to work and make good contributions. Thank you! Hiddendaemian (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined; you are involved in a content dispute with long-time contributors and semi-protcetion will not stop them from editing the article. Please start a discussion on the talk page of the article to get more information on why these editors are finding your edits to be unacceptable; there's been no posts there since April. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – page should be protected for an extended period of timean extended period of time. Ips keep adding release dates which are not supported by reliable sources and in some cases adding releases which are not referenced at all. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined; edits are not vandalism, but good-faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Please try communicating with the users via talk pages rather than via edit summaries alone. -- Dianna (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Lots of IP vandalism mostly inserting defamatory text and changing the sourced birthday (which is today) to 1 April. bonadea contributions talk 16:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one week; cleaning article now. -- Dianna (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – editing without consensus . Fakirbakir (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one week to stop the edit war. -- Dianna (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection:Content dispute/editwarring - An unregister user, employing multiple IPs, continues to restore deleted material. Refuses to engage at Talk page, and has deleted Talk page attempt at discussion. Article has been semi-protected in the past, due to activity by this same individual. Gulbenk (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one week to try to drive the other editor to the talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. 82.132.217.109 (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Dennis Brown. for 1 month. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeatedly keeps adding "Captain Falcon" under Tom Koch. including 1, 2 and 3. And Repeatedly keeps adding "Dwayne Carter", including 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ring2011 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one week on each article. -- Dianna (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: This page needs a semi-protection for an extended period of time. From last week, an unregistered user has made a mistake. Mohanlal has the main role in this film, but this user is correcting it as Mammootty. Whitetararaj (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one week. If you could please review the article from top to bottom and make corrections, that would be great. Edits have been made to the awards and tables, not just the info box, and all material needs to be checked over. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. MadSkilz252 (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Four instances of IP vandalism in the past twenty minutes.The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. I've also turned on pending changes protection for one month. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: One anonymous user somehow just made a seemingly harmless, yet disruptive edit by adding a signature. Although it's just one edit, the template is highly visible. George Ho (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Although it does not have very many transclusions. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Numerous IP's and a new account keep adding Bradley Copper's name as "B.Coop". Webclient101talk 22:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP vandalism all over the article. — ASDFGH =] talk? 21:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

26 December 2012

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Falcon8765 (TALK) 18:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 18:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit war and probable sockpuppetry – An IP user is removing what was added in the Cyprus article as a result of consensus. Admin Richwales knows about this consensus-building. I suspect the IP is used by a registered user who has signed out to impose their POV against a consensus edit. I request their last edit to be reverted first and the article protected against IP edits until the end of the "holiday" season. I also hope the admins here could block the disruptive IP because of 3RR violation. I would hope to have a CU about this IP also, but that has no urgency. Please protect the article. Thanks... E4024 (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Someone (not I!) might want to fully protect this article — I doubt it really matters which version is protected — and keep it fully protected, potentially indefinitely, until/unless a true consensus emerges on the talk page. I tried to mediate a consensus in this topic area some time ago, but I eventually concluded I was wasting everyone's time, and I don't believe it would be useful for me to get involved again. If anyone else wants to give it a try, I hope you have better luck than I did. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 18:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Kaipayil (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

Create unprotection (unsalting): Previously-salted article has been improved sufficiently to merit inclusion (I don't know who salted it). Miniapolis (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already unprotected. Joseph Kaipayil has already been unprotected at 18:19, 26 December 2012 by User:Scottywong ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 18:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Widr (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 18:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: I work for Zomby and Zomby does not want his legal name on the Wikipedia page.

Declined—Absolutely not. Without a reliable source, inserting the name is a violation of WP:BLP. But there is not enough justification for full-protection. If someone breaks BLP in the future by inserting the name, I think pending changes protection may be justified. But not yet. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring by an IP-editor. Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent IP-vandalism. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short term IP vandalism. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Continuous addition of possibly libelous/poorly referenced attacks on a BLP by IP addresses. Lord Roem (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism.--Waren Beat (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd just flag down a random admin for this, but seeing as so many are unavailable currently, I figured it was faster to just ask here. If at all possible, could the unprotecting admin please include a note in the summary along the lines of "Please note that F&A prefers not to have his page protected unless explicitly requested, or when all other solutions have failed, or obviously will fail." It's just because I much prefer to draw the fire of trolls than to let them run loose in the mainspace, and it's a lot easier to get a quick block handed down once a vandal starts calling me a fag or whatnot. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your convenience, here is a diff of the above post, to verify that this is indeed my own request. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected and note added ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Torreslfchero (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism on a notable BLP by IP addresses. Since the stub was expanded 3 weeks ago, various IPs have removed cited info, inserted gibberesh and line spacing, repeatedly changed the order of the subjects' names in the intro, and today added a false comparison in the 'Dance Style' section that was likely intended to be degrading to the subjects. Mizztotal (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – IPs adding unsourced contents. The article's pending change expired two days ago and since then the vandalism has started again. Torreslfchero (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Torreslfchero (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated and ongoing vandalism by IP editors. Andrew (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC). Andrew (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: IP repeatedly re-adding MMA flags following WT:MMA#RFC on WP:MMA's use of Flag Icons in relation to MOS:FLAG and MOS:FLAG.

Suspect it could well be a sock of a banned editor. Mtking (edits) 05:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
I'm not wild about indefinite semi-protection of this without first trying temporary semi-protection. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A few days or a week must be enough to spoil the fun of a holocaust denyer on this article. I don't think a block of a shared IP will be effective. The Banner talk 11:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Satellizer talk contribs 05:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Page keeps getting re-created after CSD. Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 22:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

27 December 2012

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Please see [44]. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected, clearly a problem there. Kuru (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Widr (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protectedKuru (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi. Low-grade but continual edit war (one named account plus IPs) to change the speaker population against sources. Extensive discussion on Talk, but with no RS's for the new number. — kwami (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protectedKuru (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Incorrectly salted by the AfD closing admin. Prevents future recreation if notability changes. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 23:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per AFD. If the articles subject becomes notable then page un-protection can be requested. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The closing decision nor the !votes never mentioned protection. If possible I would like to request a second opinion. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 01:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Happy for a second opinion. I say per AFD as the protection log specifies that the protection was as a result of the AFD although there is no specific mention of salting on the AFD page. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated insertion of unsourced, non-neutral, non-encyclopedic commentary. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For the past few weeks, multiple IPs have been vandalizing the article, changing Bishop's 'honorific-prefix', "The Honourable" to "The Horrible.". -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 07:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I dont think either article deserves to be semi protected for any longer than this at this time. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi protection Both are targets of the long-banned and insufferable IP-bouncing GMTV Chart Show (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), asking for six months or a year. There shouldn't even be a need for IP's to mess around either article in the first place and they usually never add sourced information. Nate • (chatter) 04:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I dont think either article deserves to be semi protected for any longer than this at this time. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Murder of Kitty Genovese (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection Talk page comments (mine) on the difficult subject of race have twice been deleted by IP editors. The IPs geolocate to different places, so temp. semi seems like the best solution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I have warned the two IPs that removed the comments, I will watch the page and take further action if needed. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 18:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but they're probably proxies, since I just had another removal of my comments from Talk:The Sherry-Netherland with a similar edit summary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined (for the bot) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Again :(. SchreyP (messages) 17:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done From looking at talk pages and recent edits I would like to think that the edit warring has stopped by itself until edits have been talked about. I have added the article to my Watchlist so if any warring starts up again I will be likely to see it. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me!: 15:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There's a related discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#N. R. Narayana Murthy topic ban. -- Dianna (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined (for the bot) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Yoda1893 (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Indefinite semi-protection: Constant stream of IP edits removing the solution to this puzzle. Mangoe (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: SPA with everchanging IP keeps reverting against consensus, without reason and ignoring the talk page. Has been going on for many months but just picked up frequency. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: SPA with everchanging IP keeps reverting against consensus, without reason and ignoring the talk page. Has been going on for many months but just picked up frequency. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Kaipayil (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

Full protection: Salted article has popped up again at AfC. Miniapolis (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Just because an article is salted doesn't mean that it can never be created again. It was deleted previously because there was no evidence for the subject's notability. Does the AfC submission fix that problem? If so, we can unsalt the article to allow the new version. If not, then simply decline the AfC submission. There is no need to protect the AfC page. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 16:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection, and rollback to this version: Since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on December 14, and the subsequent national debate on the subject of assault weapons, this article has been subject to a high degree of edit warring. One editor in particular has taken control of the article, making many NPOV edits and reverting the contributions of other editors. Further, he is unreceptive to a taking a more collaborative approach -- see the discussions at Talk:Assault weapon#NPOV dispute and Talk:Assault weapon#Lead section. This article is about a very serious and very controversial subject, and we owe it to our readers to present a balanced view, not the view of one editor. I'm requesting that any updates that were made to the article after the Sandy Hook shooting be backed out, and further edits be made by an admin and only after a consensus of multiple editors is reached on the talk page. Thank you. "P.S." If this request is accepted, it would probably be appropriate for the article to still start with the more recently added {{NPOV}} notice. — Mudwater (Talk) 18:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. While there is some edit warring happening, I don't think protection is required just yet. There are discussions and RfC's happening on the talk page, which is exactly what should be happening. I would let those avenues play out before going with the more authoritarian approach of locking down the article. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 16:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

28 December 2012

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – many vandalism. MervinVillarreal (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – One anonymous user violates three-revert rule by unconstructively removing important details. George Ho (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, caused by the recent real-world outing of a private porn video (which means that this is a delicate case of a WP:BLP, and must be handled with care) Cambalachero (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – You see the revision history of this page. It was vandalised for 2 times. But now it is not vandalised. Bangladesh is a country and it displays a country of Bangladesh in Wikipedia. So it should not vandalised like what happened before. For this reason this page should be semi protected for vandalism. Pratyya (have a chat?) 11:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. for now ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Webclient101talk 07:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Webclient101talk 07:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing - This 5 days semi protection of this page has recently expired. IPs are persistently changing the box office figures, adding unsourced info, changing the critical review classification from mixed to negative to positive to mixed in despite of the consensus attained on the talk page. . Forgot to put name 06:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. (extended) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 05:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. 174.17.31.38 (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. SeaphotoTalk 04:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism. Plant's Strider (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – Can this article please be fully protected? It is a long standing target for fan cruft, and also a target for WP:Sock puppeting from Brexx and his infinite sock drawer. Every time it seems like the article has stabilized someone comes and modifies back, reducing the single status to song-status despite there being a lengthy discussion over at the talk page. With all the other articles we look after its becoming tedius to have to keep coming back to check people hadnt reverted against consensus. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Best, Mifter (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was a request for longterm indefinite protection because although the issue doesn't exist in the short every couple of months it re-arises just like the sock puppets. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. JayJayTalk to me 04:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protection (as soon as it's deleted). And it's one, two, three strikes you're SALTed! I rather doubt this is going to become notable, and it's always a shame to see an editor blocked over one article they just can't stop creating. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – many vandalism. MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism since the last protection was over, probably by the same user from multiple accounts and IPs. Oleola (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only 1 IP has actually vandalised the page since the protection ended. I think more time is needed before we jump to a wrong decision. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. (Via Twinkle) IanMurrayWeb (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Best, Mifter (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – A request for protection was declined yesterday on the grounds that there had been no recent activity, however the article was also deleted yesterday and versions of this article have been deleted four times since February. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I do not see enough recent attempts to create to create the page to warrant protection. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Incoming vandalism attacks. Webclient101talk 02:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 02:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Edit warring. Discussion ongoing, but no agreement between antagonists even about basics. Strebe (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 02:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection. Multiple counts of vandalism from unregistered IP addresses.--Haon 2.0 (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. Last actual vandalism was a month ago and most of the recent IP activity seems pretty constructive. Kuru (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite feedback protection (apparently this exists?). Basically all of the feedback here is misplaced or pointless; I assume this is because when you log in there's a link to CentralAuth right above the link to whatever page you were on when you clicked "log in," so people go to CentralAuth, see the feedback box, and assume it's the right place to post their comments. And seeing how rarely this page is edited - only two edits this year that weren't vandalism/misplaced, or reversions thereof - it seems that there's not any particular need to allow feedback submissions; if there's anything that seriously needs to be changed, either an (auto)confirmed user will notice it, or enough non-(auto)confirmed users will care that one of them will file an edit request.

It is worth noting that of those two constructive edits this year, one was in response to a feedback submission saying "please add an image," but I'm 95% certain that that was a happy coincidence brought about by yet another misplaced submission. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support indef feedback protection - as a reviewer, I find myself frequently hiding feedback from this change, and I agree there is almost no helpful feedback. Vacationnine 23:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article feedback protection level can not be higher than Edit protection level.
Fully protected I see no reason that is staring me in the face as to why the page cannot be fully protected as there is no real need to it to be edited.
Feedback protected ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 02:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Slow moving editwar without discussion. The Banner talk 00:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Repeated changes making Le South Vietnamese just because that is his place of birth contra to RS provided here that shows he is American. Mtking (edits) 21:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP edits are vandalism. Being realistic, the list is featured and there isn't much changes an inexperience IP editor could do to improve the article. If you take a look at last 50 edits, almost all IP edits are silly vandalism (i.e. modifing a chart number of a sales number). The very few which are not, get undone (AGF) because the source isn't reliable. Its not the type of vandalism ClueBot can detect. As Linkin Park article has indefinite semi-protection, I think Linkin Park discography should have indefinite semi-protection too. This would make a better use of our editor resources. Thanks. Neo139 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. We can see what happens after this. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – People keep adding that "Ghetto Baby" is a single yet this is WP:OR as people are assuming that the release of the music video makes the song a single. The artist has never called the song a single. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – can't see this suddenly becoming notable within a year. Altered Walter (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected indefinitely. - Best, Mifter (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP vandalism.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Best, Mifter (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – ip user keeps adding unsourced information.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. - Best, Mifter (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Over the last week or two we seem to have several anon ip's (maybe the same person) continually removing content backed by 9-10 different sources. Could we get a couple week protection for this? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator The Rambling Man. - Best, Mifter (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – A week long edit war which has included sockpuppetry. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Best, Mifter (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Best, Mifter (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

29 December 2012

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unsourced transfer speculation. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Best, Mifter (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Someone has repeatedly vandalized several articles, including this one. Leeboy100 21:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Best, Mifter (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Widr (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 Days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Best, Mifter (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Constant vandalism/disruptive edits by anonymous IP user(s). Allowing this to continue harms the reputation of Wikipedia as a legitimate source of information.Spylab (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism – IP will not stop. Please, protect this article! Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism & blp violations enough is enough, has an extensive protection log hence the request indefinite protection. . ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism since the last protection was over. Oleola (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Gurjinder Romana 08:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protection: Persistent IP vandalism and plagiarism. //Gbern3 (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Users keep vandalizing or posting their personal autobiographies. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 07:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely; this is a better option as none of the edits are being kept. -- Dianna (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Just last month, this page was protected for persistent disruptive edits and sock puppetry. Soon after the page protection expired, that same IP user started doing the same thing under many different IPs. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There is still a high volume of IP edits who continue to add unsourced information or change the placements of the contestants. . Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There is no need for a non-autoconfirmed to edit my user page. ✍ Mtking ✉ 09:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: – User requesting semi-protection within own user space. Webclient101talk 01:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done KTC (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unsourced transfer speculation. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a date where we can expect any potential transfer to be confirmed? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected until the opening of the transfer window. KTC (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback Protection: Saw this being used before, just a bunch of IP's posting about the same thing since they can't edit the page. JayJayTalk to me 04:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done; set to auto-confirmed for a week. Clearly I've missed out on some unfunny joke. Mackensen (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback protected (For the bot) --Webclient101talk 05:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They still are able to give feedback JayJayTalk to me 05:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, that's odd--the interface says it's protected. Looking further. Mackensen (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the protection log that shows you protected it, I have seen this situation before. Sometimes, for some odd reason you have to protect a page a couple times for it to work. See this.--Webclient101talk 06:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got it to take by unprotecting and re-protecting. When I did so I noticed something odd--the interface rejected the combination of no editing for "new and unregistered users" and feedback from "autoconfirmed users only." I would have considered those equivalent, but not so: I had to select "logged-in users only" for feedback. When I was trying to update the protection earlier I was using this combination and not getting a warning.

I'm not a regular at this page, but has anyone considered filing a bug report with MediaWiki? Something's not quite right. Mackensen (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could always go and check with WP:VPT because someone there most likely will know if it's been filed at Bugzilla or not and possibly file a report there for you. Very few folk keep an eye on the archives here so it's about all I can do as a lowly non-admin. tutterMouse (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of changes made by mostly ips in last few days without any reliable sources. Theman244 (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There have been no changes by IPs since December 16.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent or long-term semi-protection: Frequent list creep performed by both IPs, new users, and occasional autoconfirmeds. Despite hidden messages, routine reversion, leaving messages on the talks pages of the editors, the article experiences large, routine volumes of nonconstructive edits, despite attempts to thwart the edits, inform editors, or carrying discussions to the talk page. Possible conflict of interest due to the constant addition of unsourced artists in an attempt to promote them. Thevampireashlee (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP sock reinserting already declined non RS material and a lot of data without any sources. protection needed... WhiteWriterspeaks 19:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – edit warring. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite full protection. Iamthemuffinman 17:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Declined Bad faith proposal. Muffinman, do you realise that if I protected it, you be prevented from insulting MisterShiney? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just seen this and find it highly amusing. Seems he has gone through a load of my recent edits and identified them as vandalism. Am in the process of reverting them. Thanks for your hard work guys and girls. MisterShiney ✉ 20:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP edit warring over wording on manner of his death. Snappy (talk) 11:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – name implied A dynamic IP keeps vandalizing the page. Digifan23 (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. STATic message me! 20:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Widr (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30 December 2012

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Semi protection just expired; the vandals are back. —Theopolisme 19:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Last time I asked for a one month semi-protection and it was approved because of repetitive user and IP based vandalism and addition of rumors that break BLP rules. Some months have passed and the vandalism problem has returned. You can check the page history to verify frequent vandalism I have to revert. I request, this time, semi-protection be granted for 3 months at least. Mjhtcarfan (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Sock, probably VJ-Yugo. Was previously a problem on on other articles (such as NATO bombing of Yugoslavia) but semiprotection of those articles has tended to displace the socking elsewhere... bobrayner (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JohnCD (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent removal of maintenance tags by anonymous editors . JoshuSasori (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite full protection: I don't think Wikipedia's first-ever banned user will be receiving any relevant updates anytime soon. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone for nearly a decade without needing it, can't see what benefit protecting it brings. tutterMouse (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – The case is in the court and the suspect (innocent until sentence per universal law) declared it was an accident. Some users are trying to impose the article as an assassination for POV reasons. E4024 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was moved to Murder of Sevag Balıkçı (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Armbrust The Homunculus 00:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined I think this just needs to be talked about and pointed out to the user (looks like this may have already been done) instead of protection. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 13:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unsourced transfer speculation. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Best, Mifter (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – Move war so needs to be stopped. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Best, Mifter (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The minute the protection stops, the vandalism starts again. Still no feedback in talk page from the IP who keeps restoring the controversial section. Laurent (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Constant disruptive and quite illiterate edits by anonymous IP user(s), which turn the page into a tabloid. Please, protect the page, I am tired of reediting it and "cleaning" it up. Thank you. MarizzaRojas (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2012 (GMT+1)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 13:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 13:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – for persistent vadalism, addtion of unsourced and/or poorly sourced info and deliberate factual errors by dynimc ip's and account only vandals. Digifan23 (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP hopping edit war, changing from Oxford English. Each ip has only a couple of edits. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 10:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by IP's and sock accounts.

One particular sockmaster, ChronicalUsual keeps coming back every other month to vandalize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GraceMoney

Many disruptive Ips as well, such as just recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A71.178.201.4

The Syrian civil war is a main page article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and is considered a controversial article. As such it is common to vandalized such as in this method yesterday [45] or this today [46] Sopher99 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sopher99 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The IPs are really getting annoying. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Edit war needs to be talked about on the article talk page. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 13:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is being talked about on the talk page. One single IP was breaking the 3RR. Please put it semi-protected, as no established editor is in conflict with another at the time being. Sopher99 (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions", meaning you too are involved in the edit war. To simple semi protect it would only stop one of the editors involved in the war from editing. Pretty much saying I would be on your side. I have read the discussion but to me it looks like you are all still trying to decide what to do. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated information about a purchasable release on December 16 in France is being added yet after numerous comments in the edit summary about this being checked the information given is not in the references provided. IPs mainly. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 13:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. --Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 08:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 13:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Main Page (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent Spamming. FrankDev (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - decline, spamming as usual. Materialscientist (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does "spamming as usual" not warrant protection? --FrankDev (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are protected only in extraordinary circumstances, typically for a few hours. There is no recent spamming on this talk page. Longer protection must be discussed on talk:Main Page first - no admin will unilaterally protect that page (unless there is a clear spam/vandalism attack). Materialscientist (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no recent spamming on this talk page."? --FrankDev (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What Mat's trying to say is that the spamming isn't choking out legitimate discourse on that page, which would be the only reason to semiprotect a talk page, let alone Talk:Main Page. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 10:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: BLP policy violations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dreadstar ☥ 06:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Repeated insertion of unsourced claims or changing sourced clams by a variety of IPs. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 30 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dreadstar ☥ 05:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection:Persistent IP vandalism & new user edits –protect this article. article contain some gaps and missing elements, need major development and addition of content required for clarity , . As a matter of fact, most of telugu daily news do not hold online directory. More content in relation to his politics & personal llife is not written due to lack of citation., Thank you.Saveeducation (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No indication of problems that would be solved with protection. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Variable-address IP repeatedly removing all mention of Israel. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: It would appear as if the subject of this long-term abuse case has taken it upon themselves to vandalize the page via the utilization of I.P. addresses. DarthBotto talk•cont 01:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Acroterion (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Might as well protect my talk page for a while as well. ✍ Mtking ✉ 00:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected 48 hours. Monty845 03:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Target for spam and unsourced speculation. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 90 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dreadstar ☥ 05:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism. Astros4477 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Appears to be past the vandal's bedtime now, they've stopped. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ₮๒Я∆и∂ﾚ∑ㄚ 18:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Jimbo has intentionally made his user page editable by anyone, while we can protect it when necessary, the recent vandalism isn't serious enough. (Anyone else's userpage it would be different) Monty845 03:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Although sources are provided for almost every word, another editor is hammering on copyvio and lack of sources. Discussion is taking place at User talk:Kevin McE#Pecker Dunne The Banner talk 17:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of ten days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dreadstar ☥ 05:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: recent and persistent edits made which are contrary to fact have been made based on the release of archives by the British government. Please protect for a period of one month to allow for the newly released documents to be talked about and also to allow the heat to die down in the article. Sport and politics (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year extension of previous 6 month block, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dreadstar ☥ 05:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ip will not stop. Protect the article!. WhiteWriterspeaks 11:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dreadstar ☥ 05:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – Three different new IP's declared person dead in last two days, while no references are available yet, so I reverted and left an informing message at their pages. I also added a message at article's talk page. I presume the statement is right looking at his age, but according BLP policy we cannot accept this until obituaries are available. SchreyP (messages) 08:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dreadstar ☥ 05:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Please limit to autoconfirmed users; SPI has been opened for the accounts that have edited the AFD. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 30 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Shouldn't need protection after the AfD is over, but I'll watchlist it to make sure all is ok from here out. Dreadstar ☥ 05:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. after temporary semi protection for 3 times the change in figures and removal of content still occurs. Anidemun (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, very minimal use of edit summaries. Hurts my eyes. MikeLynch (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dreadstar ☥ 05:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

31 December 2012

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 07:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined All the recent vandalism is from a single IP address, now blocked. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Section blanking by various IP addresses. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 07:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elevated to indefinite from temporary as this will probably be an issue as long as The War Z is in the news. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 07:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for three days (which seems to be lowballing it a little given it's had three day protections handed out consistently over its lifespan.) tutterMouse (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I request you a long term semi protection for this page. Some people use different IPs and vandalize the page. I'm saying this because all IPs edit same things. They edit abusive stuffs and their summary shows vulgarity. I request a long term semi protection —PKS:1142 · (TALK) 15:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Mufka. (7 Days) --Webclient101talk 18:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: persistent vandalism by IPs over the last few days including issues of WP:BLP.12bigbrother12 (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – Some BLP violations, but also constructive edits by IPs. Vacationnine 07:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. TBrandley (what's up) 18:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Serious BLP violations. Forgot to put name 10:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Persistent edit warring over MoS application. COI editor involved, request 7 days to sort out issues. ► Belchfire-TALK 19:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Looks like the edit war has stopped and there is now productive discussion on the talk page. I will watchlist the article. Dreadstar ☥ 07:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. - Happysailor (Talk) 12:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. - expires [redacted] - per WP:BLP ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redact expiry date, as it seems to confuse the bot. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Persistent edit warring. ( Related: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mark Lane (author). ) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator EdJohnston.. Dreadstar ☥ 07:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP related vandalism over the course of these past two weeks. -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 03:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – This page is facing disruption but on other side some ip's make productive edits too so i think it needs atleast a week pending changes protection. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 21:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Dreadstar ☥ 07:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism is still happening. Astros4477 (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Prodego talk 02:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Widr (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Widr (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 02:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring over content. . Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP-hopping vandal. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Reid is meeting with Eagles front office personnel to discuss his future with the team. Though termination is likely the outcome, it is not yet official and is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL and for that matter WP:BLP to add to this article prior to that announcement being made by the Eagles franchise. There has already been activity on this page "updating" to reflect a perceived or predicted outcome by IPs, so semi-protecting the page for two days would be a good idea to prevent further possible defamatory content being added (especially if the outcome of tomorrow's meeting is different than what we suspect). Thanks in advance. Go Phightins! 01:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent removal of content based on an internet joke by an ip hopper. The article came off protection recently, and the vandalism started up again. His named account and main ip were blocked yesterday, but he's gone back to ip hopping. Semi protection into early to mid-next year (March?) might be appropriate. He should move on by then.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. KTC (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Torreslfchero (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - The users appear to be engaging in constructive discussion and their does not appear to be enough recent disruption to justifty protection. Best, Mifter (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – anonymous editor constantly uncapitalizes the word "Christian" in an article about a Christian unvisersity.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Best, Mifter (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: it is a BLP edited by various non-constructive IPs, de-wikifying the article and introducing unreferenced blatant POV like "he is the only ecology trained architect". --ELEKHHT 21:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 13:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unwatching the page than. Let others clean the shit. --ELEKHHT 15:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Chevroletfan123 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – User is making genuinely absurd unblock and username change requests. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 21:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Instead, I have disabled his talk page access for the duration of his block. JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Not yet notable company; spam copyvio re-created five times in 30 minutes. Might be notable in a few months. Altered Walter (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected for 1 month. KTC (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High count of IP editors blanking sections and other vandalism. C679 20:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 1 week. KTC (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Event ongoing so target of misinformation. ✍ Mtking ✉ 00:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The page also has some level of IP vandalism and possibly an edit war. Poison Whiskey 00:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Hmmmm ... might be worth considering full protection for 4 hrs; let the event finish then the results can be updated when they are known, WP is not a race. ✍ Mtking ✉ 00:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes full protection is now warranted, all of these edits lack WP:RS as the event is ongoing it is not possible to verify each edit. ✍ Mtking ✉ 03:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined; it's not disruptive; it's not vandalism; it's just normal editing. -- Dianna (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2012/12&oldid=1145817364"