Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2013/03

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2013

01 March 2013

Indefinite Creation Protection — This non-notable person's BLP has been repeatedly created, before (1x under captioned title; 5x as "Dr.") and after (4x as captioned; 1x as "Dr.") the earliest deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Priya Ranjan Trivedi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (27 September 2010) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Ranjan Trivedi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (26 February 2013); the second AfD was initiated by an editor who did not know the article had already been deleted at AfD. Each instance of recreation was a clearly promotional/vanity piece, apparently by the subject. Many instances were glaring copyvios of the subject's résumé. A similar WP:STALEDRAFT was deleted here, in the user space of User:Tgou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who seems responsible for some of these repeated creations. The title with "Dr." has already been salted; the title without "Dr." needs salt, too. JFHJr (㊟) 15:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected Consider it salted. Gamaliel (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection - Constant, daily page blanking from a specific anonymous IP- user over the past 6 months. This user does not provide valid, objective reasons for his actions. Aero777 (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Declining for now. It's possible full protection may be needed. The IP has twice started a conversation on the article talk page, but you haven't engaged with them. I'm not oing to semi protect this article to give you an advantage in a content dispute, especially as the IP seems to be the one that's making the attempt to communicate. GedUK  12:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Also Atticus Dean Mitchell. It has been 18 months since create protected. Lead for two season on a TV series so should be possible to meet WP:NACTOR now. . Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 18:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism- There have been many IPs that have made multiple nonconstructive edits to the page. This page has had temporary semi-protection in the past and it managed to successfully stop the vandalism of this page. --Coolg863 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Low traffic article with a long history of vandalism. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 03:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected because they can't handle my swag of persistent, low-level vandalism. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Quite Frequent Vandalism for such a small page. Oh the irony. §haun 9∞76 ༆ 03:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism few hours after semi-protection expired. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – School being hit hard by vandalism - no doubt by children from this or a rival school. Semi protection will see them get bored and return to ritual self abuse. . Bob Re-born (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Only two IPs involved, and neither seems to have even received a final warning despite their edits. Feel free to request again if things get out of hand. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple IPs have repeatedly vandalized this page for some reason, always pasting the same nonsense text at the same position. . §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Socks and IPs converting disambiguation page to article against discussion on talk page, leading to an edit war. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
I wasn't happy about indef, so let's just try long term first. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection - IP persists in adding content that has been objected to by multiple editors on numerous occasions. – PeeJay 01:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. And yet, none of you has ever tried to actually discuss the matter. You all need to take the matter to the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Junebea1 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There are far too many constructive IP edits to completely block them off, so we'll try 2 weeks of pending changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long term vandalism by IP addresses. . HereFord 01:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Report the user(s) to AIV if vandalism continues. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP addesses closing AFD as no consensus less than 7 days after it started. . GB fan 01:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked., see below. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP users removing AFD and closing AFD as no consensus in less than 7 days. GB fan 01:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Is this a thing now? Will keep an eye on this in case other IPs try to do the same. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – vandalism has been going on for some time now. JayJayWhat did I do? 23:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – POV-pushing. The Banner talk 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined This seems premature. It's a single new user who has now been properly warned about 3RR, so they can be reported and blocked if they exceed it again. Gamaliel (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is doubtful if Media Michael is really a new user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StPhilomena. This case, file 7/2/2013, is still not decided on! The Banner talk 00:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protection: Vandalism and unsourced edits. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 22:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – the last period of heavy vandalism was nearly two months ago. Since then, there have been a couple of unconstructive edits and what appears to be a content dispute involving registered users. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Full-protection: There has been high level back and forth reverting from registered and unregistered users. Veronika53 (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. No such edits since semi-protection expired and no recent BLP violations that I can see. Feel free to request protection again if edit warring flares up again. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism, a user repeatedly replaced the entire article with some new unrelated company. Krystaleen 16:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem user has been blocked (one user, two different accounts). Wait and see if protection is needed. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism by IP's and new accounts. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 22:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Some constructive edits in the recent history, vandalism itself not that heavy. A trial of pending changes should help. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Dubious unsourced edits related to the labels roster. STATic message me! 20:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protection requests on the talk page regarding continuous addition of unsourced content. The X Factor (UK) page is already so protected. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

move protection: Was moved without any consensus by User:Bob the Wikipedian 79.216.50.80 (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - The same user undid the move 13 minutes later. Not likely to be repeated. --Orlady (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

has now retired — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooldude5296 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Please protect as a cautionary measure, the article has been referenced in a legal communication to the Foundation. We might have to work through this substantially. See ticket:2013022810012881. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected Gamaliel (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by the anon IP´s. Yopie (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Protection has just expired and an IP has returned to add the same vandalism again, so I think it needs a longer protection. (Also, please rev del this - previous examples were rev deleted). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Semi-protected for one month. Linked diff deleted. Gamaliel (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Month-long edit war with Russian IPs adding links to Russian language pages into the article without discussion on talk page / entreaties on talk page (see User_talk:217.150.55.133). Glrx (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPs: 217.150.55.133, 95.188.151.75, 95.188.243.19, 80.237.79.201. Glrx (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – SPA socks keep joining to add BLP.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mike V • Talk 18:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protecion - sockpuppetry by banned user Stubes99 Hahuha (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Referenced user (and the requesting user) have been blocked as socks. Mike V • Talk 18:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

02 March 2013

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for BLP concerns. Low traffic, but might warrant PC. Crazynas t 19:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected ~ Riana ⁂ 20:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Annon revert war in 2009. Crazynas t 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected ~ Riana ⁂ 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Spamming concerns in 2009. Low traffic page. Crazynas t 19:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected ~ Riana ⁂ 19:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009, meatpuppetry concerns. Crazynas t 19:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected ~ Riana ⁂ 19:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 due to meatpuppetry concerns, I suspect this one has mellowed out by now. Crazynas t 19:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected ~ Riana ⁂ 19:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please see the page history, there has been multiple IP user vandalism in this page every few days. Please semi protect it. Jayarathina (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full Protection: edit warring by a former producer no longer associated with the project, considered persistent vandalism. The current producers are requesting the protection of the page.MonkeyProducer (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. The edits are not vandalism the way Wikipedia defines it; it's a content dispute. Please discuss with the user, should they return. -- Dianna (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Or PC. Page was BLP protected in 2009, somewhat low traffic page. Crazynas t 19:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected ~ Riana ⁂ 19:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for edit warring, staaaaale. . Crazynas t 19:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected ~ Riana ⁂ 19:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page protected for blanking in 2009, low traffic page (could also be PC). Crazynas t 19:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected ~ Riana ⁂ 19:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page protected in 2009 for vandalism, three edits in the last year. Open up?. Crazynas t 19:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected ~ Riana ⁂ 19:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page was protected for 'balnking' in 2009, page has had one edit since Oct 2011. Crazynas t 19:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Thanks for digging these up, Crazynas! ~ Riana ⁂ 19:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Disambig. page with IP's and new users either vandalizing or adding sexual references to it over the past few months. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 00:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks. There's been no new content added to the page for years, so semi-protection is a better choice imo. The problem will likely resume so please feel free to apply for longer protection when this expires. -- Dianna (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 00:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks. Edits are frequent, so pending-changes is not as good a choice imo. -- Dianna (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

temporary semi protection: - Again the Camuto group is trying to change information in the article. Block camuto groups users if possible.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Highly visible template – A recent bad edit by a guest editor caused Hazard-Bot to incorrectly mark over 100 images for speedy deletion and send incorrect talk page messages to respective uploaders. This template is matured and needs little changes. Codename Lisa (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Since this was caused by an IP, and the template has never been protected before. Suggest Indefinite Semi protection. Crazynas t 09:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Materialscientist (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: High level of persistent IP vandalism – A user with multiple IPs (175.143.185.106 at the moment) is constantly removing and changing factual information because he does not like the fact that the Kepler GTX600 GPUs DO NOT support Direct3D 11.1 or DirectX 11.1. The article has already been locked temporarily before, and it changed nothing. 91.64.206.154 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC) EDIT: He is now even vandalizing the requests for a page lock page!! 91.64.185.69 (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite protection: For 1 year, only admins can make changes. High level of persistent vandalism – A German vandal with multiple IPs (Kapitaenk, 91.64.206.154, 91.65.182.137, 91.64.185.69 at the moment) is constantly removing and changing factual information because he does not like the fact that the Kepler GTX600 GPUs do partially support Direct3D 11.1 or DirectX 11.1. The article has already been locked temporarily before, and it changed nothing. Please also permanently ban Kapitaenk & Kabel Deutschland 91.64.206.154, 91.65.182.137, 91.64.185.69 IP and all Kabel Deutschland related IPs. http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.168.165 (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2013‎
You've both been given a 3rr warning. Stop immediately. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The German vandal is ignoring the fact http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 states Kepler GPUs do partially support Direct3D 11.1 and DirectX 11.1. Please ban Kabel Deustchland vandal from editing Wikipedia and posting incorrect info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.168.165 (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both IPs need to now be blocked for 3RR — do I have to go through the red tape? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reported both of them at WP:ANEW. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both IP's were blocked for 24 hours by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Over the past 16 months, various IP addresses have introduced the same BLP violation -- specifically, changing the person's name in various places on the page -- on thirteen separate occasions. No reliable source shows the name to be anything other than what appears on the page, and I have added multiple citations showing the correct name. I have warned this person (I presume it's the same person each time) on several occasions, but he or she has neither responded nor performed any additional edits to any other page. The behavior seems to indicate that the person just waits a certain period, hopes that nobody's watching, and then re-inserts the incorrect information. The last time the person waited three months, but I hesitate to request an expiry at all, especially since the last time I came here a similar request was denied entirely. Dewelar (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected I've put it on pending changes - I don't see a need for semi protection here, given the such limited number of edits. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Evanh2008 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent harassment by IP trolls. I've created a subpage at User talk:Evanh2008/IPs. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected by Mr Stradivarius for one week. -- Dianna (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 01:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: This article was quietly salted well after its recent deletion discussion by an uninvolved administrator (despite there not being a single request for salting present in the discussion). The administrator in question is extremely aggressive and refuses to even properly discuss the issue (case in point: the administrator actually "closed" one of the discussion sections about this at that administrator's user talk page), up to and including block threats.

The reason I am requesting that this be unprotected is that I would like to create a redirect (to marblemedia). WP:CON was established for an extremely similar redirect at: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 25#Futz! (Note that, in that case, there were in fact multiple requests for salting in the deletion discussion and yet the community decided that the redirect should stay.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discussing the redirect with the protecting admin - I should have an answer shortly. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Repeated non-admin closures by IP users (see also the issues raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siabaf). The article itself may also warrant semi-protection due to repeated AFD template removals by the same group of IPs. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't realised that. However, I'd point out that the decline reason ("users blocked"), whilst accurate at the time, doesn't take into account the large number of one-off IP editors that have arisen since. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent, long-term use of article for advertising. One editor was just given a final warning yesterday and a previous editor returns to take up the same editing while ignoring talk page discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Semi-protection would only protect the article from new accounts and IP addresses. The accounts are confirmed accounts, so semi-protection would not be useful. In this case, let's keep an eye on things and if they continue additional warnings or a block may need to be issued. Mike V • Talk 21:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! You are correct. Worse, some of the ip's have been helpful recently. I don't think the situation calls for full protection yet. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by anonymous users.Jpcohen (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The current vandalism seems to stem from a single IP address. Should the user resume, it would be better to just issue a block instead of protecting the whole article. Mike V • Talk 18:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The vandalism has been from multiple IP addresses. It seems that once one IP address is blocked, the same user (most likely) uses a different computer and continues to add the same changes over and over. So it doesn't appear that blocks have been effective.Jpcohen (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 22:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Same as with article page: persistent vandalism by IP-hopping twit. Has persisted for several years. --EEMIV (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. I did a soft range block for the underlying IP address. Hopefully this will stop the issues. Mike V • Talk 18:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – BLP violation(s), ongoing vandalism. Widefox; talk 16:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mike V • Talk 18:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

03 March 2013

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 1 week. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent edits by IP editor who, after being reverted continues to change the genres listed on the page . L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – longstanding pattern of disruption by several IPs. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Bunch of IP's vandalizing the page, been going on for some time. JayJayWhat did I do? 19:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. JayJayWhat did I do? 19:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Ongoing edit warring to change the lead against consensus by a variety of new accounts. TDL (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected by ItsZippy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated unexpanded deletion of the same double sourced material over a period of months. Temporary Semi Protection only temporarily stopped this. Edkollin (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. STATic message me! 20:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected yet again... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: I collected all the information need to make this page what it looks like today, as initially the page was a stub with very little inofrmation. But over and over again the page is modified with false information. So please allow this page to be Semi-protected so that it truly serves the purpose for which it was created. 117.222.211.50 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: unregistered user with changing IPs persistently tries to remove verifiably sourced content without explanation. --RJFF (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High profile and currently ongoing MMA event, IPs are vandalizing the results and it creates many edit conflicts. LlamaAl (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I see lots of IP edits, but not much vandalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – SPA User:Viking1997, using several IPs, is repeatedly reverting edits, including the removal of a likely copyright violation. Requests for discussion are being ignored. SummerPhD (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 16:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary move-protection: Article is in the middle of a move war. I have attempted to discuss the naming convention of this article on the talk page, but another editor continues to move the article title back to his POV. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected - get the editors to use WP:RM and discuss the name  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page is victim of legal quarrel between two companies over use of the name "Dragonfly". Continued vandalism disputing accuracy of content with very few verifiable facts. Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the MD of Dragonfly Productions. This is not a conflict about a company name. The vandalism has been made by a competitor company, who is posting many many defamatory posts online in many different locations. The individual responsible is known to me. Dragonfly is not subject to any legal challenge regarding its company name. All negative content posted online is motivated by hate and it is intended to do harm.

I also request that the [Dragonfly Productions] page is temporarily protected please.

User: Charliesouthall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliesouthall (talk • contribs) 12:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 1 week. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Long-term vandalism by IPs; most edits since 2012 are just reverting vandalism. 66.69.45.106 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of a month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism. Krystaleen 10:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of a month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection or pending changes - persistent vandalism. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of a month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Salt it for a few months. Non-Notable internet show/personality, being created by the person the article is about. Would discourage the author/subject from coming back to re-create their page again, without having to ban the user. Fbifriday (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. FallingGravity (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism since mid-February. -- LuK3 (Talk) 04:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of a fortnight, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations – This was under pending changes protection and needs to be again. IPs and users unfamiliar with WP:BLPCAT keep adding Foster to LGBT categories. . Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unprotection: Indefinite semi protection unwarranted for this article. 184.147.52.50 (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected ~ Riana ⁂ 14:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Norwegian School of Economics (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – 117 IP hopper posting offensive and disruptive material. FallingGravity (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined He has not edited this page for two days. And this talk page is not his only target; he will just move to another one of his targets. It's talk pages I'm talking about here, not articles, so protection has to be used very very sparingly if at all. There's no potential for a range block, either; the IPs he is using are not very closely related to one another. -- Dianna (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistant Vandalism. - Camyoung54 talk 18:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked.. Only one IP. Blocked for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent removal of sourced entries. Tærkast (Discuss) 13:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Dianna (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection (currently fully protected): The template was fully protected on 14 April 2009, per WP:HRT. The protecting admin, User:Tnxman307 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), has now retired. An edit request I made on 13 February 2013 is unnecessarily adding to the backlog at CAT:EP. To pick one example from other HRTs at Category:User talk header templates, {{Message}} is only semi-protected. Is there any chance of downgrading this one please, so that I others can make the such relatively uncontroversial edits myself themselves in future? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely timed fulfilment of the edit request, Mr. Stradivarius! This protection request stands, though. -- Trevj (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined I don't think Mr S is coming, so I am going to decline the request. Templates such as this are subject to fixed position vandalism and image vandalism. -- Dianna (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: There remains a high level of ongoing vandalism. I think it should be taken into consideration when coming up with a duration that I believe this would be the third such protection in roughly two months. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one month. -- Dianna (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP/new user vandalism. Dan56 (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected by Lord Roem for one month. -- Dianna (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent IP socking by indef blocked User:Skipetari. Athenean (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected by Someguy1221 for three months. -- Dianna (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – During the last 10 days various new IPs have been adding unsubstantiated and improbable rumours regarding the judging panel members. In some cases this amounts to violation of WP:BLP. . Leaky Caldron 22:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks. The page is also currently pending-changes protected. -- Dianna (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The article is a magnet for unsourced wikifiddling by IP contributors. Semi-protection would give us a chance to get it into a sensible state. . Biker Biker (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for ten days. -- Dianna (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Webclient101talk 02:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three days. -- Dianna (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism even after two temporary semi protections by random IP's in figures and verdicts. Anidemun (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected..--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Looks like a spammer IP from yesterday switched to a different IP after their final warning, to plug the same URL. McGeddon (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three days to start. Please re-apply if this turns out not to be adequate. -- Dianna (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection. Liberalufp (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Very few or no constructive edits since PC was activated 4-5 weeks ago. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 22:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page is receiving a lot of anonymous fan-edit, the edits most of the time are over-detailed or way too much emphasized. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 05:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

04 March 2013

Semi-protection. An IP keeps fucking about. Pass a Method talk 16:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dynamic IP unfortunately, or I'd just as soon block it. Bishonen | talk 18:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protection: Content dispute/disruptive editing/attempting to avoid 3RR and all-out edit war. -- A few days ago, User:Biala Gwiazda has moved the article to Rutgers University, Newark for entirely wrong reasons. Yesterday I had it moved back at WP:RM. Despite not knowing anything about Rutgers, he continues to edit the article (most recently the lead) to put inaccurate/incorrect information regarding the name of the institution. He has reverted edits I made to improve the article (revision and reorganization) without valid reasons. I have posted on his talk page asking user to cease doing so, his reply indicates his continuing willingness for continued disruptive edits. If some third-party, preferably an admin, can advise the user to discontinue his disruptive and inaccurate edits, I would appreciate it. Thank you for your assistance. --ColonelHenry (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I'm loathe to fully protect an article (which is what it would need) because of two editors. Better to take action against the individuals than lock the whole thing. Best staep is to start an conversation on the talk page about the wawy forward. If that doesn't work, then we can take action against him and/or lock the article. GedUK  12:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Many unsourced additions by IP's during a heavy stage of national finals. [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Unsourced does not mean vandalism. About half of the IP's edits are in good faith, and some even useful. Lectonar (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – If the last editor to edit hadn't asked me to block an IP I would have protected this page. There is a discussion right now at NPOV which hopefully will deal with the issue. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for 2 days. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations – "underwatched BLP" protected in 2009, perfect PC candidate. . Crazynas t 06:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Can you identify the BLP violations, because I can't see them. With no obvious recent (in terms of article history rather than simply time) vandalism , I can't protect this. We don't protect pre-emptively. GedUK  12:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: introduction of poorly cited/ irrelevant content. Qxukhgiels (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  12:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Perhaps protect it for at least 3 weeks and see how it goes. All recent edits here (except that of vandal warriors) are vandalism, it's vandalised every few days and spoils the info. Arctic Kangaroo 14:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This seemed like a standard care for semi protection, so that's what I went with. I have it watchlisted for trouble when the protection expires. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection:- article has been a target for a full panoply of SPA editors (socks ?) making 34 changes over the last few days- possibly pursuing a specific political/social ideology. The article itself has little merit IMHO and has been nominated as AfD, but a little stability would seem appropriate.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Rocketrod1960 (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. KTC (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns of this AFC have been answered here. The title is salted! --Tito Dutta (contact) 22:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Lectonar (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 10:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by single-purpose accounts. [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 08:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Long term vandalism and linking to shock sites. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. and Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Temporary semi-protection has been used several times before for the article, but it doesn't seem to deter the vandals. Question: Do I need to note that I am reverting vandalism in the "Edit Summary" section every time I do it? Since it is habitual, I simply undo the last edit without explaining. Thanks! Mimi C. (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. THere's no policy that says you must use edit summaries, but it's accepted to be good practice. Most vandal fighters, if they aren't using one of the tools, uually use 'rvv' or 'rv' or similar as the summary. GedUK  12:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Mimi C. (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

semi protection - a biography about a living person that has been regularly subjected to BLP violations from multiple SPA accounts and IPs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. There is quite an active internet campaign against the subject, and the WP article seems to be in their crosshairs now. First Light (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator De728631. GedUK  12:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Google doodle, heavy traffic incoming. Th4n3r (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator King of Hearts. It's got pending on at the moment. Relist if that gets out of hand. Looks OK at the moment. GedUK  12:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection. An editor has been using a series of sockpuppet and IP accounts (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WillardJindal) to continually add unsourced names to this list, with the obvious WP:BLP implications. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Why does that article even exist? Anyway, pending seems more sensible; traffic's quite low. GedUK  12:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection. About a year ago, there was a flurry of tabloid reports predicting that these two Bollywood actors were about to marry. Despite a complete absence of reliable sources reporting the marriage actually occurred, a long string of IPs have been adding the claim to these articles. Both articles were protected last year due to thius problem, but it's been a recurring problem after that protection expired. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: This seems like the sort of fact that should be quite easy to prove or disprove with reliable sources (although it should certainly remain absent from the article if no sources are available). A cursory Google search shows at least two articles published in the Times of India that could be used to support this claim. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It ought to be that way. But, for example, those Times of India pieces turn out to be gossip column predictions of a wedding, but aren't followed by any reliable reports that the wedding actually took place. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I toyed with the idea of pending changes, but edit levels seem just a little too high for that, though lumpy. Maybe we could try that if this protection doesn't stop it. GedUK  12:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Check the edit history and you can see a lot of the edits are IP addresses adding spam to Voobly, and someone reverting them. Since I just had to yet again revert this spam, I'm thinking they are going to start up again. Dream Focus 07:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: For some reason this redirect has become a hotbed of vandalism. The original version was a redirect to Christina Aguilera. I'm guessing that that's what it should be. Marechal Ney (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Persistent edit warring. One editor in violation of 3RR. Requesting temproary full to force them to the talk page to form consensus. Fbifriday (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined: Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Removal of references and failed verification by multiple new accounts. Soupforone (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mike V • Talk 02:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Persistent vandalism – or PC. BLP protection in 2009, low traffic page. Crazynast 06:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. Protected in 2009 for BLP concerns, seems ok to me to open up. Crazynas t 06:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. BLP protected in 2009 for vandalism, low traffic, open up?. Crazynas t 06:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected for vandalism in 2009, low traffic enough that I think PC would work. Crazynas t 06:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Target of 4chan raid. Crazynas t 04:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected by Materialscientist. Crazynas t 04:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Request upgrade to semi from PC--IP user using Tor nodes to engage in edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 04:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009. "Start talking IP" (edit war?) probably ok to open this up. Crazynas t 03:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Or PC. Low traffic BLP protected in 2009. Crazynas t 03:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – BLP concerns in 2009, page hasn't been edited in ~10 months. Crazynas t 03:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done (I bet you meant unprotection). Materialscientist (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thanks. Crazynas t 03:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This debate is acting as a honeypot for a banned editor. It has already been compromised by several IP addresses and brand new accounts. —Ryulong (琉竜) 01:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator DeltaQuad. Mike V • Talk 02:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recently, several IP addresses have tried to change the sales certifications of some albums, contrary to what the cited sources indicate. . L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Consider reporting the editors involved if vandalism continues. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Or PC. Low traffic BLP. Crazynas t 03:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for edit warring. Open up?. Crazynas t 03:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009, low traffic article. Crazynas t 03:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Or PC, low traffic BLP, protected in 2009 for vandalism. Crazynas t 03:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page protected for vandalism and... edit war in 2009, open up?. Crazynas t 03:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page protected in 2009 for vandalism, open up or PC?. Crazynas t 03:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Several unhelpful edits containing original commentary that have been re-added several times over the last several days by IP 77.42.213.108. L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – consider reporting the user to the relevant noticeboard (WP:AN3 or WP:AIV). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:75.71.217.106 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – This is pathetic. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – I am involved in a conflict with another user on this page. I want it protected so we can take it to the talk page instead of reverting. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 19:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) You have only reverted his actions twice, Full Protection isn't necessary, bring it up on the talk page, and if he doesn't cooperate report him. JayJayWhat did I do? 19:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – what JayJay said. Full protection as a way of "forcing" discussion in a dispute is generally a Bad Idea. See WP:AVOIDEDITWAR for some advice. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. রাহাত | ✉ 20:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent blanking by IPs. Auric talk 22:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 1 month. Jayjg (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – possibly corporation-led systematic deletion of the criticism section. This one is very important as Arabtec is the main building company in Dubai and there is evidence that the company is enslaving its construction workers.

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This happened twice, four months ago. If it continues now, re-request protection. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ongoing vandalism from several IPs and new users. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Fvasconcellos. (2 weeks) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

05 March 2013

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Editor refusing to give reliable sources and removing tags about that. The Banner talk 19:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Btw, both JonC and you are over 3RR now. Lectonar (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Pl. protect this page of this notable singers from unknown users & persistent vandalism over a long period of time. --ANKMALI (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism - Repeated vandalism from Philippines IPs and even including autoconfirmed users because of 2013 Lahad Datu standoff. Request temporary full protection so no one could vandalise this page. Bryan cxgan (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined This is already semiprotected, so IPs can't vandalize it. I don't think there's enough disruption by autoconfirmed users to justify full protection either. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protection: I Created this page and i want to add the matches to this event without people ruining my work all the time,so i would you to protect this so i can only edit it. 16:28, March 5 2013 (EGY TIME)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. Also, you posted this as an IP, so semiprotection might keep you from editing it, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Highly visible in >150 Wikipedia: namespaces. Transcluded in other 400 pages. George Ho (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Edit warring. IP editor from Ottawa has disruptive editing on the article. ApprenticeFan work 00:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined There seem to be a number of good, and certainly good faith, contributions from IPs that outweigh this disruption. Additionally, most otf the disruption is from one IP, so better to take action against them than protect the whole article. GedUK  12:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Or pending changes (level 2). Template is currently fully protected, 135 transclusions. Is that really high risk?. Crazynas t 00:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd tend to agree that a reduction to semi-protection would be appropriate. I've dropped the protecting admin a note, and will give them time to provide input before changing the level of protection myself. Note that PC2 is effectively unavailable based on community consensus. Monty845 00:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the creator of the template, and protected it. I tend to place a higher priority on protecting navigational templates than others, because of the disruption to readers if they break ... but if others feel that this should be reduced to semi, then I won't stand in the way of that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined I tend to agree with the above; the disruption caused by a (possible) vandalism of a navigational template is rather high. Lectonar (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple IP's vandalising article due to recent high profile game launch. Request semi for a bit. DrNegative (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Kolega2357 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect my talk page for reason Persistent vandalism [Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] . Kolega2357 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – User talk pages are not protected except in response to severe or continued vandalism. Nobody has edited your talk page since the last protection expired. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring by IP against consensus. ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined It's the same IP. Take action against them via WP:3RRN or WP:AIV. GedUK  12:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated vandalism, mostly IPs constantly posting the participation of Bahrain, which is speculation... Cheetah255 (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This looks more like a content dispute to me, and should be discussed properly at the article's talk page. I'll comment over there as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protection: Persistent abusive IP's supporting a POV which is against consensus. The comments in edit summaries are escalating to being out and out abusive and uncivil. Sport and politics (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes or semi-protection: This page gets a lot of views, and attracts its share of vandalism from anonymous editors. Recent examples:

The February 3rd change didn't get fixed until the 16th: [14]. —rybec 06:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Semi-protection: Widespread vandalism and inappropriate edits by non-autoconfirmed users, especially after protection expired in February. A1candidate (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism. Spidey104 03:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism over the past day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. If this keeps up, just relist please. Lectonar (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent IP adding unsourced content. Rushton2010 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Author of book edit wars to insert their own non-notable work as reference. Saddhiyama (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Free Bullets (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Xymmax. (7 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 08:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. STATic message me! 21:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: A range of IPs keeps "improving" a sentence in spite of being reverted by several editors.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Koala15 (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Frequent vandalism by multiple IPs. The-Pope (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KTC (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent semi-protection: This page is currently un-protected and while the trolls have yet to realize this and pour in, I'll point out that it's only a matter of time until they do. This page is a vandalism magnet and a look at the page's history over time shows this, as in the case last August where someone repeatedly blanked sections of the article, prompting the previous protection. It might be early yet and I'm sure that people will say that I should wait for the trolls to come in and start destroying the article, but I think that it would be best to just give this page permanent semi-protection against IP vandalism. Each time the page gets unprotected it inevitably gets vandalized once people realize that it's unprotected. Even with the protection the page still had its fair share of vandalism, so this will just prevent it from getting worse.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: King Shadeed is reverting sourced information again as with other articles that I have request page protection for. Spshu (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please decline that. The information including the proper years I've added were removed. I've restored some information he provided and added and combined my information along with his and is NOT vandalism. King Shadeed 13:, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
Not done Can we try come discussion first, please? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined (procedural tagging) Torreslfchero (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I started a discussion, but since the page wasn't protected, he has continued his reversion as such and has now violated 3RR. He hardly ever responds to talk pages. And makes comments like this:
  • "03:45, 4 March 2013‎ King Shadeed (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,734 bytes) (-4,505)‎ . . (Undid revision 541948702 by Spshu (talk) Lionsgate Films is a division. Rewrite the history in a different way and don't move anything.)" -- ie. don't bother to edit this article.
Admins, should I now move this to 3RR? Spshu (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Is there a reason why you didn't warn him with {{subst:Uw-3rr}}? Armbrust The Homunculus 20:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Armbrust, He seems to back off after the page being protected. I have given Shadeed {{subst:Uw-3rr}} warning before under direct of an adminstrator then having to take it to 3RR, only to found to be equally guilty there, since it was so easy for him to ignore the talk page. I will give it a shot. Spshu (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I place a 3RR warning, but last time he removed it from his talk page as the next edit. Spshu (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As expected, he removed the warning with this comment: " 22:11, 4 March 2013‎ King Shadeed (talk | contribs)‎ . . ‎ . . (Undid revision 542099259 by Spshu (talk) Not an administrator.)" Spshu (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. Lectonar (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Lone IP vandalism/harassing editors on their talk pages.[15] Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism, mostly unsourced genre edits from various IP users. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 04:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent IP adding unsourced content. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 05:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. George Ho (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full-protection: Article is being created with unsourced information and speculation. Shadow (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Semi-protected for 4 days, if the edit warring resumes after that (which is about when the editor will become autoconfirmed), I think a longer term semi-protection and blocks would be a better alternative to full protection. Monty845 00:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Week of multiple possible libellous accusations and BLP violations. Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of recent IP vandalism. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 21:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Highly visible template – Used in over 11,327 pages. http://toolserver.org/~jarry/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&name=Template%3AInfobox+road%2Fbrowselinks%2FUSA#bottom. Rschen7754 19:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, Already protected.. The template is already semi-protected indefinitely. Full protection is used exclusively for main page items and to halt edit wars. Deryck C. 23:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Wiki user Smoovedogg adds in stuff from biased points of view, especially from sites that have disputed information. Article was recently rewritten and copy-edited and Smoovedogg came back to re-insert the unnecessary information. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Wiki user Stephendcalhoun is repeatedly adding material irrelevant to the topic and citing (apparently) his own (seemingly biased) book as a source. Have made entry on user's talk page as well as entry talk page trying to establish some common ground and avoid what appears to be an edit war but user Stephendcalhoun appears not interested.

User(s) blocked. Ruslik_Zero 18:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated insertion, over the course of weeks, of POV and improperly-formatted material to a high-traffic article. Very similar re-insertions come from a different IP each time, so IP blocking would not help; either the editor is IP-hopping, or different editors in different areas are coordinating. I have posted on every Talk page explaining my reversion and requesting they come to Talk, but they do not post there, and their edit summaries are unclear and unhelpful (such as just "proper details provided" for a +4,000 change). MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 18:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: some vandalism has sometimes been committed on the page. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 15:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik_Zero 18:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: There has been high level back and forth reverting from users and content dispute/edit warring. Veronika53 (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The edit warring doesn't seem bad enough to warrant protection at the moment, but please try to discuss this issue on the talk page before you continue editing. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined (procedural tagging) Armbrust The Homunculus 16:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

06 March 2013

6 months semi-protection: from persistent IP vandalism. As soon as protection is lifted vandalism resumes. Span (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes. Heavy IP vandalism with some good faith edits. Page is currently unstable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 18:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: BLP policy violations. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 04:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 16:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Frequent IP POV disruption. Oda Mari (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Frequent IP disruption. Suggest either semi protection until April 8 (1 day after the upcoming event) or implementing reviews. – Richard BB 08:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected until April 8. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: This page is being attacked by IP's adding completely false information. Koala15 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 18:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – IPs consistently add absurd statements in which I have already removed. There were statements of "Most Dedicated...". JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 04:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection One editor is repeatedly (three times in the last 24 hours) redirecting the article (and deleting it from {{Sammarinese elections}}} despite attempts to discuss the issue. Number 57 02:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Lectonar (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined (procedural tagging) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Several editors are edit warring to add their own promotional content and remove their competitors'. Deli nk (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Better to warn the involved parties, and, if they do not desist, report them at WP:AIV et. al. Lectonar (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Repeatly recreated. Mdann52 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected Deleted and salted. Acroterion (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 09:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for 2 weeks. That should catch the vandals and allow the small number of IP contributors to continue editing. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: BLP policy violations. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 06:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent spike in vandalism. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 03:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Also, pending-change protected indefinitely. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent dynamic IP vandalism. Free Bullets (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of ten days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. George Ho (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection. This BLP has a long history of vandalism that has to be reverted over and over again. RNealK (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Had instances recently of past and current students editing the pages with nonsense - would like to slow them down by requiring an account to make edits to the Wiki. GGSEsupport (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Materialscientist (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Had instances recently of past and current students editing the pages with nonsense - would like to slow them down by requiring an account to make edits to the Wiki. GGSEsupport (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full Protection Business Manager of Sandhills Publishing created the pages. Copyright information included in the page and can not be edited. Sensitive information that should not be availabe for competitors to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mara-andersen (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 March 2013‎

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. From our conflict of interest guideline, which I urge you to read and follow: "If you write about yourself, your group or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, note that it will probably find its way there eventually." Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Seems the vandals are moving from Hetalia:_Axis_Powers to this one. Free Bullets (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Free Bullets (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected. by Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Section blankings of sourced material without sufficient rationale by IP editor. . Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Lectonar (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: continuation of edit war by IPs right after protection expired. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: BLP policy violations – Frequent target of unsourced ramblings, fan jibber-jabber, et cetera. —Theopolisme (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism due to an unpopular decision by this referee in a big game tonight. A semi-protect for a few days should be enough.Jeppiz (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected 1 week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Koala15 (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism --Ahmed 313-326 (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

07 March 2013

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Edit warring over WP:UNDUE issues. User has so far failed to engage at WP:BLP/N. Requesting protection to maintain BLP at appropriate state and facilitate discussion. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: : semiprotection will not be enough, as the user in question is autoconfirmed. He has already been warned about edit-warring in february 2013, and recently (indirectly) at WP:BLP/N. Lectonar (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected in the interest of WP:BLP compliance. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism from an IP with a beef with the Ramsey Police Department. As an alternative, can we get the actual home address for this person and just ask the Ramsey Police Department to "take care" of the problem? Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. and for the alternative: declined :), as there is always the off-chance that it is someone from the police department vandalising. Lectonar (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection due to IP (81.44.210.183, 81.38.73.119) vandalism regarding disputed year of birth of Rocío Jurado. Please revert to my last edit as I do not wish to violate 3RR. Quis separabit? 16:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined In these situations, you should not be asking other people to revert for you to other edits. It's essentially 3RR by proxy. Also, we do not semi-protect articles because of content disputes between IPs and users. Mike V • Talk 17:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Article created by user who is exercising the WP:IDHT defense for reposting the same content over and over. Article may have existed at Keaton Henson and now that the page has been create protected the user is being clever by creating the article again with a different capitalization trick. Requesting indefinite creation protection once the article gets deleted. Creation protection should be removed when there is a reasonable attempt at an article that has come through one of the established vetting processes (WP:NPP/WP:AFC). Hasteur (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Author of the article has stated their intention to continue to repost the article per [16] Hasteur (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected. Lectonar (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Nothing but humour for at least 3 mo (since the last semiprotection lifted). Waste of wikipedians' time; bots fail to fix all there. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Sometimes I miss WP:BJAODN, that was real humour. Lectonar (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring, spilling over from the related article Ping Fu, which itself has come under semi-protection. Safiel (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do semi-protect. It's coming under the same broader internet attack as the author's article, Ping Fu, and has the same BLP issues, which warrant longer-term semi-protection. First Light (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unprotection. Liberalufp (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Um, no. WP:REDLOCK ~ Riana ⁂ 12:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined (for the bot, please use "declined" instead of "not done") tutterMouse (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism. Liberalufp (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Just can't see anything like the need. GedUK  13:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Angel Locsin (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Addition of unsourced changes by new users to talk page in lieu of editing access to the main article. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined It's one new user. Better to engage with them, and then if necessary block, than protect a talk page of a protected article. GedUK  13:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: BLP policy violations. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 04:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only seems to have been one unconstructive edit in teh last week. GedUK  13:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Makecat 10:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - one recent IP is blocked, there is no evidence of massive vandalism from others. Materialscientist (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Junebea1 (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Frequent vandalism of the biography of living person against official source especially about nationality and heritage. Wihan Tan (talk) at 06:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'official source'; UEFA say on thing and FIFA another, both are pretty official. This looks more like a content dispute. You should start a discussion on the talk page, possibly even raise it at WP:FOOTY for a wider view. Semi-protection would not be appropriate at this stage. GedUK  12:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations. Torreslfchero (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Edit count is too high for PC. GedUK  13:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IPs - one of which is an open proxy & the other dynamic - are repeatedly restoring content that breaches WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:NLIST. There have been attempts to communicate but the proxy/dynamic issues may be causing a problem. Sitush (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The best place to attempt to communicate would be the article's talk page. GedUK  12:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Unsourced edits to season 4. Although it's small but... what's with "Elmo comes to visit?" And "Mickey's 85th birthday"...? If identified as vandalism, you're welcome to upgrade the protection level. See if you can look into the situation if these episodes are fake and see if a protection would be necessary. Thank you. StormContent (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The episode "Elmo comes to visit" must have a source whatever. Elmo is from Sesame Street, and Mickey Mouse is from Disney. They aren't related (except Kermit the Frog which is part of Disney now). StormContent (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined (procedural) Lectonar (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unexplained and erroneous editions by nameless individual(s). Loginnigol (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined (procedural) Lectonar (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long term history of vandalism, in my opinion, best is to protect for at least 1 months first and see how it goes . Arctic Kangaroo 10:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This will probably continue until he is released from jail. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 06:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes. Heavy IP vandalism with some good faith edits. Page is currently unstable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Edit rate is a bit high for PC I think. GedUK  12:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism, unconstructive editing, and addition of unsourced content. The1337gamer (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection - Semi-protected for 2 years, film no-longer current. -81.129.203.137 (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~ Riana ⁂ 12:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Keep an eye on it though. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism from small range of dynamic IPs and two old socks Ironboltbruce (talk · contribs) and Bikersrights (talk · contribs). Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection - Semi-protected for 4.5 years. Subject matter no-longer current. -81.129.203.137 (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection - Semi-protected for 1.5 years, article protected since creation. Protection log inaccurately claims 'move protection'. No IP vandalism has occured in the article's history -81.129.203.137 (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection - Semi-protected for 3 years, game no-longer current -81.129.203.137 (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection - Semi-protected for 2 years, film no-longer current -81.129.203.137 (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Vsmith (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Let's hope for the best. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection - Semi-protected for 4 years. Article is seldom edited. -81.129.203.137 (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection - Semi-protected for 5 and a half years -81.129.203.137 (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection Semi-protected for four and a half years. -81.129.203.137 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. FallingGravity (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: One or more of the offensive words . Eyesnore (PC) 22:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unprotection: The original reason for protection seems to no longer apply. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Thehelpfulone 01:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. JayJayWhat did I do? 00:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article keeps getting hit by childish vandals. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dawnseeker2000 19:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes Article has few edits, most IP edits are vandalism. Peter James (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 19:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected Lectonar (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Widr (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked.. Consider reporting at WP:AIV next time vandalism comes courtesy of a single user. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – New ip's and deepy pro-albanian users arrived from WikiAkademy Kosovo in the past few days, so this should be protected. They change everything in Albanian language. WhiteWriterspeaks 17:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. This is not vandalism, but a content issue. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: I see vandalism and content disputes. George Ho (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I see constructive edits and some addition/removal of disputed content, but nothing that would justify protection yet. Less than 10% of the last 50 edits were actual vandalism. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism as a result of an ongoing event. Aero777 (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Feel free to file another request if the situation deteriorates. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

08 March 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Every time one of these is about to be come out, IPs start adding their own bits of unessential and unsourced trivia and made-up track lists. Recommend three-week protection until after it has been released. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 18:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism from a different of dynamic IPs. Previous RPP was declined as edit waring "between two individuals". Same edits (NPOV rant against the American Motorcyclist Association), has been reverted as vandalism by Closedmouth (talk · contribs) Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs), Zaminamina (talk · contribs), Rsrikanth05 (talk · contribs), Biker Biker (talk · contribs), GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs), and Proofreader77 (talk · contribs). Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 18:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sjones23 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent sockpuppetry from Bigshowandkane64. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism leading to most of history being reverts for the past few months. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  13:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: This article has an indefinite full protection. Why?. —cyberpower ChatOnline 14:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page was under pending changes level 2 protection until about 3 weeks ago (this level shouldn't be used officially, though). Please contact King of Hearts about this. Lectonar (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, This isn't the right board for this discussion. As mentioned contact KoH and possibly raise on the article talk page. GedUK  13:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpiral (talk • contribs) 11:06, 6 March 2013

Why would you like the protection to be lifted? This is a highly visible page. Lectonar (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because I believe the Help namespace is for inexperienced users, like most IPs. I say let them edit it but keep WP:Searching protected. Removing the Help:Searching edit warning might encourage some collaboration, even if from between IP. The collaboration levels seem too low, and if I remember correctly, there was a "please help" sign on that Help page a while back. It was just a thought I'm being bold with. Three yrs ago I might have asked a David Gothberg. Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 00:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you have a point, but imho the good does not completely outweigh the bad; especially I am not completely convinced that many unexperienced users will drop on Help:searching in their first tries (hopefully, they have been pointed to our tutorial and the sandbox). I would not unprotect, but will leave the decision to someone else (and if it is unprotected, I am fine with that too). Lectonar (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Procedural decline really. This is quite a fiddly one, as template and specialist page requests often are. It would be better I think if there was a clear consensus on that talk page (or somewhere relevant) first, which could then be addressed. GedUK  13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. STATic message me! 01:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 16:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: For second consecutive day, an employee of Gerdau in Conselheiro Lafaiete (IP 189.42.125.118 = fwger118.gerdau.com.br), Minas Gerais (Brazil), replaced the contents of the article about the CEO Jorge Gerdau Johannpeter by an unsourced curriculum vitae. I ask temporary protection against anonymous editing. Al Lemos (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. A single IP editor can be blocked if they persist in the face of the multiple warnings on their talkpage; protection isn't necessary. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Consistent edit-warring . FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagreed. This is not content dispute. The revert war is about a tag only. Instead, an admin has to advice the participants about the rules of dispute resolution. In particular, if I am not mistaken, tags cannot be removed until the dispute is resolved. So far, the dispute slipped into name calling. I could have given an advice myself, but I don't have an authority. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Admins don't have any more authority than users. Anyway, a clear warning has been given, and since then there's been no tag-warring. IF it kicks off again, report it to WP:3RRN rather than here. GedUK  13:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism from multiple IPs. Makecat 13:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Andrea (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism returns after recent protection expired. Vacation9 12:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Revert protection by involved admin (*facepalm*) instated over six years ago (*double facepalm*). I fear for this encyclopedia greatly. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am not getting it (completely), but the article is only move-protected, and you want the move-protection lifted? Lectonar (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected GedUK  13:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 10:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There are a fair number of good-faith IP edits that would be lost under semi-protection, so I've placed the article under pending changes instead. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection:About an active court case, multiple vandalism. Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Let me know if this continues, and I'll place further blocks or will protect the article. Mike V • Talk 01:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Every recent IP has needed to be reverted. Looks like it's not safe to leave unprotected yet. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated copyvio and unsourced content added by IP and newly-registered user. Semi-protection will see him get bored and go back to his Pokemon cards. . Biker Biker (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The involved user and IP have been blocked already. Also, let's not resort to ad hominem attacks, shall we? Mike V • Talk 00:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Junebea1 (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mike V • Talk 00:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protection (Please protect as long as possible). 64.134.184.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just came off a block for harrassing me on my talk page and immediately resumed the harrassment. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of ten days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Several IP (and new users) vandalisms, principally spammers. We are close to the event and, IMHO, somebody is trying to get related advertising. I suggest a temporary semi-pro just for some days (during and after the event). By the way, some IPs have patrolled and reverted vandalisms. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 01:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. KTC (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection., for the moment. We will see how this develops whe nthey have really started. Lectonar (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Nearly all vandalism in the past month, including recent severe vandalism in the past day. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 00:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 17:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mike V • Talk 18:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: New user pushing pov, with erroneous data.. WhiteWriterspeaks 16:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Perhaps one (not you directly) should start by talking to the new user (his talk-page is a redlink) , instead of communicating via edit summary; not every newbie is so wiki-savvy as to be able to understand it. And if it is simple vandalism, warn and report to AIV. Lectonar (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

09 March 2013

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Two different IP addresses over the last several days have been adding material to this page, that the subject themselves at OTRS have requested to be removed. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Vsmith (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP hopping editor consistently removes controversy section. I helped a student editor from the school pare it down to get rid of WP:UNDUE a while back, and it could probably use a bit of that again, but the constant removal does not help. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If they're not bored by then, please come back here and re-request. ~ Riana ⁂ 21:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For the third time in a month: please semi-protect this page indefinitely. Persistent vandalism from IP-hopping editor. Has lasted several years; he's on another happy spree. --EEMIV (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 20:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – recent rash of IPs adding unreferenced and dubious names as future cast. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected by Vsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (7 days) --Webclient101talk 19:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Torreslfchero (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected Mike V • Talk 20:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds World Tour

Unprotection: This article was deleted with redirect back to Unapologetic because of violation of WP:CRYSTAL when there was not much info about the tour. Subsequently users started to re-create the article, what resulted in administrator protecting the article. The Diamonds World Tour officially happened/started yesterday in Buffalo, and this means the article doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL anymore, which means the article/redirect should be unprotected and an article should be allowed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.158.52 (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected by Floquenbeam. Mike V • Talk 20:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Edits are getting patrolled in this template properly. Unnecessary/discussed additions, one part of the template is already broken!. Tito Dutta (contact) 06:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – I don't see any evidence of nonconstructive edits that would warrant protection. Unnecessary additions can always be reverted/discussed on the Talk page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christen Press

Unprotection: After a somewhat minor edit war, the article was fully protected by an admin. The accounts of the primary instigator of the edit war has been blocked due to an apparent unrelated issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/John-May-Or-May-Not It is disruptive at this point for the article to remain fully protected.

It's not clear to me why the article went from being completely editable to full protection without a BRD cycle or just discussing with the parties involved in the edit war and without discussion or notification on the article Talk page. I have requested updates to the article on the article talk page as well as from the admin who fully protected the article here. This player is currently representing the United States at the 2013 Algarve Cup and the full protection of the page is preventing other editors from making meaningful contributions to the article in order to keep the information current and up-to-date. I appreciate your outside input and consideration of the unprotection request. Hmlarson (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since the person causing problems has now been blocked for sockpuppetry, I changed it from full to semi-protection, which should solve the issue with a little less hassle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Today's Featured article, 24 hours should do it. . Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - We usually try to keep TFAs unprotected as much as possible, unless the vandalism is particularly severe. It hasn't been too bad so far, and because it's the weekend, I would expect it to be pretty mild the rest of the day as well. They're usually move-protected, however, so I'll go ahead and do that since it hasn't been done yet. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IPs persistently vandalising this page. Please see for example 206.183.188.156 (talk) adding "lolipop" or 206.183.188.156 (talk) adding "the cat in the farm". Thanks.   M aurice   Carbonaro  08:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: There have been reverts since the protection expired. George Ho (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Looks like the normal editing process at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Roving IP in range of 41.69.0.0/17 is adding unreferenced biographical info to this living person article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IPs persistently adding and removing exactly the same content. AussieLegend (✉) 03:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. JayJayWhat did I do? 01:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Repeated addition of unsourced information by IP editor/s. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute – continually edited --Ahmed 313-326 (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. I see nothing in the history to suggest protection is required. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Two editors are continually edit warring on this article I think it is pretty suitable if this page gets protected so any change, reversion would be done by admin assistance, which seems to be well suited because the article's subject is both controversial and delicate. Even though the involved parts are well established editors, nothing prevents further attack accounts to edit it. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 21:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – this is a tough call, especially as the article was fully protected just days ago and that doesn't seem to have helped at all. I recommend you report the involved users at the relevant noticeboard instead; established editors or otherwise, WP:EW is policy and we are all subject to it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long-term pattern of anon. vandalism; indefinite protection seems the only solution. The Old JacobiteThe '45 20:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Junebea1 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism that's been going on for a couple days now. Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi protection IP vandalism. Considering the timing of the film's release, these acts of IP vandalism could increase from its current point. I suggest temporary semi protection for a short duration or at least until this surge wanes. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – there have been productive edits from IPs and, IMHO, surprisingly little vandalism considering the timing of the film's release. Fvasconcellos (t·c)

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 20:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: (Please protect as long as possible.) IPs have been harassing me on my talk page. After that page was protected, they have begun harassing me on my user page. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Since the protection has expired, IP's have vandalized yet again, thanks. Davey2010 Talk 17:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik_Zero 18:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism - Repeated vandalism from Philippines IPs and even including autoconfirmed users (eg: Mayiplana and Dale 0011 because of 2013 Lahad Datu standoff. Request temporary full protection so no one could vandalise this page. Bryan cxgan (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism and Consistent edit-warring. Fly2abhishek (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I'm not seeing it - there's a lot of IP edits, but those I've looked at don't appear to be vandalism, and the one clear-cut case of inappropriate material being added has been reverted (I've warned the user responsible). Not enough disruption to justify protection. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please do not add a 'declined' now, everybody; I want to see if this archives properly, after 6 hours. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{subst:RFPP/sandbox|... what? OK, fine. tutterMouse (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10 March 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I don't know why, but as soon as this page comes off semi-protection, up goes the vandalism. It must be one of those irresistible pages. At any rate, it's starting up again. Geoff Who, me? 18:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected 1 year. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: There seems to be a high number of critical/vandalism IP edits coming in at the time, and this could probably benefit from semi-protection until the internet heat dies down. Ducknish (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 1 week by Elockid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) tutterMouse (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Constant edit warring by IP socks who refuse to use the talk page. Involved, as I already blocked an IP for edit warring, so shouldn't protect myself. filelakeshoe (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Keith D. (1 month) Armbrust The Homunculus 20:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – high level of IP vandalism and unsourced changes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minutes ago, I was just about to report this article here; there are also registered editors, such as Student "R," who keep vandalizing or adding other unsourced material. One or more of the IPs are obviously connected to one or more of the registered editors. Flyer22 (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 05:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes IP addresses are putting unsourced edits Vegas30 (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Protection under pending changes may work. TBrandley (review) 04:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP vandalism. Request protection until 26 March 2013 Ali Fazal (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Mike V • Talk 01:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Long-term vandalism problem due to insertion of false info (actor Rey PJ Abellana was never part of that show, as the vandal, using multiple IPs, was trying constantly to assert). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 20:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

11 March 2013

Temporary semi-protection: The actress dide two days ago. I added to the article two sources both of which say she died in Canada. Since then, mass edits of IPs and new users try to correct the day (9 to 8) and Canada to USA, but did not bring any new sources. No useful edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 14:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Article is always being turned into a wishlist for vandals, with non-existent games frequently being added. Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_video_games_featuring_Mario&diff=cur&oldid=543300795, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_video_games_featuring_Mario&diff=cur&oldid=536269255, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_video_games_featuring_Mario&diff=cur&oldid=536372130 ArtistScientist (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Recent rash by new users. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – This upcoming film page is facing disruption but on the other hand,it need updates.So,i request pending changes protection. . ---zeeyanketu discutez 17:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP constant reversions and refusal to collaborate on the Talk page for a BLP. Anon version includes controversies section for non-controversies and removes a large amount of basic content sourced to reputable sources such as BBC and NYT. Dreambeaver(talk) 17:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 19:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism recently, some of it quite vile. Snappy (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: persistent sockpuppetry and IP vandalism. djr13 (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 06:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just a recent spike. Lectonar (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection Persistent vandalism. The issue has been present for a very long while now, and two previous requests for protection were unusually denied. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 06:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. This goes more in the direction of edit-warring (and I do not judge the quality of the additions here). Use of the talkpage is strongly recommended. Lectonar (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Two IPs from Brazil and an SPA have been reverting in some nonsensical and tendentious material. One of these IPs has also been used for apparent vandalism on the same article. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – repeated removal of AFD tag by IP-hopping editor. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I have watchlisted. Lectonar (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined It is already lvl.1 pending changes protected. That should be enough. Lectonar (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Over the past three months, an anonymous editor using several different IP addresses from the exact same location has been vandalizing this page by adding the word "BANKRUPT" to describe one of the show's co-presenters. Areaseven (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just watchlist and revert. Lectonar (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – repeated removal of AFD tag by IP-hopping editor. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I have watchlisted. Lectonar (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined It is already lvl.1 pending changes protected. That should be enough. Lectonar (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Over the past three months, an anonymous editor using several different IP addresses from the exact same location has been vandalizing this page by adding the word "BANKRUPT" to describe one of the show's co-presenters. Areaseven (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just watchlist and revert. Lectonar (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tobias Bergemann (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Zzuuzz. (3 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 16:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Lectonar (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There was a spike on march 7, but not even all the IPs edits are vandalsim. Lectonar (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: An IP editor keeps altering the amounts on the article so they contradict the sources. I have explained in edit summaries and on the talk page why he shouldn't do this. I have unsuccessfully tried t reach him on his talk pages but his IP keeps changing. If I can't get him to engage then he must be prevented from editing the page. Betty Logan (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection, fairly heavy vandalism and few/no constructive edits from IPs.King Jakob C2 17:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This is even under the threshold for pending changes protection. Lectonar (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either semi or full protection: Some unregistered IP users and a registered user named DeathofInk are messing around the article's structure. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 15:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. If 2 or more users disagree, there is always the article's talkpage to discuss things. Lectonar (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: I collected all the information need to make this page what it looks like today, as initially the page was a stub with very little information. But over and over again the page is modified thereby rendering it useless. I edited the modified page on 3 March 2013 at 14:25‎ (ID - 117.222.211.50 coz I forgot to log in) but again on 4 March 2013‎ at 00:39 user named Sitush edited it resulting in loss of entire information on the page. You can see the history to check my contributions to the page. So please allow this page to be Fully-protected so that it truly serves the purpose for which it was created. Rocking18 (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Looking at Sitush's edit, it was because the information added was unsourced, which was removed by said user. Information on Wikipedia must be cited by a reliable source, or it may be deleted. ZappaOMati 10:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Lectonar (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Fanatics deleting well cited and researched sources for the sole purpose of trying to falsify his history. They also refer to him as a "luminary," in disregard of Wikipedia not being for self-promotion. Ypostelnik (talk)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring. Rcsprinter (chat) @ 00:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined As the parties are autoconfirmed users, this would accomplish nothing. And I can not really see an edit war here, just dissenting opinions. The parties are strongly encouraged to use the talk-page to hash things out. Lectonar (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by IP editors, who repeatedly insert deliberately incorrect information into the template (including out-of-state radio stations and incorrect frequencies). Creativity-II (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Lectonar (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 08:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 08:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Creation Protection: article has been speedied twice in three days. Subject fails WP:WEB. Andrew327 06:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creation protected Lectonar (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Apparently on the latest Top Gear episode the cast "discovered the true source of the Nile River" and, while already mentioned in an appropriate section of this article, a large number of random editors are adding in additional (mostly nonsensical) mentions of this "fact". The furor should die down in a day or two. DP76764 (Talk) 01:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This bot is smarter than most admins, me foremost. I had fully protected... Lectonar (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit wars, vandalism, unconstructive edits. DrNegative (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Elockid. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IPs persistently adding and removing the same content without explanation. Top Gear test track was protected for exactly the same reason. AussieLegend (✉) 04:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes. Enough IP vandalism to become burdensome to editors, with some good faith edits. Page has been unstable over the past few weeks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. OK, let's give this another break. Lectonar (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent addition of unreferenced addition of dubious info about future episodes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Lectonar (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – On average, its daily. « Ryūkotsusei » 20:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Dynamic IP's keep adding unsourced info to this page. Digifan23 (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Addition of unsourced matierial. LGA talkedits 21:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism. Snoozlepet (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism. Snoozlepet (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from very similar IP ranges. For example, the numerous vandalism edits from this IP and now similar type of multiple vandalism attempts from this IP which is very close to the previous IP's range and same approximate location. Rndomuser (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not vandalism please see the edits fist before coming to conclusions! i olny restored deleted content which was highly relevant to the article! 90.236.208.57 (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and there was no edit war! i reverted myself several times sorry! 90.236.208.57 (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, user(s) from this IP address continue to revert their own edits, with 23 reversions in the past two hours. SpecMode (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but if you look on the edits themselves there is no vandalism 90.236.53.46 (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is no case for an exception to the three-revert rule, which you have clearly violated. SpecMode (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
am very sorry i have obsessive compulsive disorder! can you please give me another chance or atleast keep my ONE edit! 90.236.53.46 (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you are attempting to remove a relevant photo. Second of all, you are attempting to restore a text with broken and unreliable sources, which was removed for a good reason. You are doing all of this without even trying to discuss your changes on the "Talk" page first. And now you are attempting to go around your account block by posting from different IP... Rndomuser (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no the sources are the same as the article on russia and italy japan ie from a mainstream scolar! Moisés Naím it was included in this article for a LONG TIME! before you removed that, now am discussing it here and i said this was a big misundertanding as i have ocd! 90.236.53.46 (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have every sympathy with you for your obsessive compulsive disorder, but what editing is suitable for Wikipedia cannot be determined by what problems are experienced by the editors responsible for that content. I suffer from attention deficit disorder. I try to do what I can to minimise the effect of my problem, and I never try to suggest that my problem makes acceptable edits which would not be acceptable from anyone without ADD. If I were not able to accept that view, and really though that the encyclopaedia's standards should be adjusted or compromised to allow me to edit in inappropriate ways, then I would not be competent to edit Wikipedia. Ideally, I should then choose to step down, but if I didn't do that then it would be appropriate for an administrator to block me, to prevent damage to the encyclopaedia. Disruptive editing is disruptive editing, whether it is done maliciously or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected Repeated reverts are disruptive, no matter what the reason, and the fact that the edits may not have been vandalism is irrelevant. The problem has continued during this discussion, using a change of IP address to evade a block. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of vandalism. Currently linked to a front page article on reddit. 174.0.70.87 (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Bongwarrior. (2 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 06:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. 930913(Congratulate) 05:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Materialscientist. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute --Ahmed 313-326 (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Liberalufp (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I see no vandalism in the past 6 weeks, and very little in the past 6 months - and none by IP editors! Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism. Liberalufp (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI don't think the article warrants full protection a matter of fact, any protection. Hardly any vandalism edits have occurred, not enough to call it persistent. (Non-admin) John F. Lewis (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: multiple IPs have added unsourced, unexplained content -- 5 times now. – S. Rich (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeout request – I have modified the particular target sentence by providing a link and reference. Hopefully will discourage the IP. – S. Rich (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Request rescinded. Mike V • Talk 20:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection or pending changes. The usual LTA editor. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP edits are all vandilism. TimL • talk 23:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long term semi-protection. On February 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.234.251.18 started inserting inappropriate content into Jewish diaspora, and was reverted by 10 times by 7 different editors before the article was semi-protected. He returned on Feb 18 and was reverted 3 mores times by 2 new editors. He returned on the 25th and was reverted again. he returned again today for more of the same. While he's just the worst offender, many other IP editors have had to be reverted as well - essentially every IP editor since March 1, for example. This article appears to be a vandalism target. Jayjg (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Torreslfchero (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for 1 week. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Torreslfchero (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for 1 week. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Torreslfchero (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for 1 week. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Torreslfchero (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for 1 week. Jayjg (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

semi protection fans from a wide range of IPs repeatedly adding unsourced claims . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one month. Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Several IP users and one user started to add POV content on this article (replacing accepted/sourced content with same POV). All of their edits are same. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I think a temporary semi-protection is necessary because those IP users don't stop their non-constructive edits and use disruptive/bad edit summaries (seems to be one person). Zheek (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 1 month. Jayjg (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ip attack, again. This is secind or third request for protection, please do so, in 9rder to bring reverter to the talk. WhiteWriterspeaks 18:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for 1 week. Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12 March 2013

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 18:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Kinu. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – An edit war started by this user. He/She removes sourced content/text without any reason: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6. There is a consensus topic on the article talk page and other users warned him/her, but he/she does not attend and continues edit warring, content blanking, and reverting. So a temporary full protection is necessary until a consensus will be reached on talk page. You can also check and verify that section at talk page. Жеек (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined They've already been reported at 3RRN, and protection would be overkill against one editor. Better to block them than the article. GedUK  13:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There is an on-going dispute regarding the article's Introduction, resulting in wholesale changes and reversions. One week of FP should be enough time for a consensus to be reached while preventing the article from being a pawn in the dispute. SMP0328. (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imo, there is no real need for a full protection. Negotiations on the talk-page are progressing, and we do not have that many edits on the article itself. I'll leave that for another admin to decide. Lectonar (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined I think I agree with Lectonar; the fact that the most recent edits were to self revert indicates that peole are willing to talk this out first. Relist if that deosn't prove to be the case. GedUK  12:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. T4B (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The current IP is on their final warning, report them to WP:AIV if they do it again. Apart from that, it's really not that high. There could be a case fo pending changes in the future if it reoccurs. GedUK  12:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: There is currently a serious content, possible factual error concern regarding Toronto, its population, and whether it is larger than Chicago now. See the fourth largest North American city thread Talk:Toronto, but my contributions at articles List of cities in North America, List of North American metropolitan areas by population and Toronto keep being reverted for the same reason, even though I posted my reasoning at the talk page. Chicago has not had its population updated since around 2010, while Toronto just got an estimate for a newspaper. That is not verifiable yet. It seems like all of these consistently, different editors are undoing my edit, thus going against bold, revert and discuss suggestions. Some are also changing Greater Toronto Area on these pages to Golden Horseshoe which is not the metropolitan area for the city, but rather a geographic location of Ontario. I would like to protect these articles under semi-protection, so these unverifiable statements may not be added until a later time until it is. Thank you. TBrandley (review) 00:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Essentially as below; the IP who mainly reverts is the 99.xxx, so it would be better to warn him off, and let this be handled by AIV subsequently. As you said in one of your edit summaries: consensus is required. Lectonar (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lots of vandalism lately due to the recent release. JayJayWhat did I do? 14:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. —Kusma (t·c) 14:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the bot that adds the little lock template? JayJayWhat did I do? 14:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Odd vandalism of changing people's names months after the show has broadcast. —Ryulong (琉竜) 09:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Even under the threshold for pending changes protection. Lectonar (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: There is currently a serious content, possible factual error concern regarding Toronto, its population, and whether it is larger than Chicago now. See the fourth largest North American city thread Talk:Toronto, but my contributions at articles List of cities in North America, List of North American metropolitan areas by population and Toronto keep being reverted for the same reason, even though I posted my reasoning at the talk page. Chicago has not had its population updated since around 2010, while Toronto just got an estimate for a newspaper. That is not verifiable yet. It seems like all of these consistently, different editors are undoing my edit, thus going against bold, revert and discuss suggestions. Some are also changing Greater Toronto Area on these pages to Golden Horseshoe which is not the metropolitan area for the city, but rather a geographic location of Ontario. I would like to protect these articles under semi-protection, so these unverifiable statements may not be added until a later time until it is. Thank you. TBrandley (review) 00:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This is more a question of reliable sourcing, and goes into the area of a dispute as how to weigh the sources available. I still think that getting people to discuss this would be the better option. By more people I mean more than those who were present at Talk:Toronto, which relates to this request. Lectonar (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Myrvin (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – IPs changing height without providing/updating source. Torreslfchero (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Dubious unsourced IP edits. STATic message me! 04:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The article is fully protected not semi-protected as stated by Lectonar. Torreslfchero (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

grumble...now it is semiprotected...Lectonar (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Dubious unsourced IP edits. STATic message me! 04:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Dubious unsourced edits. STATic message me! 04:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: for 48 hours please; brand new (not even autoconfirmed) accounts and IPs are jumping to preemptively report a trade that cannot be made until tomorrow afternoon anyway and is based on anonymous sources in violation of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SPORTSTRANS (which is an essay, but still a good one), and WP:V. Go Phightins! 00:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page is move protected. I would like to move it over the redirect at Thirty Seconds to Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) per WP:ON. I requested comments on the talk page and an admin to reverted the last move, without response for several days, so I assume this is not controversial. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected Your problem is slightly different, the page is not move protected, rather Thirty Seconds to Mars has more than one edit in the history (you may only move over a redirect if there is only the edit that created the redirect in the redirect's history), so it cannot be moved over. Given the history, though, I think a full WP:RM is in order here. Courcelles 01:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation, this was my first time with one of these :) I'll take it over there then. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Addition of badly sourced/unsourced content from IP users.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The article is constantly under attack from people who are disrupting its content with spurious edits based on speculation. Even where they add something that is of use it already exists in the article and no attempt is being made to recognise context. If this goes on, a recognised GA will end up losing its status. --Jack | talk page 16:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The vandalism really only started 2 or 3 days ago. Lectonar (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Torreslfchero (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection - ongoing low-level and juvenile vandalism. Almost all non-bot edits for the last two months have been vandalism or vandalism reverts. Speed with which edits are reverted suggests there are plenty of eyes on the article to respond to any legitimate edit requests if this were to be semi'd. Stalwart111 07:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Because there were rumors of The Bella Twins returning to WWE, randomly users blanked part of the page. The rumors were truth and more vandalism from unknown users. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for vandalism. Low traffic. Open up?. Crazynas t 07:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for continued additions of copyrighted info. The IP's have probably moved on. Crazynas t 07:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. Protected in 2009 for vandalism. Seems low traffic enough to open up. Crazynas t 07:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Another page that is currently targeted by Facebeef and being vandalised . YuMaNuMa Contrib 06:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Target of vandalism following popular Facebook trolling page incites editing of page. AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Target of vandalism following popular Facebook trolling page incites editing of page. TheJoshy (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Closedmouth. Materialscientist (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is currently fully move-protected with expiry. Protection was moved along with page move per Wikipedia:Requested move, and consensus for moving 2013 Russian meteor event, which is still protected, to the current title was at this talk page of the current title. I think the protection is no longer necessary, but it will expire on 16 March 2013. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Most probably, this user died (see this entry and the last good version of his userpage can be fully protected now! . Tito Dutta (contact) 23:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: After previous protection was lifted, the same IP user has returned to add unsourced and unreferenced voice actors to the list again. This time around he changed "Gakuen Basara" to "Mini Sengoku Basara", which is a legitimate mini-episode series, however, there is no evidence that the voice actor list is any different from the current voice actor list, which I have recently provided reliable sources on. IP user is edit warring his changes. Thanks. - AngusWOOF (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – if this is a single IP (and has been since the first dispute), protection is not necessarily appropriate. Consider engaging with the user and warning/reporting to WP:AN3 if necessary. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Consistent ip genre warring and removals of sourced and compromised genre

2600:1003:B01F:F8F1:81F4:937B:CFA0:738F (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Consider discussion on the Talk page and appropriate warnings to the users involved. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism recently, some of it quite vile. merocks9 (talk)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. By the way, this article should probably be merged into Ayyan Ali. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Continuous edit war including a close violation of 3RR by removal of the [citation needed] tags. Just gave the warring editor, Vickle1777 the final warning. (Also, see the revision history because it recently got violated on 3/8/13, and the AN3 report) Regards,. StormContent (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection, persistent vandalism and unconstructive edits from several IP addresses as to subject's ethnicity. IPs have been warned by another user to learn the difference between the terms ethnicity and nationality, assuming good faith, but to no avail. 23 editor (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – I see only one IP making such changes in the last month. Consider reporting the user if they persist or pursuing dispute resolution. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - The article is being purposefully vandalized through removal of words, mangling of quotes, and general misinformation. Attacks have come from IP edits as the artist's popularity has increased over the past several months. Ddotf (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: A 3RR violation is possible since I can see what looks like an edit war. If necessary, it would be the time to add the page to your watchlist (if twinkle is enabled). StormContent (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. If this resumes after the block expires, better to take this to AIV. Lectonar (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) The user was already taken to AIV during the edit war. StormContent (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know; I should have written...again. I just meant that when single users are disrupting, blocking them with escalating blocking times is the more effective way to deal with them. Lectonar (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: page is currently suffering from vandalism from both IP and registered users. Ducknish (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 21:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Ashleycardwell94 (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Rcsprinter (warn) @ 00:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that because it took nearly 24 hours for admins to get to this. Buck up with the service. Rcsprinter (post) @ 16:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Count yourself slightly more lucky than someone else who had a standing request for nearly three days. You're right though, more admin eyes needed. tutterMouse (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, wholeheartedly. There is some bantering about this on my talkpage. Still, admins are also volunteers. Lectonar (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

13 March 2013

Temporary semi-protection: He just became Pope. I expect this will attract unwanted editing. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). By the way, pages are not protected preemptively. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Liberalufp (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. indefinitely since May 2011. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Daily removal of BLP content by IPs and new users; whyTF! isnt a BOT reverting these removals and why do I have to keep reverting them?! Dan56 (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Maybe PC also work here. T4B (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Request one week semi. Since 9 March there have been 16 attempts by two newly created apparent SPAs Special:Contributions/Johnwuein and Special:Contributions/Jacksonbbb to add unreliably (at best) sourced information to this article. The SPAs are probably a sockmaster and sock, but they have not responded to repeated requests to comply with WP policies and guidelines and policing this is getting to be a nightmare for a number of editors. A week would give time for the SPAs to lose interest. If they return to the same activity after the semi we can deal with it fulsomely at that point. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The remaining unblocked account is autoconfirmed, so protection won't work. A block may be more appropriate, but that's not for this board. I don't think pending changes will be effective either as it's not obviously vandalism, and I suspect pending changes patrollers would approve the edits anyway. GedUK  12:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Highly visible template – 6748 transclusions. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Normally that's more than enough for me, however there's a reference to an ANI discussion that lowered it to semi, and I'm not prepared to go against community consensus without a discussion. GedUK  12:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: This article is being targeted by multiple websites, and is pending more changes from multiple ip addresses. While not all of them are vandals, most of them don't understand that original work cannot be published on wikipedia, and requiring them to make an account to edit would be in their best interests Countered (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. What you say above is true for almost all articles which are of actual interest for viewers and editors. But I really do not see that much vandalism, only people not familiar with our policies. Protection is not the way to go here, imho. We can just explain and offer help and advice, patiently, and yes, again and again. If it really becomes disruptive, then we can act. Lectonar (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – looking at the history, over the past month or so, the history is almost solid vandalism and reversion.. Merocks9 (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Make that a: over the past 3 days the history is....There was one IP vandalising on march 10th, and the rst is way under the threshold for semi-protection. Lectonar (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 07:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I have looked at the about last 4 months of editing, and vandalism stays under the threshold for pc-protection. Lectonar (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Saddhiyama (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked.. Feel free to relist if other socks/IPs show up. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for edit warring. Open up?. Crazynas t 19:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This is a page on a highly contentious topic, and I don't think indefinite semi-protection is being harmful. Nevertheless, I'll leave this up for another admin to assess and endorse/disagree. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would pending changes be appropriate (Seems almost low traffic enough to warrant it)? Crazynas t 04:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined I agree with Fvasconcellos here; and the low traffic is, imho, coming from the fact that this has been semiprotected for so long. Lectonar (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Highly visible template – Vandalised yesterday. Affected the highly visible Papal_conclave,_2013, and is used in many other important articles. William Avery (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected Lectonar (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: This article has been semi-protected numerous times to prevent a disruptive IP hopping editor from repeatedly inserting personal commentary into the article (see page log). They have returned. The article needs to be semi-protected again. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: BLP policy violations. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 08:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Used in the highly-visible template {{gallery}}. Toohool (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected both. Lectonar (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – looking at the history, over the past month or so, the history is almost solid vandalism and reversion. Aunva6 (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Although the latest sockpuppet has been blocked, I see a certain resilience on the sockmasters part....Lectonar (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Renewed vandalism by IP only 4 days after another semi-protection ended. same type of vandalism. The Banner talk 00:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked.. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – for added ridiculous edits that the muppets are used on this show. Digifan23 (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. This is a content issue, not vandalism. I realize dealing with disruptive behavior can be frustrating, but consider engaging the user in discussion and warning/reporting if necessary. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Same old unexplained blanking of information, suspects impossible to catch when forever IP hopping. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC). Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – this appears to be a content dispute, not simple vandalism. I see the information being challenged is unsourced; per WP:V, "any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Consider providing references for the contested information or leaving a note at the Talk page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by... you. I'm gonna go ahead and say this was a Twinkle slip-up? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring. Iamamazing77 (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The article was only moved twice the last year, and BTW by you. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IPs are now adding the unsourced content previously added by blocked User:Sachikadam about an alleged love interest with Sachin Kadam. PamD 20:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

semi protection - had been under a very short semi protection due to BLP vandalism. As soon as the protection expired the IPs resumed. [17]. Would suggest the period of protection be at least a weak. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Heavy vandalism for several years now. More than 20 instances of deliberate vandalism within the last two months alone by unregistered users. Stephreef (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not that heavy IMHO, but it isn't really being dealt with in a timely fashion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Almost none of the edits made by IPs or non-auto confirmed users are conscructive . JayJayWhat did I do? 16:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Why am I not surprised. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Lady Lotus (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring. The last 9 edits have been a correction and reversion by a series of random IP addresses. TheLastGoodName (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Bede735 (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Vandalism. TBrandley (review) 22:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Widr (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of five days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: indef-blocked User:Santos30 is returning as a dynamic IP to restore his old edits. Please also protect Viceroyalty_of_Peru, Provincial deputation in Spanish America, New Spain and Retroversion_of_the_sovereignty_to_the_people. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I think I got 'em all. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14 March 2013

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rjd0060 (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated in spite of previous create protection. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rjd0060 (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rjd0060 (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected Lectonar (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There is now edit warring going on regarding the article's Introduction. This must be stopped. I recommend FP for 1 month. SMP0328. (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ok, obviously it was too much to expect people would keep calm. But 1 month would be overkill. Lectonar (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Article was recreated in spite of autoconfirmed create protection already in place. Please upgrade to fully create protection. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected The protection expired some 6 weeks ago. Lectonar (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Heavy recent IP vandalism for some reason. Deli nk (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – This page has been recreated 4 times and will probably be recreated again. Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.active 18:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected Slightly unusal for a userpage, but in light of the first version, I see the need. Lectonar (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Pending Changes hasn't seemed to work. JayJayWhat did I do? 15:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Agreed. High edit rate, no constructive edits, huge protection log—this doesn't seem like such a good candidate for pending changes. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: An essentially uncontroversial RM is aiming for this page (link), and I must agree with AjaxSmack's comment there that there's little point to keeping the article at the incorrectly-formatted name Make me famous. BDD (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: This does look pretty uncontroversial to me. Has the salting admin been contacted? I can't imagine they'd be reluctant to unprotect, the article clearly meets WP:BAND now. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected Lectonar (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. The editor making the request said she brought it up with the salting admin but "hit a brick wall." I don't know if that means he refused, or didn't respond, or what. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

semiprotection - with the protection of Deandre Jordan the vandal has moved on to this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JohnCD (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 15:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JohnCD (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 14:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP/new user vandalism. See the relevant disccussion on the talk page. The page was protected for a short while, but it solved the problem only temporarily. The article is likely to be vandalized non-stop in the future. We should semi-protect the page indefinitely. Nataev (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism immediately after expiration of 3 month semi. Arctic Kangaroo 14:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Why on Earth this would be a vandalism target is beyond me. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs adding spam links. T4B (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP/new user vandalism due to similarity in appearance to new Pope, several screenshots of amended article currently on Twitter. Andyplymouth (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – On-going edit war. Limited discussion. Multiple editors using dynamic IPs. SummerPhD (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do you mean the article? I see no evidence of edit warring in the Talk page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected – My apologies, I see it is in fact the article. I suggest you report the involved IP to the edit warring noticeboard. After a more careful review of the history and Talk page, I have semi-protected the article indefinitely. Feel free to request unprotection once a consensus has been achieved. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the above header to make this be an article protection request, not a talk page request. The semiprotection is already done so we are just waiting for the request to be archived. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP/new user vandalism. This was denied the day before with advice to seek dispute resolution, yet the vandalism occurs with various IP/new users: BLP vandalism (drugs1, drugs2, and reoccurring removal of content which varies (here and here removal of 1st two paragraphs, removal of career/bio section, removal of entire bio section). Seriously, a BLP article. Dan56 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. --Yoda1893 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Juliancolton (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Addition of unsourced content from IP users.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant BLP violations. STATic message me! 02:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent spike in vandalism and BLP issues. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 01:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistant IP vandalism. - Camyoung54 talk 01:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Juliancolton (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Four days ago I superseded unreferenced date for Poland by a referenced one with a lower percentage rate [18], since then there have been 15 edits, 14 of which were somebody putting back the old number (just claiming Ministry of Labour and Social Policy as their source, without any details) and me reverting them. --Thrissel (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Juliancolton (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by an IP; vandalism has continued since February of this year. And continual removal of the CeX trading section has been happening since January of this year. The removals are likely the company removing material they don't want in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Always the same IP vandalizing. I don't think this is the company—the sort of blanking suggests a garden-variety vandal or disgruntled customer. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aaand... User(s) blocked. by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism and non constructive edits. Astros4477 (Talk) 19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by an IP; vandalism has continued since January 2013.--Jockzain (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Lectonar (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temp-Semi - IP keeps removing a section with multiple editors disputing the removal. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, It's just one editor, who happens to be communicating with you a bit. Hit up talk pages and work out a consensus, protection shouldn't be used to solve a debate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: After over two years, it's probably time to relax the restriction and see if the same level of disruption is still a concern. Onorem♠Dil 17:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't remember in a week. I don't care about it other than it came up at a noticeboard. Permanent protection is silly, but I guess that's up to you. Thanks for looking at it. --Onorem♠Dil 19:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Article is about a series of supposed predictions about the Popes. IPs lining up all night to add their own personal interpretation (WP:OR) of how it applies to Pope Francis. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Live and learn, never heard about this before.... Lectonar (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and related to significant current event - Several instances of vandalism (people adding things like "popes rape children" and the new pope "has friendly ties with North Korea"), as well as frequent edit warring over if the new pope is called Francis or Francis I and other details.Joshbunk (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Surprised this wasn't protected already. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Spate of vandalism today from various IPs. Shearonink (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

15 March 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Bouncing IP keeps adding claim of actually being called Malcolm Smith despite no sources and the DOB ref having Dyer as the name. noq (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Vandalisms, which contains fakes about Thailand. --31.63.21.190 (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus has been reached in the talk page regarding which revision should be used for a fresh start, will continue to monitor for vandalism but full protection is no longer required. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have notified the protecting admin, Edgar181 (talk · contribs). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Page unprotected per talk page comments. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism (not just today, when it might be expected) and unceasing era style warring by IPs leaving no edit summary. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 17:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 15:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: POV-pushing, edit war, introducing errors and incorrect/false info to the template started by IP users and one user. All of their edits are same and problematic. It seems All of them are done by one person. Started from 25 December 2012 until now, diffs: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8, diff9, diff10, diff11.

Because that user (or those users) will return with new/dynamic IP addresses and they don't stop their edits, I think a indefinite semi protection is necessary. Or a long temporary semi protection (1-3 month) to help autoconfirmed/registered users deal with this problem and situation. Zheek (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined At the moment, in the last week there's only been one instance and two edits by an IP that's been reverted. The edit war before that was registered users, so the only sensible solution in that case would be full protection. GedUK  13:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page is still in development and has been the cause of some controversy, IP users keep coming and removing valid information that is correctly cited and replacing it with reviews from places like IMDB etc. . MisterShiney ✉ 07:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Yours is the only edit in the last two weeks. GedUK  12:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. At this point, it's not at protection levels. GedUK  12:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent original research/personal theories by IP user who has been told several times about our policies on the talk page, on a page that is extremely prominent in the media (major breaking news as at 14 March 2013). Semiprotection for 48 hours would allow us to update the complex article accurately with latest findings for readers, and ensure it's of good quality. The IP user has been amply warned of policies by editors and an uninvolved user for WP:EW in the past (User:CodeCat, t/p, 18:58, 3 March 2013). (Note that PC protection seems a bit inappropriate since editors are trying to refactor the highly complex article for new facts and to be understandable to public, so the main disruption is to technical editors who always see latest edits even with PC, as much as to readers). FT2 (Talk | email) 01:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, It appears to be one consistent IP that you're referring to; it would be more appropriate to report them than to protect the whole page, especially as there do seem to be good quality IP edits to it. GedUK  12:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Dynamic IP editing against consensus. Refuses to take it to talk. . SummerPhD (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – Low profile politician in news for alleged fighting, IPs vandalising. Martin451 (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Dubious unsourced IP edits. STATic message me! 20:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 09:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent vandalism by IP editors. Widefox; talk 21:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Seems to be a bit of a vandalism target at the moment. . Biker Biker (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Almost a year to the day since the last protection. GedUK  12:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long-term spam magnet. Every anon IP with a webdesign company sees this as a target. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 10:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant IP vandalism, virtually no helpful IP edits. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism. Krystaleen 03:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. STATic message me! 20:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Two IPs are constantly vandalizing the page. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - looks like the attack has stopped. Post something if they resume. Materialscientist (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent spike in vandalism. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 03:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - looks like they've stopped. Materialscientist (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Multiple ips have tried to jump the gun with speculation ( and without sources) that this football player has signed with a team when he has not. . Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not seeing what "BLP violations" you're referring to, but to stop the edit warring, I've protected it. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ip troll/sock vandals on the loose!. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It's only a couple and only in the past few days ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there's been more since. How long do you suggest I wait before I ask again? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection Persistent vandalism by ips. Huldra (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Mark Arsten.. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection Persistent vandalism. Krazytea(talk) 21:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: I think this new page should be protected just for precautionary reasons. Junebea1 (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Have a look at our Protection policy. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

16 March 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warrng over POV. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 17:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. in response to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#The difference between commuter rail and metro\rapid transit --Redrose64 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring over POV. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 17:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. in response to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#The difference between commuter rail and metro\rapid transit --Redrose64 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Many unregistered users keep on reverting the work of the registered users at this article. They keep on vandalize and edit the article. Unregistered users (IP Addresses) also put unnecessary and untrue happenings about that page. Qjtv2911 (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined There's been no vandalism and only one unsourced addition in the last 50 edits. -- Dianna (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unarchived by Tito Dutta (contact) 07:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This is almost a complete article with almost added of 2012 films. Latest edits are spammy/unsourced!. Tito Dutta (contact) 04:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I am also concerned by the lack of references... what constitutes a "Critically acclaimed film" for the purposes of this list? That could easily be interpreted as WP:OR and give rise to the type of edits you are seeing now. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know purpose of that "Critically acclaimed film" section! Let me clarify- there are only two editors working in these articles 1) User:Abgoswami who maintains and updates the list b) I, who create articles on the entries of the list (in other words, Abgoswami makes the list of films, actors, actresses, and I make individual articles on those entries) and sometimes update the list (when I see my created articles are not linked/added in these lists. Abgoswami might tell you the purpose of that "Critically acclaimed film" section (but, he does not talk)! Anyway, in last 1 year, issues related to Bengali commercial movies have been reported at least 15 times to ANI, RPP (and all possible noticeboards). The most detailed thread can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Newly_released_Bengali_commercial_.28masala.29_films, but, finally it remained unsolved, as an admin felt, These kinds of situations can be difficult to deal with. Now, these editors are changing the list of this article with those commercial movies. Abgoswami is not very regular! --Tito Dutta (contact) 07:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection - Lots of juvenile vandalism in the last couple of days. A bit of semi-p would help calm things down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one week. -- Dianna (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Article is prone to attack from fan boys (and girls) fairly regularly. After last months protection we had a couple weeks off but activity is now persistant and will likely stay that way as we approach new Dr Who episodes two weeks from now. MarnetteD | Talk 03:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one month. -- Dianna (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The page is a vandal magnet, as evident from its history. LDS contact me 03:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for six months. -- Dianna (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – BLP vandalism. SFK2 (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks. -- Dianna (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 00:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined There haven't been any edits (including vandalism) for about 10 days. If it resumes I think it could be protected, but not at this current time. Feel free to relist at that point. Mike V • Talk 02:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP vandalism. Vandalism resumed after lift of six month semi-protection. Blocked earlier as well. If possible, request one year block. Msw1002 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one year. -- Dianna (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Koala15 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mike V • Talk 02:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Recent IP edit warring. Frietjes (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I've never heard of the "Wikipedia Security Team".... Mike V • Talk 02:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP repeatedly removing cited material. Reported for blocking. Adel Tigris (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined This looks more like edit warring. Both users have been warned of 3RR. Mike V • Talk 01:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Vacation9 19:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that it has a long term history of vandalism with almost no constructive edits by new users/IPs, so maybe Pending Changes would work? Vacation9 20:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP repeatedly inserting dubious material and pointing to race forums as a reference. Adel Tigris (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Seems to me that this page is being vandalized by the same IP over and over again. Can someone investigate this and possibly semi protect if needed?. Sitethief~talk to me~ 15:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:JudgementfromGod could be the same guy as the IP, also someone warned User talk:Onetime10 on his talk page for eddit warringSitethief~talk to me~ 15:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. Both the IP and the user has been blocked. I believe that should address most of the concerns here. If it continues, let myself or anther admin know and we can take a look further. Mike V • Talk 17:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Persistent trolling/vandalism with newly released high profile product (+copy vio [19]). Widefox; talk 15:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – constructive edits currently outweigh the trolling/vandalism, of which there has been surprisingly little (IMHO) for such a high-profile release. Feel free to relist if it becomes unmanageable. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

17 March 2013

Temporary semi-protection: With the ongoing win-streak by the Miami Heat, this page gets vandalized a lot. Please semi-protect for a week. --bender235 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations. T4B (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection: Not sure of the proper way to request the protection of a redirect. COI user reverting redirect that was determined through consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yale College Democrats. Location (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik_Zero 16:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated IP vandalism. Alarics (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik_Zero 17:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Seems to be targeted recently by newly-registered accounts. Semi-protection will stop this until they get bored and go back to goat-bothering. . Biker Biker (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Ruslik_Zero 16:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: The website owners seem to constantly blank controversy section from the article. version with the controversy Alexis418 (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • While this service is reportedly sketchy (a Google search returns unreliable results stating this), reliable sources do not seem to indicate so. Unless an appropriate third-party source explains the problem with this site, it's doubtful we can keep the section that's been taken out. dci | TALK 20:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the recent book "Love in the Time of Algorithms" was published by Penguin, one of the most respected names in book publishing, and assuredly was thoroughly vetted by their legal staff. No slander case has been brought up by AnastasiaDate against the company, who instead is attempting to mount a counter-publicity campaign using Wikipedia. Just read the excerpt about AnastasiaDate for yourself: http://minus.com/mbCPXF8Yf9YRY . Why the AnastasiaDate article is there in first place, anyway? It clearly meets the G11 criteria for speedy deletion (especially considering, that their staff is monitoring it 24/7)! Alexis418 (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Remove PC and upgrade to semi, there have been 4 users who have tried to add in the same unscourced info in the last 48 hours. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 16:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Ruslik_Zero 16:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Ongoing dispute regarding the removal of POV tags. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Rapid vandalism from many users. ···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 17:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worst thing I have ever seen!···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 17:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has gone, I hope. Stayed there exactly for one hour (16:35 to 17:34) and vanished. 46 edits[20] and 26 editors in total! It may comeback as this news report says about a "horror tackle"···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 18:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It won't go. Multiple users are vandalizing at the same time.···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 12 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 18:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection:IP vandalism. Reijiro (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reijiro[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik_Zero 16:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite protection: Serious and prolonged Edit Warring. The page has previously been protected due to an identical Edit War in the past. Please also ban those involved in the Edit Warring. Sport and politics (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Ruslik_Zero 16:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite full protection: Talk page of my bot. No need to edit it. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected indefinitely. Ruslik_Zero 16:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The article seems to be going through a spate of IP vandal attacks. WHile this article will always attract those with an axe to grind, it seems cyclical. I suspect we are at some sort of anniversary, but have not checked. A brief period of semi-protection would be beneficial. It's not overwhelming yet, but it is inevitable and rather silly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 17:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Since at least March 7, a floating anon IP has made the same fannish edit to a movie article, changing "mixed to positive reviews" to "positive" despite objective numbers and talk-page consensus. He is relentless, won't discuss, and jumps from one IP to another: 71.246.104.153, 71.246.104.30, 71.255.69.81, 71.255.72.172, 71.255.71.232. This page had to be protected once before from him after a series of the same fandalism in December and January, so temporary semi-protection has not worked. -- Tenebrae (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 17:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Constant arguing over one or more sections of text (still) - yes, I'm aware I'm involved: I want to cut this off before it gets any worse. [21] is this disputed edit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 16:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. IPs appear to be having a field day (or maybe a field week) here, adding incorrect and unsourced information by the minute. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Shirt58. (24 hours) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that I've edit conflicted with perhaps myself, or a bot, or something along those lines. I'm still taking baby steps here, would be happy for anyone to alter or undo this.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – or unprotect. Page was semi protected in 2009 for vandalism, this seems low traffic enough ~3 edits per month to put on permanent PC. Crazynas t 20:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected - I don't think it will be successful in the long run, but it has been protected for a while and there's no reason not to give it a try. We can always re-protect or try pending changes if it fails. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Requesting immediate archiving... Armbrust The Homunculus 14:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 07:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Page has been protected for a long time due to an IP-hopper that has persistently inserted the same POV crap for years, communicating only in misleading edit summaries "rv v". Protection was recently lifted, and like clockwork he returned. Eik Corell (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now - the IP was blocked and it looked like the only major offender in the last few years. Re-list if situation worsens. AlexiusHoratius 03:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: IPs persistently adding WP:OR to the article due to the airing of a one-off special. AussieLegend (✉) 05:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of one day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hopefully this will be enough.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Multiple unconstructive edits by multiple IPs in a short amount of time. Greengreengreenred 06:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Greengreengreenred 06:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Soon-to-be highly visible template (1900+ transclusions). —Theopolisme (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Soon-to-be highly visible template (1900+ transclusions). —Theopolisme (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Soon-to-be highly visible template (1900+ transclusions). —Theopolisme (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. T4B (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for 72 hours Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism since the end of the UFC 158 event a few minutes ago. Kidstylez (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 12 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Hopefully this should be enough.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Page has been speedily deleted thrice in 2012, followed by an AfD, then another CsD, and then was finally deleted again today. ZappaOMati 04:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page has been ridden by vandalism throughout the month. ZappaOMati 03:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: I came across this page a while back page patrolling and I have tried to help maintain NPOV, but IPs and new users strike every week or so and I don't want to watch this page anymore. I am One of Many (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 03:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection, duration one month: gross BLP violations, and also NPOV violations. Because it's not only BLP and I edited the article to remove the content, I didn't want to protect it myself. (If it was only BLP I'd have no hesitation.) Daniel (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 03:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Regards, Daniel (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page is currently under pending-changes protection, which has been ineffective at best from deterring incessant vandalism and the insertion of unsourced hogwash. All of this is the product of IP vandalism, so semiprotection should be more appropriate than PC. dci | TALK 20:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Non-administrator comment) This article again? Last time I had this article both semi protected and pending changes protected. It seem semi protection has expired, There is a sockpuppet report too related to this which can be started again! --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can find the SPI, an admin could (hopefully) impose a sufficient block; otherwise, a fairly lengthy period of semiprotection should do. Either way, it would be nice to deter the ridiculous amount of vandalism this article receives. dci | TALK 20:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order: Yes, and it hasn't stopped an avalanche of vandalism. No, an IP can not review changes under the current status, but it can edit and make reversions, pending approval. And finally, I've not gone off topic at all: supporting the proposal and requesting something stronger, thank you. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 03:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection:: Persistent addition of unsourced episode titles, despite comments and an edit notice on the article. Edgepedia (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one week Nick-D (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP users keep adding "Midget Mike" to article, which has no relation to the series. The IP's that have added the content are originating from Florida - so I suspect it might be the same person.It's been a daily occurrence recently, which another reason for my request. Recollected (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Z22 (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Edit warring. Astros4477 (Talk) 21:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Seems like more of a socking problem than an edit warring problem, so I've semiprotected the article on that basis. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2009 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2008 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2007 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2005 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: The main page has been semi protected indefinitely. Now, since it became too long the whole project has been redesigned and list of deceased Wikipedians have been divided by years (following this discussion, Can someone semi protect this page and all pages in the list from 2005 to 2013. To do this you just need to change the year at the end of the URL! Thanks! . Tito Dutta (contact) 20:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Tradition, tradition. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Every page was done, except Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Article has been recreated twice with similar content after going through AfD and being deleted. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 22:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Starblind. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Article is being vandalized by the band members themselves and will likely continue. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Edgar181. (3 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 02:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Continuation of edit war. IP still refuses to use the talk page. 24.134.23.62 (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Zzuuzz. (1 month) Armbrust The Homunculus 02:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: JoshuaPA has been a vandal of the page. Sallynice (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. for 3 days. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page protected in 2009 for BLP violations, editor appears to have moved on. Unprotect?. Crazynas t 20:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. page protected in 2009 for vandalism. Last edit was in 2011. Crazynas t 20:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. Page protected in 2009 for vandalism, low traffic page. Crazynas t 20:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18 March 2013

Temporary full protection: Content dispute and edit warring during the last two days. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected Mike V • Talk 19:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: noncooperation between editors. ShriramTalk to me 04:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined and Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users.; pending changes lvl. 1 would be useless, as all people involved are autoconfirmed; lvl. 2 is not used at the moment. Not enough to fully protect the article. Lectonar (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Salafi editor who tried to delete it through proposal is removing sourced content. Shabiha (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that the request is denied. Shabiha's request is a personal attack on another editor. He/she should discuss the sources properly on Talk:Sufi-Salafi relations#A short time-out, going through them one by one. This was done on Talk:Salafi for a deletion of sources by Shabiha.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined and Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Lectonar (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection persistent vandalism by IP editors.Briarfallen (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one month. Gamaliel (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This is a popular animal, don't see any reason for there being no vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 16:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one month. Gamaliel (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A common target for vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 16:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one month. Gamaliel (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated unexplained deletion of critical sourced material from IP address, which traces to the employer of page subject. Sock puppetry also being employed. BroadSt_Bully [talk] 14:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated vandalism. User:FRANKDK2 repeatedly removes referenced information without comment or justification Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Perhaps you should try talking to him first and make him aware that he is doing something wrong (it just could be that he does not know); his talk-page is still a redlink for the moment. And page protection is not the tool to deal with single editors. Lectonar (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was in the process of doing so. Request this be reconsidered. Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated IP vandalism. The same IP has yet again re-inserted the same completely incorrect information- Alarics (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. This is not a case for protection; just warn the Ip appropriately (you don't seem to have done so until now), and report to AIV if the problems persist. Lectonar (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – There has been a slow stream of vandalism on this article for years now, and given the BLP-violating nature of much of it, I think this article would be a good candidate for pending changes. I did request this a couple of weeks ago, and it was denied on the grounds that the main vandal had since been blocked. However, there has since been more vandalism after that by unrelated users, so I think it would be worth considering this again. Also, I'm ashamed to say that I did protect it myself for three days, but I have just undone it because I realised that I was on shaky ground with respect to WP:INVOLVED. I think the decision about protection would be best left to another admin. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I declare myself completely uninvolved. Lectonar (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism especily in the plot section. Tuypo1 (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Persistent addition of nonsense and non-notable/non-reliable sourced information. Peter James (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Lectonar (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Over the past week or so this page has had a fair amount of vandalism. I suspect all the same person. JetBlast (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High vandalism on a BLP. STATic message me! 22:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined IP 74...has fallen silent after having been warned, and the rest is not really that much vandalism. Relist if problems persist, though. Lectonar (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: The page is being targeted by multiple IPs, possibly Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. As you can see from the log, it happens fairly frequently. Please semi-protect for a while. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let's try this first, can always be upgraded to semi. Lectonar (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Persistent sockpuppets adding a copyrighted image. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Repeated recreation by editor Pedro-Li08 (talk · contribs) of a non-notable company per A7 and repeated advertising under G11. . hmssolent\Let's convene My patrols 04:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - only one editor involved; they should be blocked if they resume, no need for protection at this stage. Materialscientist (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. STATic message me! 22:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Shannon Larratt died on March 15, 2013 at the age of 39. As per normal procedure, I wish to have his page protected and his name listed on Deceased Wikipedians to recognize him. Thebirdlover (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism, multi-IP. Tgeairn (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Riana. Materialscientist (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Minor BLP vandalism. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - both IPs are blocked. Let us see. Materialscientist (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – persistent edit warring. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – persistent edit warring. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People keep vandalising 1990s in fashion and 2010s in fashion by randomly adding words like "stupid," "gay" or "crazy." This has been happening for over a year. There's also the problem of naive users adding things without citations. Can someone semi-protect these two pages so only registered users can edit them?

That's not good enough. Could you at least block these jokers' IP addresses: 174.118.210.81 and 120.56.242.241 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from an anonymous editor who keeps changing IPs. That all of the IPs keeps delete the exact same sentence strongly suggests it is one person.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 1 week. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – 173.71.197.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continues to add hoaxes by adding DC Comics/Little Einsteins fanfiction. Eyesnore (PC) 20:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. – Richard BB 19:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism. Nightwolf87 (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Constantly being filled up alternately with positive and negative sales pitches, links to rival websites and forums. Being vandalized repeatedly from IP editors. Request blocking IP edits at least to stop edit-warring and wasting WP resources on this low importance stub. Sarindam7 18:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions and [22] reflect a necessity for temporary page protection due to serious issues with edit bias and COI. Admin User:Daniel Case states at WP:UAA that there is a legitimate issue, here. I recommend temporary pending changes protection. Jackson Peebles (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There's currently a content dispute re: some of the info in the article. Discussions are ongoing at RSN about one of the sources in question, but one of the involved editors has so far refused to participate in discussions about the material in contention. I think ~48 hours of full protection would be a good idea to force participants to discuss the dispute and reach consensus. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete falsehood. Gorman has just tried to prevent me from replacing an untrue statement in the article by reference to a superior source. The disputed source has not been removed from the article. All that I have done is correct two statements that were false and misleading by using a more reliable source. Gorman is escalating a dispute at ANI into a personal matter and he is bang out of order. I am working to ensure veracity of the article. As it happens, I've already decided to leave one section in, subject to a bit of copyediting, with Malcolm as the source because it is actually a useful addition. When Gorman reverted one edit just now he did so only three minutes afterwards and complained that I replaced sourced information with unsourced. I was checking my source for page number which I have now provided, having had time to find it. I do not have to go to RSN and in fact, by agreeing to accept the violence in cricket section based on Malcolm, there is no longer an issue about the source which can be used providing it does not breach source consensus. ----Jack | talk page 06:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've repeatedly edit-warred over the page without engaging the ongoing discussion at RSN and without significantly engaging on the talk page of the article. On ANI, you have explicitly said that you are unwilling to join the ongoing discussion at RSN. Making unilateral changes to an article while refusing to engage in discussion about them is inappropriate. I stand by my original post here; I think a 48 hour full protection to force participants to engage in discussion instead of editwarring would be beneficial. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to the RSN page and expressed my views including my willingness to keep Malcolm as the source for the violence section which is a good addition by one of the students. Furthermore, the edit war was conducted by Jbmurray, not by me. Get your facts right. Also, I am on the article talk page and have invited everyone to ask me about the content but no one has come forward. You seem to doubt my use of Ian Maun's book in place of Malcolm so why not express your doubts there as I have asked you to? As for "making unilateral changes", that's called editing and being WP:BOLD. As I say, I have placed an invitation on the talk page to you and anyone else to discuss any changes I make and I'm still waiting. In the meantime, I'll continue to use my expertise to improve an article which has been burdened with false and misleading information. ----Jack | talk page 07:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This shall be my last post here, since I don't want to turn it in to a dupe of the ANI thread. Blackjack has been making mass reversions with no discussions, including no fewer than five (!!!) reverts in 24 hours a couple days ago. He explicitly refused to engage in an ongoing discussion at RSN (see my quote above) until after I posted this request for protection - and even now his post at RSN can be summed up as "I acknowledge this source meets WP's standards, but I personally don't like it so I'm going to remove content from it wherever I see it." He has not posted any description of what he dislikes about the source or any justification for his content changes besides "I, as a subject matter expert, personally think this is wrong." Someone please slap a couple days of full protection on this article so that BJ is forced to meaningfully engage on the talk page of the article and at RSN so that the content dispute can be resolved with our normal consensus oriented mechanisms. No one is going to be harmed if an article about the history of critic from centuries ago potentially contains inaccuracies for a few days, and hopefully a brief full protection will result in those involved settling the content dispute through our normal mechanisms. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another pack of lies because Gorman has turned an editorial dispute into a personal issue. The reversions were instigated and continued by Jbmurray and the matter has been resolved via the proper channels at the 3RR page where the discussion has been closed, so Gorman is out of order trying to revive that issue here. Yes, I did formerly decline to take part in the RSN discussion, which was to my chosen disadvantage, and the participants there could have closed it without my contribution if they wished. However, I decided this morning that I should make a statement as I've found that the source, Malcolm, is sound on social matters whereas my concerns were about cricket facts and theories. Gorman's fantasised view of my intent is best answered by the current status of the article and my summary on the article talk page: i.e., I've removed or revised certain statements that were false and I've retained Malcolm as the main source for the essentially social section about the impact on cricket of a violent society. So, I haven't "removed content wherever I see it", I've simply improved the presentation where it is useful. As for my "dislikes", Gorman would know if he would take the trouble to read everything and get his facts right, that I have explained in several places the problems with peripheral theory and with false statements, including my entry on the article talk page which cites verbatim the main falsehood in the article. Gorman's proposal is vindictive and personal. It carries no weight whatsoever and WP:COMMONSENSE, inter alia, dictates that it should be ignored. In any event, the veracity and credibility of the article including content taken from Malcolm's book, has now been restored and, for the time being at least, needs no further revision unless anyone wishes to expand the content, given that there is scope for much more. ----Jack | talk page 08:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the above shows exactly why the article needs protecting, pending further discussion (and less aggressive attempts by BlackJack to make his point). And no, I haven't followed the ANI here; I'm here from reading this board having requested protection elsewhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why the article needs protecting? You haven't said anything that is relevant to the matter at all. Explain what is wrong with the article as it now stands and see my invitation at WT:CRIC for the cricket members to review the article. ----Jack | talk page 17:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

19 March 2013

Indefinite semi-protection: It was protected last December 16 for one month, but as soon as the protection ended, vandalism continued. Please check the History of the article, even before December 16 it is a favorite target of vandals. Thanks. Briarfallen (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let's try this first; we can always upgrade to semi-protection. Lectonar (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – People keep adding Sarah Jessica Parker as the actress for Seabiscuit, implying that she's ugly. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent vandalism since last 1 year .  Dr meetsingh  Talk  16:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Not even passing the threshold for pending changes protection, imo. Lectonar (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected Lectonar (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP vandalism with editor who refuses to discuss his personal version on either the article's talk page (preferred) or his own talk page (I'll talk to him anywhere to get this sorted!). SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Well, the IP seems to have stopped after your last message to his talk-page. We'll see if you can hash this out. Protection is not the tool of choice here, btw, and what you are disagreeing about, well, I would call it semantic shenanigans...Lectonar (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really stopped at all... just waited 2 minutes before editing again without bothering to go to the talk page... again. Great. How many times does he have to do this before action is taken? (I'll also point out that not only did he ignore the message on his talk pgae yesterday, he's now ignored one this morning and I have every confidence in him ignoring my third request for him to discuss this. - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have left an editwarring warning; and will watch. Mind that you are reverting too, and what he does is not obvious vandalism, so mind WP:3RR. And relax, ok? Lectonar (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for coming across slightly testily, but I do get annoyed when editors can't be bothered to go to the talk page after a hatful of requests that they do so. Thanks for the action so far, and don't worry about 3RR: I'm always careful on that point (even though I appreciate one rv can be warring too!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite alright, and you're welcome. Lectonar (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now: User(s) blocked. Lectonar (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Needed for at least a week because Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis (as IP and multiple socks) interferes with editing. (These are worst two of many he's been abusing lately.) CarolMooreDC 16:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please put new requests on top. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. What's Another Year. Lectonar (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes. It was protected back in 2009, let's see how it goes. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Now on 24 hours. Needed for a couple weeks because Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis (as IP and multiple socks) interferes with removal of unsourced/OR/synth material from article about neologism. CarolMooreDC 16:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Recurring sockpuppet vandalism. Mais oui! (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This is very low-level vandalism, truth to be told. I will watchlist myself, and have a look if pending changes lvl.1protection might be appropriate. Lectonar (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: this Good Article has been affected for some time by disruptive IP edits carrying out unexplained deletions of content, presumably to reflect an Iranian nationalist POV. As the object is currently on a tour of the US, this disruption is unfortunately likely to continue for a while. Suggest semi-protection for a period of a few months until the Cylinder is out of the news. Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. I've had a look at the history and can see that there is essentially an edit war going on. If I was going to protect, I'd be locking down the article completely to all editors. As it happens, I'm not sure there's enough recent activity to justify protection at this time, but re-report if you find there is. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 07:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator Lectonar. (3 months). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Although I agree that this page is (and will be) a long term subject of vandalism, I think it is low traffic enough that PC would be appropriate. Crazynas t 22:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was unclear, the page is currently under indefinite semi-protection. This is a request to downgrade to PC. Regards, Crazynas t 23:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected RockMagnetist (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent semi-protection - I've asked for protection before but apparently that was during a lull in activity. The article is a constant target for vandalism and most of the edits in the last couple of months constitute vandalism and reverts of vandalism. Given the speed with which vandalism is reverted, it would seem there are more than enough page-watchers to undertake any edit requests. Stalwart111 01:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: BLP policy violations – Semi protected since 2009. I think this is low traffic enough to warrant PC (or just unprotect). Crazynas t 22:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 07:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: BLP policy violations – or unprotect. BLP was protected in 2009 for vandalism. I think this is slow enough to try PC, or just unprotect. . Crazynas t 22:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 23:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent refactoring of registered user's comment by multiple IPs in short time span. – S. Rich (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Spencer Materialscientist (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Scottish National Party (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I don't think, that's enough recent disruptive activity to justify the protection of a talk page. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. The involved IPs have been rangeblocked for a week by another admin. Mike V • Talk 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Respect Party (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. The involved IPs have been rangeblocked for a week by another admin. Mike V • Talk 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – repeated and regular inclusion of unsourced details by unregistered users. Leaky Caldron 21:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 23:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite protection: The vandalism of this article goes back to 2008, constitutes the bulk of the edits since that time, and appears to be the work of a single disgruntled user, editing under multiple IPs. JNW (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a long term abuse report for this user? Crazynas t 22:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected. for 1 year by Mufka. Mike V • Talk 23:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Orikrin1998 (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The only problematic IP was blocked by Smalljim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 31 hours. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for EW (genre warring). Low traffic now, open up?. Crazynas t 22:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for vandalism, low traffic page. Open up?. Crazynas t 22:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for vandalism, open up?. Crazynas t 22:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for BLP violations, low traffic page, open up?. Crazynas t 22:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]








Unprotection: So that the entries queued up on the talkpage may be entered into their appropriate subsections

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 23:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection persistent sock puppetry. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Temporarily protected (36h) for vandalism in 2009. . Crazynas t 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for EW and addition of copyrighted info, page is low traffic now, open up?. Crazynas t 22:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 due to vandalism, low traffic page, open up?. Crazynas t 22:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Semi protected in 2009 as a reduction from full protection due to edit warring. Low traffic page, open up?. Crazynas t 22:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for BLP concerns, last edit to this page was in 2011 (pretty sure the kids vandalizing have moved on). Crazynas t 22:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 because of a banned user. No LTA linked, and page is low traffic, so requesting unprotection unless there is still an active LTA that I couldn't find. Crazynas t 22:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 (no reason given) but the game was new. Low traffic page now. Crazynas t 22:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for vandalism. Low traffic BLP. Crazynas t 22:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. BLP protected in 2009 for BLP violations, extremely low traffic. Crazynas t 22:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for vandalism. Somewhat low traffic page. Try opening up?. Crazynas t 22:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. Protected in 2009 for vandalism (BLP). Low traffic page. Crazynas t 22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for edit warring (as far as I can tell). I think this is stale at this point. Crazynas t 22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page protected in 2009 for vandalism, low traffic page. Open up?. Crazynas t 22:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Move-protected over warring almost three years ago. Now, an RM has approved a move to AOL Dejando Huellas. BDD (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - move protection removed, move carried out. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected (for the bot) Armbrust The Homunculus 20:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20 March 2013

Temporary semi-protection: a Twitter user bragged about adding Doki Doki Panic to the Wall Street Article as a joke. IP vandals continue to try and re-add it. Requesting semi for a few days until this blows over. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Bongwarrior. (1 week) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandals. Paris1127 (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 21:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – With the game set to release in under a week, IPs are adding major late game spoilers (whether right or wrong). Would appreciate 1 wk semi-protection to avoid this. MASEM (t) 16:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by Finlay McWalter for 1 day. Mike V • Talk 21:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: This article has been receiving persistent, low-level vandalism from a number of IPs over the last couple of days. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 14:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 31 hours. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 14:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit protection for new users and IPs no longer required for now. Bidgee (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Lectonar (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) Bidgee (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, school kids. If it could be protected for a few days that would be perfect. Dianna (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full-protection: Named editors are again adding and reverting each other back and forth on this article an RfC that should decide the issue just hit the 30 day mark so once an uninvolved admin can close that then the maybe it won't be a problem. But right now the edits are just elevating the fire. DJSasso (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I was thinking abut full protection just before going out for lunch, having watched the unfolding of full drama (again). And when I come back: voilà, the request was here. Lectonar (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your powers of prediction are frightening! GedUK  12:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Must be a side effect from also having fully protected Prophecy of the Popes...Lectonar (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be more appropriate to protect a page at its last stable version not in a random state?--Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for that: WP:WRONG...:); and please, do not take it personally. Defining what the last "stable" version is would imply involvement of the protecting admin. Lectonar (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've protected the article in its correct version, Lectonar. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use the terms 'wrong' or 'right' or their synonyms. I used the terms 'last stable version' and 'random'. In protecting a page you involve yourself anyway so why do it randomly? Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is a content decision. And admins who have made content decisions in a dispute can't make administrative decisions because they have become involved. Admins are not considered involved if they have only made an administrative action such as protecting a page or blocking a user etc. -DJSasso (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you edit warring to deny the last stable version? Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the template to the top which will help clarify to readers that there is a dispute. Unless there's a blatant piece of vandalism or BLP-violation, then the standard practice is to use the last version. GedUK  13:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend the article remain protected until the related Rfc is closed. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Full Protection: Requesting a permanent full protection of my own "Talk" page, due to persistent vandalism and harassment, such as here and here, and due to the fact that I am leaving Wikipedia and won't be able to maintain this page against future potential vandalism. Rndomuser (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pertaining user has been warned about that (although he preferred to blank his talk-page), and will be blocked the next time he makes attacks. Lectonar (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, per Lectonar GedUK  12:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 09:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 09:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please put the protection template between noinclude tags. It is transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 27, which shows up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done GedUK  12:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 09:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 10:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism by several IP users over the past week. Areaseven (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism by IP users over the past week. Areaseven (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The main peak of vandalism was 5 days ago, and the Ip has stopped. The rest is not really that much. Lectonar (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unreferenced info about future episodes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism + WP:RD2. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A wave of recent IP edits have been adding mass amounts of obvious vandalism and many small, insidious changes scattered about. So much so, it was difficult finding the last untainted revision of this article. It seems to be in a proper state now, but I think a term of protection is called for so it can stabilize.  —Sowlos  06:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Until release date of April 22, many unconfirmed additions by IP/unconfirmed users. . — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 33 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was protected almost five years ago by User:ChrisO. He has not edited with that account since late 2010, and that account redirects to another page in the user space, whose name is not listed as an admin at Wikipedia:List of administrators/P-Z. Not sure what the deal is there, so I'm bringing this request here. The article was protected with the comment "article is a magnet for POV edit warriors". It has remained protected for five years. Surely any POV editors involved have either long since created accounts or else moved on. I would like to request that the article be unprotected. Thank you. 24.22.75.14 (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected There's no reason at all to believe unprotecting this wouldn't just allow nationalistic POV trolling, which is common. Courcelles 00:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was protected three and half years ago by User:Alex Bakharev, who has not edited since July 2012. It was protected with the comment "Excessive vandalism: permanent magnet for vandalism and trolling". While vandalism did drop off after the protection, most of the previous edit warring was done by registered users. This page is likely to attract vandals, but no more than many other unprotected articles, and surely not enough to warrant permanent protection. I would like to request that the article be unprotected. Thank you. 24.22.75.14 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined given the never-ending attempts to change Persian Gulf to Arabic Gulf (against current consensus) all over wikipedia, I would not unprotect this article. Another admin might have a different view. Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Secret.. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Secret.. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semiprotection. While it rarely experiences flurries of vandalism, looking at the article's edit history reveals that vandalistic edits from IPs and new users significantly outweigh any positive contributions from those classes of user. I recommend semiprotecting the article in the long term; IPs and new users who wish to legitimately edit it can make an edit request. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hasn't really been protected in the past so let's try just this for now. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the {{pp-protected|expiry=2013-06-16T15:12:19Z|small=yes}} template from the page. It make the page to apear at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Thank you. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the {{pp-semi-indef}} template. The page is not semi-protected. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Seb az86556 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 12 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: An edit containing an internet meme was added to the article at some point, and this was pointed out on a fairly high-traffic section of Reddit. The edit was reverted a few times but some Redditors are trying to add it and additional related vandalism back in protest. ProtossPylon 22:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was protected on 31 October 2010 by User:Dabomb87, who has not edited since the end of 2012. It was protected with the comment "almost all IP edits have been vandalism". Surely the vandals have moved on in the last couple of years. I would like to request that this article be unprotected. Thank you. 24.22.75.14 (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected - will reprotect though in case of persistent vandalism. Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. STATic message me! 22:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP-hopper is edit-warring in unsourced material. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Laura Scudder | talk 21:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full Protection Edit warring between editors regarding photos for the articles. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator CambridgeBayWeather. (7 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

21 March 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 4twenty42o (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 48 hours. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – After a week semi-protection, it took the IP-vandal just 12 hours to go back to work. The Banner talk 16:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 2 weeks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism -- multiple IP's and one user SKP760 adding same nonsense. DVdm (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Note - see also Template talk:General relativity and multiverse: Same IP's, same edits. - DVdm (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a lot of vandalism there, though. The IP who added the same stuff at Multiverse has been warned, let's see if it happens again. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. [[User:Fly2abhishek|] Fly2abhishek 12:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. And not all Ip edits are vandalism, to boot. Lectonar (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Addition of unsourced content/claims, as well as some vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 08:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: long-term history of persistent vandalism. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 15:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Not vandalism but every day IP edits that are never helpful and have to be reverted. SlightSmile 01:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 11:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Has been protected before. But due to it being such a popular thing, I think indef is the best. Arctic Kangaroo 10:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Lectonar (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Highly visible template – The image itself is fully protected at commons, but it appears from recent edits that the description is not protected here. Tgeairn (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The main concern for protection on commons is so that the image isn't replaced with something else and viewed project wide. This page is only the image description locally on wikipedia and doesn't have wide visibility. Mike V • Talk 06:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 09:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: An anonymous Australian-based editor keeps reverting the article. Despite being asked, he/she will not join the talk page discussion. There appears to be a consensus on the issue this IP editor refuses to accept. Administrator Lectonar blocked one of the IPs at 12:09, 19 March 2013 for edit warring with an expiry time of 31 hours. link Lectonar also warned another IP address against edit warring here. - Fantr (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the parameter "protected". It is not protected. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation needed is cascade-protected, while Template:CN, which redirects to the aforementioned is not protected at all, afaiks. Lectonar (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected CN is also cascade protected but it should probably be protected in its own right. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – The Phil Ranstrom article is a BLP. One user (User:Thrillfreakunclesam) is adding controversial information. Another user(s) is edit warring to remove it. Probable sock-puppetry involved, as well as legal threats and harassment.-- Marek.69 talk 00:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

extended semi protection the short term semi protection on Jordan ended and the vandals came back, requesting a longer term protection on this article as well as extending the term of protection on the related target Knight article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Zagalejo Materialscientist (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Semi-protection Persistent vandalism and edit warring. Liberty20036 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Semi-protection does not help for edit wars between confirmed users. Since this is only between yourself and another editor, I feel that warnings or blocks would be more appropriate than full protection. Mike V • Talk 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High degree of vandalism and muppetry, most likely coming from one person. . Biker Biker (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Floquenbeam. (10 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 22:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: - A sensitive article recently a target of an IP user. Requesting semi-protection for a couple of days. Adrian (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mike V • Talk 21:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent targeting by spammers. There is no reason for (most) people to even be editing this page, because content is done through subpages. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. The spammers have been blocked. Mike V • Talk 21:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

22 March 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Some new-account block evasion going on, by the look of it. McGeddon (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Subject may or may not have died. No reliable sources I've found have covered this death that allegedly happened 2 days ago. Found discussion boards talking about it, including one at getbig.com, claiming they put it up as a hoax. Two weeks should be ample time to either confirm or dispel it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Or PC. Protected in 2010 for vandalism, seems slow now, but might require pending changes. Crazynas t 10:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Hopefully it's been long enough. I'm skeptical but we'll see. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – repeated vandalism, and violations of BLP due to rape case. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let me know if the article on the case starts getting hit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. SabreBD (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – By some Polish IPs. Please protect for at least a week so tthat the activity can die down. Thks. Arctic Kangaroo 17:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Reaper Eternal.. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Krystaleen 02:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Last Ip has stopped after last warning. Lectonar (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism; same unsourced POV paragraph added by anons from multiple IPs. Brad E. Williams (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Lectonar (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – List-pushing by anons and newly-registered editors despite being reverted per consensus. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Lectonar (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP users adding late game major spoilers prior to release of game. Had request RFPP a few days ago but seemed to only last a day or so. The game is out in under a week, so a week's protection should be sufficient. MASEM (t) 06:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected....+ to prevent the unavoidable fanposting or criticism after the game comes out. Lectonar (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Edit warring and lack of participation by parties after invitation to WP:BLP/N. Request semi to force the issue. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: - Repeated removal of a game whose addition was supported by consensus formed in discussion on the talk page here. Could possibly be done with an editnotice. PantherLeapord (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Lectonar (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Serious edit warring between supporters and detractors, reported at WP:BLP/N. Request temp semi-protection to prune and shear so we can start over. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined (more procedural)...as, after waiting for being processed here, the article has reached a rather stable state by now. If it flares up again, please relist Lectonar (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: protected in 2010 with 'page move vandalism', recommend keeping the move protection, but lift the semi on editing. Crazynas t 10:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - just my opinion, please go ahead if you're sure. KFC has long been a target, and the rationale above is not really correct (it was protected intentionally before). Materialscientist (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I didn't look at the logs closely enough, no problem leaving it on, I was on the edge on this one anyway. Crazynas t 10:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is constantly target for racist vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Requesting immediate archiving... In case I was unclear before, I was withdrawing my request to unprotect. Crazynas t 15:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for vandalism, page is slow now, try opening up?. Crazynas t 10:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: hmmm, I can't actually find the protection on this page (something strange in the move), in any case been protected since 2010, try opening it up?. Crazynas t 10:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for vandalism, page is... dead... open up?. Crazynas t 10:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: protected for BLP concerns in 2010. Page appears quiet now, open up?. Crazynas t 10:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected for vandalism in 2010, appears to have died down. Open up?. Crazynas t 10:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected because of BLP violations, page appears to be very slow now. Open up?. Crazynas t 10:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for vandalism, page is slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 10:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for vandalism, page is dead now, open up?. Crazynas t 10:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. Protected in 2010 for BLP concerns, seems pretty slow now. Crazynas t 10:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. Low traffic BLP. Crazynas t 10:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. Low traffic BLP. Crazynas t 10:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for socking, does not appear active anymore. Crazynas t 10:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected because of a banned user in 2010, no link, I don't think there's an LTA, but I could be wrong. Crazynas t 10:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: On the fence on this one, was protected for 'IP disruption' (not vandalism) which is the main reason I'm asking for a review on this one, I understand if it is declined (as this page seems like maybe it should be protected). Crazynas t 10:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page protected in 2010 for vandalism. Quiet now, open up?. Crazynas t 10:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for vandalism. Page is slow, open up?. Crazynas t 10:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Or Pending Changes. Page protected in 2010 with 'only one watcher', open up?. Crazynas t 10:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations – or unprotect. BLP indef semi'ed in 2009 as an 'unwatched page', very slow, open up?. Crazynas t 09:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Lectonar (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Arctic Kangaroo 08:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 12 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP accounts edit warring over the inclusion of his claims conversion to Islam, refusing to discuss on Talk Page Euchrid (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Excessive IP vandalism, especially since his launch into space and his assumption of command of the ISS. Userfriendly (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 because of a dynamic IP, no apparent LTA, open up?. Crazynas t 09:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Lectonar (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protection in 2010, very very very slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 09:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Socking target in 2010, does not appear to be active now, open up?. Crazynas t 09:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple IPs continue vandalize this article, by changing the Leader and Deputy Leader roles in response to yesterday's Australian Labor Party leadership spill, 2013. —MelbourneStar☆talk 06:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent unsourced changes. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – IP editor repeatedly violating WP:BLPCRIME. Info is already covered in article, but neutrally. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – frequent vandalizing after protection expired. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism, multiple edits done by what appears to be multiple people in short spans of time that change the statistics for multiple countries while keeping the same source (which I have a copy of and am actively reverting all incorrect edits). Victory in Germany (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Currently on PC, but almost all the IP edits are rejected. Arctic Kangaroo 02:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected in 2010. Very slow page, try opening it up again?. Crazynas t 09:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for vandalism. Slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 09:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. BLP protected in 2009. Low traffic, open up?. Crazynas t 09:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. Protected in 2009 with BLP concerns. Page is very very low traffic now. Crazynas t 09:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. Protected in 2009 for BLP violations. Article very slow now. Open up?. Crazynas t 03:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and edit warring– Suspecting IP-hopping editor to continue edit war with IP adress. Please protect. . Renetus (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Roving IP in range of 41.69.0.0/16 is adding info in the list that does not meet list inclusion criteria. Started mid February, persistent. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – for adding unsourced info about the US premiere date. Digifan23 (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mike V • Talk 03:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Addition of unsourced content from IP users.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mike V • Talk 03:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs have been constantly blanking the page. ZappaOMati 03:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 12 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 00:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined That's not what we regard as "persistent", Arctic Kangaroo. Bishonen | talk 01:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: There is no need for others to edit my signature. — nerdfighter 23:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined No, there isn't, but nobody has edited it, except the bureaucrat who moved the page in the course of your name change (I presume on your request). We don't normally protect unless there has been a problem. Bishonen | talk 00:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism. QValintyne (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC

Declined There's a lot of IP activity, but most of it seems benign; attempts to (laboriously) fix bad links, etc. If there's disagreement about what happens in the game, please try discussing on talk first. Bishonen | talk 01:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected in 2009 for vandalism. I think this is slow enough now to lift. Crazynas t 23:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one is risky (just my opinion). Materialscientist (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pending Changes? (seems slow enough) Crazynas t 23:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined: I'm gonna ahead and decline this. Elockid (Talk) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – It seems like all the vandals are IPs, so perhaps should just change from the current PC protection to semi. Arctic Kangaroo 01:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection: - edit dispute. talk page consensus needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I hope full protection won't be needed. I have warned Emiruu on his page against inserting negatively slanted information into this bio. Bishonen | talk 00:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. But only once in the last six months. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP Vandalism and obviously racist changes to the page. Mohammad Samani (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I have blocked the abusive IP. The other IP seems to have merely been trying to help (even if not entirely successfully). Bishonen | talk 20:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for vandalism. Page is very slow now. Open up?. Crazynas t 00:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. Bishonen | talk 00:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for vandalism. Very very slow now. Crazynas t 23:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already unprotected by administrator Materialscientist. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Unprotection: Protected in 2009 (vandalism?). Seems slow enough to lift now. Crazynas t 23:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. BLP protected in 2009, seems slow now open up?. Crazynas t 23:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Vandalism target in 2009. Very slow now. Crazynas t 23:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Vandalism target by a persistent IP in 2009. They're probably gone by now. Crazynas t 23:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected in 2009 (when still a head coach). Low traffic page now that he is retired. Crazynas t 23:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for edit warring. Crazynas t 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected in 2009 when 'highly visible'. Does not appear to be so any longer. . Crazynas t 23:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 21:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected for 1 week. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A soon as protection expired the same IP-hopping editor came back with the exact same edits. Please re-protect. . Biker Biker (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 3 months. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent use of article as a discussion page, adding unsourced argument. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined There's not very much of it. I've explained to the new user on their talkpage that they need to use the talkpage, not the article, for discussion. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen, I added pending-changes protection for a month while you were writing that comment. Feel free to leave it or remove it as you see fit. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I'll leave it. Replied more fully on my talk. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 for vandalism, low traffic page, open up?. Crazynas t 22:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. Page protected in 2009 for vandalism, appears quiet now. Crazynas t 22:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 because of an SPI. Socks have been stale since then, open up?. Crazynas t 22:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

23 March 2013

Semi-protection Attacks. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by Kuru. Mike V • Talk 20:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - there are many vandals this past month. Happyfunday talk 08:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. AlexiusHoratius 14:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Editors will not allow the possibility that the Coperncian Principle is under question, when in fact every cosmologist knows it is and questions it. This threatens the credibilty of Wikipedia. Wyattmj (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. You have been blocked for edit warring on Copernican principle. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Many anons/new Editors vandalising today. Stephenb (Talk) 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 15:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just like to say when ever semi-protection comes off, Bale's article will be constantly vandalised, a stronger and longer protection needs to be in place. Govvy (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: BLP policy violations – or unprotect. Page protected in 2010 as an unwatched BLP, slow enough for pending changes. Crazynas t 02:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations – or unprotect. Protected as an 'underwatched BLP in 2010, slow enough for PC. Crazynas t 01:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Revert-warring over whether the title should be a redirect to Taiwan or an article. Was previously a redirect prior to an attempt to create an article this month. I don't think we have consensus either way, right now. wctaiwan (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected Mike V • Talk 15:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Anons, especially in the 117.192.* range, are repeatedly changing sourced references to Bhumihar Brahmins. This is one of several articles that they have been targeting. Sitush (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 14:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. STATic message me! 13:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 14:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism. Some users are writing offensively about some characters((original actors) in the show

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 14:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Article Keeps getting speedy deleted but the same user keep recreating it. JetBlast (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected indef. AlexiusHoratius 14:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – An IP and a newish user up to 11 reverts each so far. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second this motion. Spitfire19 T/C 00:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism, BLP violations. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Bbb23. Materialscientist (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection:, persistent IP vandalism often posting libellous claims about Mr Littlejohn. This iis an ongoing issue. Christian1985 (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Tom Morris. (pending changes} Armbrust The Homunculus 08:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection Persistent IP sales vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Semi-protection: The page has been off and on semi-protection for a couple of years, at least. Whenever the page goes off semi-protection, anonymous IP users delete one verifiable source of the organization's history. There are many registered users who watch the page and clean up the vandalism, but no vandalism occurs when the page is on semi-protection. Enos733 (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Materialscientist (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: attack by ips. Theman244 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Attack? The IPs and the other user appear to be mainly improving the article by removing absurdities like capitalizing "His" when it refers to the article's subject. I don't see any justification for your revert of their work. Bishonen | talk 00:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Salt. Regular re-creation of, presumably, the same material. Pure vandalsim. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected Materialscientist (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High level of vandalism ATM, most likely due to the ongoing football match. Suggest 24 hour semi-protection. Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 20:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by GiantSnowman. Materialscientist (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 because at the time it was a redirect, is no longer a redirect. Crazynas t 02:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or Pending Changes. BLP protected in 2010, seems slow enough to open up, or at least try PC. Crazynas t 02:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Vandalism in 2010, by apparently one (or few) IP editors, I suspect they are gone now, page is slow. . Crazynas t 02:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page protected in 2009 for vandalism, appears to be slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 01:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2009 when the band was still around. Page is pretty quiet now, open up?. Crazynas t 01:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An IP user seems to think it's funny to continuously insert some office humor into the article. It may stop over the weekend, but Monday will be here soon enough. If we could have a few days of protection, it would save some irritation. Thanks!. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 23:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 23:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Some one is repeatedly adding sir or other nonsense to this player and justifying it in talk page. General (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined: It seems worth trying to explain Wikipedia practice to the user on talk first. I've put a note there. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protection: Page was protected a week-ago to prevent a persistent, IP-hopping vandal from deleting material on Behemoth. Less than a day after the semi-protection expired, the same vandal came right back to delete the exact same material that offends it. Perhaps the page needs to be semi-protected longer.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 23:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article keeps popping up in Stiki and I suggest that it be semi-protected for at least one week. Andrew327 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, The main baddie is already blocked so let's just see how that goes. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High visibility template, and no reason for anons to be editing this at all, so long as good watch is kept when all-time monthly extremes fall, which hasn't happened since 2007 at the latest. GotR Talk 15:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, This thing has barely been touched since your edit war last year. A handful of vandalous edits over three or four months isn't the end of the world. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24 March 2013

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP inflation of chart positions.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let's give two weeks a try and see if this resolves the issue. If it continues, we can protect it again for a longer duration. I'm just a bit hesitant to jump straight to indefinite protection. Mike V • Talk 19:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 19:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring over the addition of Israel to the infobox. Please lock this page to the version prior to the addition. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Edit warring by the same user from different IP adresses. Jeppiz (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Dennis Brown. (indefinite) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: recent warring. reddit target. Onorem♠Dil 00:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Reddit thread: [23] ProtossPylon 01:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. I probably should have answered the request here, but hey I'm simply not smart enough to do things in logical order. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected for vandalism in 2010, page is slow now (but maybe we should try PC on this one). Crazynas t 01:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. BLP protected, very slow now, try opening up?. Crazynas t 21:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected I have kept the move protection. Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – As soon as the last protection expired the sock was straight back. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Multiple recent IPs. Tgeairn (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP edit-warring, please see this, the article's history, and Talk:Legendary creatures.--JasonMacker (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this page has been linked to on Reddit. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected--Shirt58 (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected in 2010, slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 06:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for vandalism, open up or maybe try PC (page seems slow enough). Crazynas t 06:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Vandalism target in 2010, page seems slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 06:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010, seems like it would be ok to open now... Crazynas t 06:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for BLP concerns, very slow now, shall we try opening it up?. Crazynas t 06:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for vandalism, page is now dead, try opening it up (or maybe PC). Crazynas t 05:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for vandalism, very slow now, try opening up?. Crazynas t 05:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Edit warring in 2010. Crazynas t 05:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. BLP protected in 2010, page seems to be slow now. Crazynas t 05:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]







User talk:Seb az86556 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: I don't know if we should really take the protection off, but it's slow enough that PC seems appropriate. Crazynas t 05:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: I'm assuming this was a BLP protection (can't find the log, if someone else does will you show me where it is, not at the main page or the revert). Anyhow, page seems slow enough to try to open up (or maybe Pending Changes). Crazynas t 05:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Vandalism in 2010, try lifting? (I'm on the border on this one, page seems pretty high traffic). Crazynas t 05:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected because of an edit war in 2010. Crazynas t 05:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: page protected 'until disambig exists' what? anyhow seems really slow here now. Crazynas t 05:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: vandalism target in 2010, open up?. Crazynas t 05:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: vandalism target in 2010, open up?. Crazynas t 05:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: vandalism target in 2010, open up?. Crazynas t 05:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: 'slow edit war' in 2010, appears to be gone now. Crazynas t 05:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protection in 2010, page is dead now, open up (or maybe PC?). Crazynas t 05:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Target of unnamed sock in 2010, page is slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 05:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. BLP protected in 2010, very very slow now. Crazynas t 05:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: User request. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 03:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There is a battleground between anons who seek to glorify the Sikhs by claiming the article subject to be a Sikh and other, usually registered, users who recognise that he was a self-identified atheist and even wrote Why I am an Atheist to explain his position. The latter is sourced; the Sikh claim relies on his ancestors' religious affiliations & am unwillingness to accept that WP:V trumps the notion that "caste"-type association is some sort of birthright. This has gone on for years but I'd like to force the issue on to the talk page. Sitush (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I have tried on the talk page previously and got no response. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Vandalism concerns in 2010, slow now... open up?. Crazynas t 01:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: vandalism in 2010, very slow now... open up?. Crazynas t 01:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Vandalism in 2010, very slow now... open up?. Crazynas t 01:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP concerns in 2010, probably have moved on.... open up?. Crazynas t 01:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: LTA in 2010 does not appear to be active... open up?. Crazynas t 01:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for vandalism, page is slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 01:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for vandalism, page is slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 01:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected 2010 for vandalism, slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 01:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected in 2010, slow enough to open up or try PC. Crazynas t 01:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected in 2010, page is slow enough to open up or switch to PC. Crazynas t 01:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected in 2010, seems slow enough to open up or switch to PC. Crazynas t 01:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected in 2010, seems slow enough to open up or switch to PC. Crazynas t 01:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected in 2010, seems slow enough to open up or try PC. Crazynas t 00:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for LTA. Does not appear to still be an active abuse report any longer, try opening?. Crazynas t 00:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: protected in 2010 for vandalism, very slow now, shall we try opening this one up?. Crazynas t 00:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. Protected in 2010 for BLP concerns, slow enough to open up or switch to PC. Crazynas t 00:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP concerns in 2010, article seems slow now, try opening it up?. Crazynas t 00:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP concerns in 2010, subject is less visible now, try opening up?. Crazynas t 00:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: vandalism of underwatched article, open up or try pending changes?. Crazynas t 00:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Vandalism concerns in 2010, slow now, try unprotect?. Crazynas t 00:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected when person was high profile, try opening up?. Crazynas t 00:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected in 2010, very slow now, could also try PC if appropriate... Crazynas t 00:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. BLP protected in 2010, seems slow enough to try opening, or PC?. Crazynas t 00:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for vandalism, very slow now... open up?. Crazynas t 00:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for vandalism, very very slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 00:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for vandalism, very slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 00:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected for vandalism in 2010, very slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 00:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for BLP violations... slow now, try it open again (or PC?). Crazynas t 00:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: School page protected for BLP violations in 2010, seems like it's been long enough to try opening up again. Crazynas t 00:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. BLP protected in 2010, I think this one is safe to open up now. Crazynas t 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for vandalism, really slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 00:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. BLP protected in 2010, seems really slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 00:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected for edit warring in 2010, open up?. Crazynas t 00:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: protected in 2010 for vandalism, slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 21:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Vandalism target in 2010, slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 21:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Vandalism target in 2010, slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 21:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Vandalism target in 2010, slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 21:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Vandalism target in 2010, slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 21:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Vandalism target in 2010, slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 21:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Vandalism target in 2010, very slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 21:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Vandal target in 2010, open up?. Crazynas t 21:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. 'unwatched BLP', very slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 21:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected in 2010, very slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 21:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Preemptive BLP protection... also is no longer a BLP. Crazynas t 21:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You want to be the one who has to revert all the trolololololololololololololo jokes if it's unprotected? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do run STiki quite often, this is about upholding the principles of the protection policy. I have no problem with my requests being denied (although I have gotten pretty good at this). Crazynas t 21:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected I've watchlisted this page and will re-protect if it resumes. Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. BLP protected in 2010, subject seems to be less visible now than then, open up?. Crazynas t 21:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for spamming, no edits since... try opening up?. Crazynas t 21:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected when subject was still in the spotlight. Things have quieted down, open up?. Crazynas t 21:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitesemiprotection: Lengthy protection log. Periodic obscene vandalism.Curb Chain (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism since March 18. Brandmeistertalk 22:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection or PC protection Persistent disruption. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 15:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Random IP's vandalising this thread and worst of all, it is same IP which uses many sockpuppets. Could you please protect page for 3 months. NovaSkola (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mike V • Talk 20:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

25 March 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs and new users adding pictures that are not suitable for infobox, also are copyrighted and also adding purpose deletion. T4B (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for one month. -Philippe (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:AN/TPS-43 ‎ (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection Persistent sockpuppetry, User:Macallla. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repetitive removal of Articles for Deletion template over the last week since the AFD notice was posted on March 18, 2013. Steel1943 (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked.. Blocked the IP who had removed the template a number of times after warnings for 1 week (so that the expiry coincides with the closure of the AfD). Sheryl Mika has not removed an AfD template since her last warning so no action is necessary there; a block will be appropraite if she continues. I have not protected the page because the main disruptive editor has been blocked, and the other was an autoconfirmed user. If disruption continues from other IPs, semi-protection will be appropriate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 15:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Vandalism hasn't really stopped since the year's protection expired last October. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"semi-protection: - IP edits removing information. possible vandalism. --Raabbuatsamante (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined This is just one Ip vandalising, whose talk-page is still a redlink. So, either engage discussion, or, in the case of pure vandalism, warn and report to AIV if appropriate. Lectonar (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – A hopping IP keeps adding derogatory nicknames. Nymf talk to me 06:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The IP's edit is sourced, and BLP doesn't prohibit neutral commentary on nicknames that can be verified. I suggest discussing this on the article's talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and I'm discussing this with Yunshui on their talk. Bishonen | talk 13:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Requesting short-term protection. T4B (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia project content guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated vandalism every few months for years. The page will hardly ever need to be edited. Smallman12q (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Most of the vandalism seems to come from non-confirmed users. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection Vandalism We have an anonymous IP who's been changing the release date despite all the warnings he's been given. The IP's address was blocked for a week, but he/she seems to be making the same disruptive edits from another address. A semi-protection seems to be the only way to prevent further false changes in the release date.--Harout72 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Disrupting IP is currently blocked. Crazynas t 09:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. Lectonar (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High visibility template, and no reason for anons to be editing this at all, so long as good watch is kept when all-time monthly extremes fall (even a tie hasn't occurred since 2007). GotR Talk 01:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any persistent vandalism. TBrandley 01:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. More than any similar template I know, it is a target of vandalism or questionable changes in data; last year alone that occurred on 12 Sept, 8 July, 6 Apr, 7 Mar, and 25 Jan. Moving beyond, although an IP was responsible for beginning the en masse conversion (at least in the US) from 1971–2000 to 1981–2010 dataset. Though the changes were mostly faithful to their sources, they were not the normals figures which are the basis for the phrase "departure from normal". And this went unnoticed until just a month ago. This template presents objective data: based on what NOAA (and Template:Weather box) provide, there is little, if anything, to change anyway. GotR Talk 02:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined for the same reason as in the request you made one day before this one. Your arguments didn't get stronger by repeating them. De728631 (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The Castlebar-inhabitants vandal is back again. The Banner talk 18:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Single user has no life other than removing sourced information. Has done so five times over the past month. Have asked user to stop on his talk page to no avail. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The user has been warned on his talk-page; the next time he reverts, he will be blocked. Lectonar (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - It appears that some unknown IP users have continuously changed the Result Summary unreliably. I hope semi-protection for 2 weeks can handle this problem to stop the person from continuously changing this. Ccliman (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These were 2 Ip users; warn them appropriately; for now Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Lectonar (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism following a controversial incident at yesterday's Malaysian Grand Prix. DH85868993 (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – A hopping IP keeps adding derogatory nicknames. Nymf talk to me 06:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined See above. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: I'm begging for temporary semi-protection. The series has yet to even air on the west coast and I'm already witnessing IP users adding fake ratings. I've had other IP users add original research content, which has been a battle in itself. Hopefully some protection will keep the article safe for a bit. Recollected (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This was a single IP and recently the article has largely been edited by registered users only. No need for protection here. De728631 (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: the article is being considered for GA, so it needs strong protection. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Most of the edits the past days were vandalism and reversions of it. –HTD 11:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Indef semi protection per talk page agreement Several IP editors contribute in problematic manner for years, and they must be stopped. See talk page for more. WhiteWriterspeaks 14:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is just a case made for pending-changes, as almost all of the vandalism comes from Ip's. Not enough activity for semiprotection. Lectonar (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection or PC I don't know why the bot archived this. Persistent WP:MOSBOLD violations. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The most recent IP vandal has been blocked, and his predecessor seems to have given up - please re-report if another IP shows up. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: - IP edits removing information. possible vandalism. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: IPs are changing info in the article while they are sourced. . Ushau97 talk 10:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Semi-protection: Article has been previously protected twice, in 2010 and 2011 see Elazar Shach Protection Log due to WP:VANDALISM and WP:EDITWARRING. While there is a legitimate vigorous debate that is ongoing between registered users who are often at loggerheads but somehow or other seem to find some consensus, there is a constant peanut gallery of anonymous IP users not afraid to use a variety of tactics, at times outright WP:VANDALISM, other times WP:LAWYERING, and often WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS. Any review of this article's history since its creation in 2006 reveals a plethora of anonymous IP editors swooping in and engaging in controversial debates and incitement violating WP:Flaming without any accountability or any way of knowing if there is any violation of WP:SOCKPUPPETS or worse etc. The problem is furthermore exacerbated and it becomes impossible to conduct communications via normal user page channels with these constant interventions by multiple anonymous IP editors not afraid of making vigorous and controversial edits, deleting huge chunks of material, attacking the credibility of sources and of the subject of the article, while displaying accurate knowledge of WP:LAWYERING techniques without any accountability or way of reaching a resolution with them. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This was slow enough until about 6 weeks ago, so pd should be fine. Just as a sidenote: some more eyes would do this article some good, imho. Lectonar (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent editing by fans. A lot of non-notable and non-encyclopedic content is being added and changed by fans, almost all of whom are IPs. Semi-protection would be very helpful in keeping this article clean. I suggest that it be semi-protected for a good number of months, as this has been a long ongoing process that's unlikely to soon change. • Jesse V.(talk) 08:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: The game is due to release in a few weeks, so the page has attracted a lot of attention from unregistered IPs who add unconfirmed and/or unsourced information to the page (particularly in the form of characters in the game's roster). This has only been made worse with the game's showing at PAX East in the past few days. Requesting the page be temporarily protected from unregistered IPs until either the game is released on 16 April, or at least for a week when the PAX buzz dies down. LoveWaffle (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 22 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. For a reason in the last week, this page has been disrupted by multiple IPs. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. IP users are rapidly adding information that is highly questionable. The person died yesterday and the article is on the main page. Please protect the page for a week. Երևանցի talk 16:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected - in fact it already had PC until tomorrow, but I've extended it a week. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article has been a constant target of anon. vandalism; long-term protection is the only solution. The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Ushau97 talk 06:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection. Edit war between IP and autoconfirmed editor. Allegations of vandalism but this is undocumented; no discussion initiated. Rivertorch (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator De728631. (3 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Fully protected for a period of three days. I've notified the edit warring parties and left a reminder at the article talk page. De728631 (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – In the last month, article has been a constant target of anon. vandalism. The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps pending changes would work? TBrandley 04:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated addition of badly sourced information by an IP hopper who refuses to engage either on the article's talk page or at WP:RSN. Semi-protection will stop what amounts to vandalism and force the editor, if he/she can still be bothered, to use the talk page. . Biker Biker (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same change made again this morning. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected You were both edit warring here - Whilst I don't condone no discussion, simply reverting each other isn't going to get you anywhere. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: or PC. BLP protected in 2010, slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 21:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm going to consult with the protecting admin first. Mike V • Talk 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected After reviewing the concerns with this article, I think it would be best to keep it at pending changes with move protection intact. Mike V • Talk 23:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This page is prone to attack by crazies. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – for dynamic IP's adding unsourced info about the US premiere date. Digifan23 (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week. IP vandalism has actually sped up since the last request for protection. De728631 (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – BLP article with frequent IP vandalism. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 14:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism from different IP. Cybervoron (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A bunch of IPs keep vandalizing the page. Semi-protecting the page for a few days would probably work. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week. De728631 (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection - revert war Newnou (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Requesting page protection to protect your version of the page is something of an underhand tactic, but in the interests of peace and quiet, I have done so. Kindly discuss the proposed changes on the article's talkpage; if the edit warring continues after protection expires you will both be blocked. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Hi Wiki Admins, There seems to be a persistent vandalism from one particular user who is using different user id's (that are getting created newly) to constantly removing/editing one of the long standing sourced material. Hence requesting for a temporary locking on this page. Also, is it possible to lock a particular section of the page? If yes, could the "introduction" section of the page be blocked indefinitely for editing, please? Thanks!. Thilakan 1980 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected again. Please discuss it on the talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring over a tag. AIRcorn (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected. For a week, unless they reach consensus before then. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism from different IPs. Astros4477 (Talk) 02:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by Reaper Eternal Mike V • Talk 05:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Holiday coming up next week, usual anon vandalism. Lengthy protection log as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Courcelles 05:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Ip keeps adding information that it is not relevant for a first sentence. I have explained in my edit summary that the first sentence is reserved for a statement about what the article is about and that the same information is already included in the last line of the introduction section. Andreasm just talk to me 20:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. It's only one (static) IP edit warring, isn't it? I've blocked them for 48 hours. Bishonen | talk 00:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
No, it was me attempting to add content and Andreasmperu refusing to engage on the content, finally responding on her talk page after the 3rr warning. The dispute is settled and a protection would be unnecessary. Alatari (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism. Entity of the Void (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 05:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection - basketball player just threw a tantrum on national TV, getting hit by nonstop vandalism Against the current (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Webclient101talk 03:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent WP:MOSBOLD violations. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pending changes protection may work in this case. TBrandley 06:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unprotect page 'Anonymous(Group)'. Reason: I would like to add information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StripesCat (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You can always make an edit request on the talk page if you wish. Crazynas t 06:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Given the nature of the article and the vandalism associated with the article, I don't think removing protection would be the best option. I would recommend asking for an edit request on the talk page, as outlined above. Mike V • Talk 23:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This is a rather new page that was correctly redirected to the band's page, hit by a slew of IP vandalism from different ranges. It's not noteable enough to be a standalone article, and the recent vandalism combined, suggest some form of protection. Shadowjams (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 00:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Persistent edit-warring and socking. 4twenty42o (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 00:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – IP editors POV pushing to change names from traditional viet to traditional chinese. 3RR, edit-warring and sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. 4twenty42o (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protection requested to prevent vandalism following a recent athletic victory, an upset win against a heavily favored team in a national tournament. ElKevbo (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 12 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Long enough to get past the next game. Acroterion (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary PC changes: Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mike V • Talk 19:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary PC changes: Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mike V • Talk 19:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Blue House Real Estate (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – Spaming even after being indef block. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

26 March 2013

Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism by subject of article. Wetdogmeat (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 16:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Edit warring vandalism. Onorem♠Dil 14:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected until June 4th. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP keeps blanking page. Revolution1221 (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Relist if another IP continues the blanking. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism over the past month from IP editors . Fraggle81 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 16:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persisent addition of unsourced material. JayJayWhat did I do? 16:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 16:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Given subject matter (children's television) the article is attractive to hoaxers and sockpuppets, as well as IP users who deliberately and nondeliberately disrupt the integrity of the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 16:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Long term issue going back a few years in which various IPs continually reintroduce the same misinformation. See edit history and talk. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 16:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 14:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Recent noteriety of the FGCU basketball team is leading to people insisting the city nickname is "Dunk city". Two weeks will be sufficient to cover the rest of the tournament, win or lose. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Highly visible – Main page featured article, vandals are already on it. Gsmgm (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent anon vandalism. Kathovo talk 13:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Actually, vandalism not persistent, but almost all edits are vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 09:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Yes, almost all edits are vandalism, but still...this is not very much. Lectonar (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Recent edit warring by IP hoppers. Needs a consensus on talk page. Zheek (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The main perpetrating Ip has been warned abot edit-warring, and has not edited since. Lectonar (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent IP vandalism. —me_and 12:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This is few and far between, so even under the level for pending changes protection. Lectonar (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection requested to prevent vandalism. This university's basketball team has recently won two games in a national tournament; they were upset victories so they garnered lots of attention. Editors simply can't keep up with the vandalism that has occurred in this article. This article was recently semi-protected but only for a short time; please protect for a few days this time. ElKevbo (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Three open proxies (User:183.89.146.93, User:213.111.192.30, and User:60.195.251.213) has tried to add contentious or libel material to this BLP in the last few days. Two of the three proxies has got blocked, while a third was editing today and has yet to get a block. A short (limited) semi-protection might help resolve the problem and lower the need for blocking more proxies. Belorn (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Seems like an edit war is starting due to RL political tensions. - Bob K | Talk 06:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It is way to early to tell if this might grow into an edit war. Use warnings etc, and, if appropriate report to AIV. Lectonar (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. STATic message me! 03:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from a long-term disruptive IP. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: For a long time 46xxxx IPs continue reverting the article to a poor confusing version ignoring both intermediate edits and article talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP hopper persistently blanking the page. — MusikAnimal talk 05:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by DMacks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Introduction of unsourced and/or unconfirmed information. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 00:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Feel free to relist if things get out of hand. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. I blocked the IP. Please come back if this persists. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Extremely high level of IP vandalism (and even a few new user vandalisms). Of the last 50 edits, 32 have been vandalism or reverts (64% of edits)! Grollτech (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Note: Hi Bishonen, thanks very much for the help. Looking at the protection logs, I just noticed that before today, this page had [move=sysop] (indefinite) protection. Is the move protection now going to expire in a month? Is there any way to keep that higher level of move protection, and to keep it indefinite? This is a highly visible page, with a prior history of "move" vandalism. Thanks! Grollτech (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The move-protection (sysop) was removed at 21:18, 12 May 2012, by Courcelles (talk · contribs). It was probably a TW error. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Passing through, saw my name. Yeah, twinkle mistake. Re-move protected. Courcelles 05:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks! Grollτech (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This is really becoming ridiculous. The IP warrior flat out refuses to respond @ Talk. . Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that is a lie! if you look on the talkpage you will see that i posted there and this user "Seb_az86556" is reverting without giving a reason. 95.200.202.58 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seb_az86556 is also edit warring on the Germanic peoples article without explanations, see article history! 95.200.202.58 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:95.200.202.58&oldid=546962648 where Seb_az86556 acusses me for making a "personal attack" for no reason just see my edits i have never attacked anyone 95.200.202.58 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several established editors have challenged and reverted your edits. Please stick to the Talk page and make your case there. The article can be unprotected once a consensus has been reached. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Long term pattern of abuse by now-blocked sockpuppets, but no guarantees that this persistent vandal won't come back and therefore requesting either permanent or very long term semi-protection. . Biker Biker (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:181.150.253.11 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection or reblock Ban evasion User:Macallla. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. -Philippe (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. (procedural tagging for the bot, as is not protected) Armbrust The Homunculus 20:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. SeaphotoTalk 20:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator JamesBWatson. (3 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – A self publicist keeps creating every article he can about himself templates included. Please consider salting. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected Cheers, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The IP who like to raise the number of inhabitants by an excessive 50%, contrary to the given sources, is back again. The Banner talk 18:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Has only occurred twice in the last 24 hours. Appears stale. Crazynas t 09:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it was 8 times over the last 50 edits... The Banner talk 10:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The last 50 edits span over more than 4 months. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Requesting immediate archiving... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

27 March 2013

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism by user 'Gotohell666,' who claims to post "authorized" bio of subject. DeepBluSky (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The article was semiprotected for some time, but now is vandalised again. Yopie (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: According to the logs 6 months. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better than the bot; Thx, :). corrected accordingly. Lectonar (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: This article was move-protected three years ago by an admin who is no longer active. Looking at the article history, I'm puzzled as to why move protection was ever used, given that there seems to have been no history of move warring - instead, the history shows edit-warring by IPs (almost certainly the article's subject). It looks to me like the protecting admin intended to semi-protect the article in response to a request on this page but changed the wrong permission. Given that there is no ongoing issue about naming, could it please be un-move-protected? Prioryman (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected I think, after a casual look, that there indeed was a moving back and forth between "businessman" and "lawyer" before 2010, so perhaps the move protection moved with the move, so to speak. Lectonar (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see - thanks for the explanation. Well, there won't be any more such moving back and forth as he's just gone down for 25 counts of fraudulently claiming to be a lawyer... Prioryman (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. JayJayWhat did I do? 18:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Lectonar. (6 months) Armbrust The Homunculus 18:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An IP hopper is repeatedly disrupting the article - mostly by messing with the infobox. This has been going on sporadically since at least October 2012. Roger (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. IP users continue to add Japan as a qualified team even though they have not qualified. This edit has had to be reversed numerous times over the last week. Chris1834 (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant disruptive editing from IPs - the last 16 straight IP edits had to be reverted.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The last 16 edits span a longer period of time. Lectonar (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Long-term history of vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 12:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined User pages and subpages are sometimes protected at the user's request. I see nothing out of the ordinary here; many userpages are vandalised more frequently without getting protected. And you should ask the user if he wants this at all, in the first place. Lectonar (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Everblueyou (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism/annoyance. Banana Fingers (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. The vandalism, like the Miami Heat winning streak, is still ongoing. Please semi-protect for another week. --bender235 (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi, in light of this discussion[24] and recent edit warring. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Until after the album is released at least. STATic message me! 01:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Multiple IP's Touch Of Light (Talk / Contributions) 07:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Shirt58. (3 days pending changes) Armbrust The Homunculus 08:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected for three days. I know that "Pending Changes" is unpopular, but it would appear that the IP editors are just mucking around with the States and territories of Australia that the contestants come from. Semi-protection seems a little heavy-handed to me at the moment. Hopefully this will be enough. As always, happy for my decision to be challenged or over-ridden. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism . Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism by IPs. Hot Stop (Talk) 03:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get a load of this guy. pointing out the nationality/where a player lives is not vandalism. You're vandalizing by reverting, actually. 206.45.75.119 (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator Materialscientist. (2 weeks) Armbrust The Homunculus 06:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated vandalism by different usernames and IP addresses. The vandalism has consisted of promotional NPOV violations. There may be some sock-puppetry involved. This type of vandalism has been going on for a long time, so perhaps an indefinite page protection would be in order. Higgyrun3 (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This pattern of vandalism started in September of 2012[25]. Higgyrun3 (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection- Persistent unsourced and generally disruptive edits. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of recent IP vandalism. Chris1834 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism spaced out over the past couple of months. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 21:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Materialscientist. (1 month) Armbrust The Homunculus 06:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: This page is constantly having minor date changes that make it incorrect. It seems to be a persistent thing; it'd help if it was made to where only users could edit it (seeing as all of the vandalism is coming from anonymous users). Endofskull (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection That time of the year. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Mike V • Talk 02:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: The article keepings being created by multiple accounts over a period of time. Its been created under these usernames - User:Sustainedmedia, User:Laasmeer & User:Ptoone. The second 2 accounts have been banned. Banning the users is not helping so i think protecting the page from being created will. The article currently has a CSD. JetBlast (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. a few minutes after the report by Smartse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Chamal T•C 02:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite move protection: One of the countries of the world. Eyesnore (PC) 20:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected Mike V • Talk 02:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 01:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent high level of IP vandalism going back for years. — Brianhe (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support the request, it is a pain having to clear up this article. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP vandalism Saelbo (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mike V • Talk 17:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

28 March 2013

Indefinite semi-protection: Various different IPs are outright removing a section presently under discussion on the talk page without reason or questionable claims, and not appearing to engage in talk. Likely need about a week while discussion continues. MASEM (t) 14:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected I give it six months, given it started in September 2012. Not really fussed if someone undoes this earlier pending productive discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – we protected Tuna a few days ago, and the same student using multiple public school terminals apparently has a bizarre obsession with tuna... he's back at it, and now he's onto the NAV template... Can we match the protection/expiration as Tuna? Thanks! Grollτech (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page has been repeatedly vandalized with significant promotional material by multiple IPs. ~Autumnal Monk~ talk 11:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected let's try three months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism again after multiple short term page protections. STATic message me! 05:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected I've left as indef given the background - can be discussed at a later date. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent semi-protection: IP vandalism is evident, although some IP edits are not otherwise reverted, but simply editing the article, therefore the IP edits that vandalises the article are not recorded. Regarding the content of IP edits, most of them are unsourced, and some are just for their own pleasure. Kiddie Techie (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. And I am somewhat at a loss concerning your reasoning; most articles on Wikipedia get that kind of editing from Ip's, some vandalism, but also some good edits. Lectonar (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Z22 (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GoodnightmushTalk 05:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The one big spike of vandalism was some days ago, and that Ip has stopped editing the article. The rest is not very much, really. Lectonar (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Content dispute with overtones related to The Troubles/Flag protests. The Banner talk 17:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I rather think that is a bit early; perhaps a little discussion on the articles talk-page might be convenient, or getting a WP:Third opinion. Everybody involved should mind WP:3RR, btw. Lectonar (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined See above, and stale now. Lectonar (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP-hopping... vandal? I don't know; if it's not vandalism, it's very, very close. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mmmmh, I would call it "vandalism-light", perhaps. Lectonar (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:108.25.124.32 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked. TBrandley 03:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. by Drmies. Materialscientist (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article was recently protected to stop an IP edit-warrer. Now that the period of protection has ended the IP has returned just as before. Indefinite or long-term semi-protection is needed. Adel Tigris (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, the initial semi-protection period was supposed to run to 15 June 2013 [26], but the IP was able to edit the page a couple of days ago. Anyone know why? Adel Tigris (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page has never been protected - Lectonar (talk · contribs) set WP:PC on it on instead. The activity is yet too low to justify semiprotection, i.e. Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. Materialscientist (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection IP Vandalaism. A person using two different IP's continues to harass me on my user page, after editing numerous articles on feminism. He blanks sections of my user page, and then alludes to me making defamatory remarks. He has been warned by admins, but it persists (multiple times a day). Thank you in advance. Thebrycepeake (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would semiprotect it indefinitely (IPs don't need to edit user pages). Otherwise, please suggest a shorter term. 03:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Changed to reflect your suggestion- thanks. Thebrycepeake (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Materialscientist (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: One vandal from several different IP addresses has been repeatedly adding a fake "anti-pope" to the subsection Antipope#Other examples. The person they are adding, Mirko Fabris Krav, is actually a stand-up comedian (see Talk:Antipope#Someone's idea of a joke - Modern antipopes for proof of this). I have no idea if the vandal is a fan of this comedian or is trying to slander the comedian, but either way, multiple editors have been reverting these changes several times a day.

This vandal has also blanked the part of the Talk page that discusses his vandalism, although not as frequently as he has vandalized the article. Temporary semi-protection for the Talk page might also be helpful, although (unlike the article) there have also been useful comments from unregistered users on the Talk page, so that's up to your judgment. Thanks! — Lawrence King (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'll leave the talk-page unprotected, though. Lectonar (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Content dispute, dynamic IP edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Perhaps that will bring the Ip to the talk-page, or move /them to comment on the DRN-case. Lectonar (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. It's been an ongoing problem over months in which the same nonsense is used to vandalize/disrupt the article. Today it has been persistent. Evenrød (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected 3 months Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks. Evenrød (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temp semi-protection A bunch of IPs and one non-confirmed account -- all probably the same person, or working in concert -- continue to add a non-notable person to the list of notable residents. Messages have been left on user talk pages, but there's no sign of giving up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent semi-protection: Persistence of IP vandalism. The problem was temporarily disappeared when page was semi-protected. IP vandals have come back again after the protection was expired. We need permanent semi-protection just like Rainforest to permanently fix this issue. Another page, Temperate rainforest also attracts IP vandals as well. It also needs permanent semi-protection.  Z22 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – It seems that every time this article is unprotected the IP vandalism starts. Yes, you could try temporary semi protection, but that fails every time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected agreed. indefinite. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection or rengeblock Persistent vandalism by 217.31.xx.xx IPs. See also List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episodes. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected 1 month Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. nableezy - 19:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 19:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected 3 months - hopefully progress will be made through discussion on the talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent data and reference manipulation by IP users. Requesting semi-protection for a couple of days. Adrian (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I see what you are talking about, but it has just been nominated for deletion and generally it is not desirable to have protection while a deletion discussion is in progress unless the disruption is extremely persistent. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn`t nominated at the time I requested protection. I did`t know it will be nominated. I see 2 IP editors, one active lately, persistent in disrupting this infobox. Anyway, with the deletion process at hand I guess this doesn`t matter any more. Adrian (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistant vandalism. — nerdfighter 18:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Ruslik_Zero 19:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Allow me to edit the article back to how it was sans vandalism without having IP vandals mess around please. =]. Accents 17:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:37.221.170.49 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – Vandalism . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. Talk-page deleted. Lectonar (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

29 March 2013

Indefinite semi-protection: IPs have persistently deleted referenced material about a controversial anti-psychotic called Seroquel (quetiapine). They are deleting negative info about it. We assume that the IPs are people who work for a pharmaceutical company. There are two sections on the talk page that talk about AstraZeneca's self editing. I can provide diffs for the IP edits if needed, but I don't really think this will be contested. Let me know if you need them. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected right, I am semi-protecting, not necessarily because of the removal as such (as if it is not a review article it probably should be removed, but the concerns raised mean that everyone who edits that page should be as identifiable and accountable as possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Transcendence (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. I'm in two minds about this, but I think/hope we can keep this article clean with Pending Changes. The vandalism is very offensive (as you'd expect), but it isn't all that frequent. Bishonen | talk 20:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Pending changes: BLP policy violations. Arctic Kangaroo 16:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 19:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Since it is involved in a current event edits are frequent. However many appear to be extremely supportive of CyberBunker in it's DDoS conflict with Spamhaus, removing critical content, adding blatantly incorrect and sensational sounding information (eg. it being an independent state inside of the Netherlands), using weasel words, references that don't actually support claims made, undue attention for a project called "Stophaus" (a puny forum that really isn't noteworthy with only a few posts). Though the most recent edits come from Italian IPs, this could just be proxy work; strongly suspect the article is being edited by people closely related to CyberBunker. Suggest temporary semi-protection. BabyNuke (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No BabyNuke, it's not a proxy. I'm italian and i dont even know cyberbunker folks. Btw i could start arguing that you could be a "proxy" of Spamhaus folks, trying to further bring the agenta, to get more publicity to your products. Please value the contribs on the basis of the text, not on the basis of a bias.--79.21.61.64 (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protection: Incomplete article with subjective text donated by article subject that requires editing. Editing will occur regularly over next few days. High risk of IP vandalism. High level of IP vandalism on article subject's organization website and social media pages.--02:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Christine M. Clark, B.Sc

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. There are at least three administrators (Bishonen, Drmies, and Writ Keeper) actively editing this page, if there's any problem I expect they'll react quickly. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, we'll keep an eye on it. So far there hasn't been any IP editing at all. Bishonen | talk 14:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Several users have been removing sourced criticisms and other information without explanation for some time now, it seems like they are trying to eliminate all content that isn't sourced to the Church's official site. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, no discussion on article or user talk pages, and all parties are autoconfirmed. I don't think a case has been made to fully protect or block anyone. Gain consensus concerning the sourcing first - what reliably sourced statements are being removed? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent addition of same unsourced, poorly worded content by vavious IP's. DVdm (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. VicIlongo (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC) History of Hiligaynon is deceitfully and chronically deleted which is highly vital in better understanding of language . It is richly-sourced . There's no such thing as Bacolodnon as dialect and with sing-song melodious tone , it has without proof but relates to the blog http://www.experiencenegros.com/hiligaynon-ilonggo-language/ , though its tolerated with my explanation about its history , however it is constantly deleted.[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This page wasn't edited by any IP since 2004. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Roving IP adding personal fan-type opinions to article about a character. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by RHaworth. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Vandalized a few times a week, sometimes more, sometimes less, but also has a lot of constructive IP edits. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Edit warring by IPs and new accounts. . Binksternet (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 06:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - somebody seems to be repeatedly creating accounts and vandalising the page; it's episodic but there's an average of 1-2 vandalism attempts per day over several weeks. Perhaps 2-4 weeks of semi-protection would be appropriate; the article has low edit traffic otherwise.Teapeat (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Stile Project/Archive 1 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP user repeatedly corrupting and removing sources from archived Talk page. Lexein (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – User is community banned and continues to edit their talk page. - MrX 01:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Last edit by AM was five days ago. I don't know why others seem to be trying to stir up a problem where there is not one but I would ask you you both to just leave it alone already. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree - Banned editors are not supposed to continue editing. Acoma Magic should be blocked from editing his talk page, as well as other areas of the encyclopedia. Remember, he was unblocked solely so that he could participate in the ban discussion; nothing more. - MrX 02:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, protection is to be used to stop current problems. There is no current problem, AM seems to have moved on. If he comes back and edits his talk page for any reason other than discussing his ban I'd be happy to revoke his TP access, but there is no current pressing need to do so. In other words Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Declined – User talk pages are not protected except in response to severe or continued vandalism. see, we even have templates just for rejecting such requests, that's a hint for you both. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Disruptive edits from several proxy IPs. Makecat 10:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection Persistent disruption. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: An unbelievably high level of IP vandalism. On 26 March vandals even edit-warred. Page has been protected before to no avail. block log Please consider at least three months' protection. Editor time is better spent elsewhere. There are sufficient senior editors on this page who will properly consider edit requests. - Fantr (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Th4n3r (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Tolly4bolly 13:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

30 March 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Recent spate of vandalism by anon IP(s). Fat&Happy (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks. Dianna (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of vandalism caused by 112.205.159.170 and 120.28.149.181. SenyoritaMaestra (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one week. Dianna (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article is recently being targeted by IP vandals. Requesting temporary protection until vandalism dies down. GrayFullbuster (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three days to start. Please re-report if the activity resumes when the protection wears off. Dianna (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by multiple IP's, this reputable, impartial source, [27], is continually being removed and the relevant demographic information deleted. The ethnic composition of the town is continually being falsified, possibly by biased, ethnically charged individuals. The vandalism has been going on for the better part of a year now, and without some sort of protection this page will continue to be attacked, by hateful individuals spreading false, biased, and propaganda-like information on this page. Abdi 909 (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not seeing the problem. Though some IPs have removed that reference, others have restored it. You don't seem to have participated either on the article or the talk page. Consider explaining your concerns on talk. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Some information has come out saying he died; I'm not sure how reliable the sources saying he died are. (The details are also very vague.) This should be protected to prevent the spread of hoax; a good reference needs to be added to confirm it, and the people editing it right now aren't supplying a source. Also, the page is having a lot of vandalism (not necessarily related to his death) because of the publicity. Endofskull (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done There appear to be plenty of reliable sources for the death now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boing!, we overlapped, and I protected the article for a week, not because of the reliability of the sources about Flair's death but because of other edits by IPs. There were actually also some good IP edits, but there appeared to me to be too much disruption, and there's no way of picking and choosing. I'm going to leave the protection in place; you can remove it if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me - happy to leave it protected. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done by Bbb23. Crazynas t 21:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – This page keeps popping up on my watchlist. Not sure how long to ask for protection for. Izno (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined per this. If either one continues to edit war/engage in disruptive editing they will be blocked. Tiptoety talk 16:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The page has been vandalized three times by two IPs'. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three days. Dianna (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection Continuous unsourced negative content being added, along with additions of anti-program page which doesn't meet NPOV and addition of host Twitter handles which feels more like an invitation to harassment than actually informing readers (generally program host Twitter screennames don't go in show articles, but the large negative campaign against this show seems to suggest bugging the hosts on Twitter will influence the execs). Nate • (chatter) 02:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three weeks. Dianna (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Junebea1 (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three weeks. That won't stop an editor like Rexflex, though, who is auto-confirmed. Please try to engage him in discussion if he persists in adding unsourced content, or report him to WP:AIV. Dianna (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Intermittent spam/vandalism. I'm on the fence as to whether this deserves semi or PC, but I think it's worth giving PC a shot at first at least, since it tends to somewhat decrease the number of edits that need to be reverted in the first place. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism and POV-pushing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. – Connormah (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of vandalism caused by VicIlonggo. SenyoritaMaestra (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Vandalism by a single editor should be reported at WP:AIV - semi-protection would not stop an autoconfirmed editor anyway -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – A minor edit war has broken out over whether or not to show a photo of a lotus pod. One camp believes that it is insensitive to people with the illness, the other camp believes that removing it is wp:Censorship. Photo has been removed and replaced several times. . Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nyttend (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection: User:Flyer22 is perpetually reverting a cosmetic change legitimate under nothing more dramatic than WP:MOSLINK, in order to balance the tone away from defining hebephilia as what it is defined as otherwise in Wikipedia, a form of sexual perversity (under the category chronophilia). There is large edit battle here, mainly waged in the talk page, and this needs careful attention from the editing community, because if Wikipedia is seen to be stealth-normalising, through language tricks, and medicalisation, what are accepted as sexual perversions, this is will extremely harfmul for the the Wikipedia project. jmanooch 01:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

See here for what is going on. The above editor generally doesn't know how Wikipedia is supposed to work, as evidenced by his above request for page protection. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Looks like a content dispute - try to achieve consensus on Talk page or follow WP:DR -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP attack. Protect the page, or block IP... WhiteWriterspeaks 22:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. looks like a content dispute/edit war to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – An IP-editor repeatedly tries to remove a sourced information without Talk page discussion. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent spamming & reverting of different reference links by two IP-hopping editors - neither of which belong on this article anyway. . Biker Biker (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP editors keep modifying content without supporting their changes by reliable sources, thus failing to comply with WP:VERIFY. There were unexplained removal of properly sourced material as well. Jetstreamer Talk 16:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 15:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Ongoing dispute about wheter this is a language or a dialect, without discussion on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: One user has been blocked, issue seems stale. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 22:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

since there is no "edit war" (as i explained here to the user who protected the page) and the main argument is that "BabyNuke says that i'm a proxy, because i write from Italy", i ask the unprotection of the page. The sources are all valid (pcmag.com, rt.com and others). The protection was simply based on the false, because i'm not a proxy. I'm italian, is it legit to use that as an argument to state that "i'm a proxy" ? Does it means that italian people are not allowed to edit the english wikipedia? How can i prove that i'm not a proxy? --79.21.61.64 (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. I see no basis for removing the semi-protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Various IPs adding crystal ball edits after being reverted. If possible, request 72 hour semi-protect. Msw1002 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "if possible" on requesting it? If it weren't possible, you wouldn't have been able to request it :-) Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Just to be sure. Nyttend (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. nableezy - 12:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 12:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week. Tiptoety talk 16:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. nableezy - 12:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 12:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week. Tiptoety talk 16:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. nableezy - 12:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 12:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week. 16:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. nableezy - 12:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 12:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month. Tiptoety talk 16:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. nableezy - 12:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 12:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months. Tiptoety talk 16:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Multiple IPs repeatedly adding taxi/shuttle company listing in defiance of multiple registered editors' reversion. HkCaGu (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs adding spam links. Tolly4bolly 18:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 1 month -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Persistent vandalising by registered and unregistered accounts that are sockpuppets from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lamrongpeng5. The Banner talk 11:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated edit reversions by IPs, most likely astroturfing by someone related to or the subject. Most recent reversion was through an anonymous proxy service. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Sockpuppet IP warrior keeps changing Kurdish origin to Turkish origin. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Frequent target of the India Statistics Vandal. See edit history. HkCaGu (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Biruitorul Talk 04:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days. Tiptoety talk 04:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Biruitorul Talk 04:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days. Tiptoety talk 04:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection: - Persistent vandalism. It is urgent a temporary full-protection (or at least a very long semi-pro). This page is under anon attack from July 2012 with more than 100 edits. The anon ips (92..., 94..., 77..., 178... and 217...) are playing with the "tag" for section blanking (as you can see) adding and removing their nonsense content more and more, or adding false informations as this one (an Hungarian footballer playin for Argentina...). It's necessary and urgent a stop. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Semi-protected for 1 year. INeverCry 03:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Had been semi protected from 25 Dec for 3 months. Since the protection got expired on 25 March, vandalism has come back (more than 40 edits in 5 days). I have reverted the article back to the old version. And for some reason the number of views has suddenly risen from <400 to 1000+. ···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 23:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done INeverCry 03:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP hopping by 202.143.146.198. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: See Talk:ICarly#Unprotect? request. Indef protection 3 years ago. Show has ended so risk of resumption of vandalism higher than normal is minimal. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: The article has a long history of being targeted by the subject (a convicted fraudster) and his associates, which is still continuing. Semi-protection will be needed to deal with ongoing disruptive IP editing. Prioryman (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik_Zero 19:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. VicIlongo (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC) My richly-sourced edition is summarily altered , deleted with total deciet, falsehood , hostility , to advance antiquated , bias , malicious information campaign against Iloilo City. My history is based on profound , explicit literature backed up with references . Economics of Iloilo , Medical Facility , Roadways etc. were referenced with circulating media report.[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik_Zero 19:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: The page has been getting an assortment of vandalism edits for more two years now. Page has been the subject of temporary semi-protection on numerous occasions with no effect. Semi-protection was even added by Jimbo at one time with no effect. Vandalism and BLP edits have moved to the talk page now. Vandalism to the page seems to spike each time Perrette's ex-husband is in the news (he was recently). Requesting that the page itself be granted indef (or very long term) semi-protection and the talk page by granted temporary semi-protection. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik_Zero 19:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Due to the current Sabah conflict taking place. Arctic Kangaroo 07:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Ruslik_Zero 19:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

31 March 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long-term dynamic vandalism. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It's been on and off, I'd be willing to go further if it comes back soon after. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Hi Wiki Admins, There seems to be a persistent vandalism from one particular user he constantly removing/editing one of the long standing sourced material. Hence requesting for a temporary locking on this page. Also, is it possible to lock a particular section of the page? If yes, could the "introduction" section of the page be blocked indefinitely for editing, please? Thanks!. Merenjith (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined No evidence of disruption by new accounts. Further, the requesting user, who has never addressed a comment to the talk page for the article, has been blocked for violation of the three revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP vandalism, the IP is using unneutral words and he loooks like that he wants to edit war the article. Alhanuty (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pages can not be protected because "it looks like it might be vandalized". Page protection is not "pre-emptive". I would re-post if anything does develop. Mlpearc (powwow) 19:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article is now at Daraa Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Armbrust The Homunculus 07:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple incidences of possible vandalism. smileguy91talk 15:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Surprisingly, barely been protected before. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection IP vandalism has resumed since previous protection expired. U-Mos (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Since being unprotected, the Total Drama: All-Stars page is again being hit by anonymous IPs putting in speculative/unconfirmed info, despite warnings against doing so. A longer block may be needed. Creativity-II (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected..--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – As seems to happen w/every major Indian movie release, scores of IPs are adding unsourced statements, POV opinions, etc. Needs a week or two of protection until hype dies down. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected..--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: i do not want anyone edit my page. Amrit Cheema 07:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Declined This is not your page. See WP:OWN. (BTW in the case of full protection not even you could edit the page.) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

indefinitesemiprotection or semiprotection page locked before for excessive vandalism. repeated additions of unsourced material, and especially 5 finger death punchCurb Chain (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Michael Greiner 06:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Daonguyen95 (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Materialscientist. (3 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 08:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Specifically the parts in the last paragraph about testicles being cut off as punishment. jmeeter (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

: Already done by administrator LadyofShalott. --Michael Greiner 06:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – and also persistent additions of unsourced content. Arctic Kangaroo 00:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Michael Greiner 06:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. STATic message me! 04:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An IP-hopper repeatedly adds unsourced information about an aftermarket conversion. Semi protection would stop this (for a while at least). . Biker Biker (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Dianna (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Things seem to have calmed down for now. Please re-file your request if the situation changes. Thanks. Dianna (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thank you Dianna. All the best. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect for a long time. The genre warring and nonconstructive IP editing is not going away for some reason. This activity has been stale for a while now, and needs to cease. It doesn't help the case of the IPs that one of them has called some people "bigoted fools", as seen here. I don't want to donate any more edits to this petty crap. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it is worthy to point out that this page has been protected twice over this same activity in recent months. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 15:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Dianna (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit-warring by IP. Changing the common name of "invasion" to "intervention" edit-warring without discussion and against established consensus. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. It looks to be just one IP, so I've blocked 24 hours for edit warring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Boing. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Was indefinitely semi-protected, but got FPP'd due to an edit war, and now retains only its move protection. One of those school topics that will probably always be vandalized. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Restoring previous level of protection. Dianna (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent anon. user insists on expanding the plot well beyond WP's standards; will not listen to reason. The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Specifically, both of you are blocked for violating WP:3RR and for posting grossly degrading edit summaries. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP vandalism, the IP is using unneutral words and he loooks like that he wants to edit war the article. Alhanuty (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pages can not be protected because "it looks like it might be vandalized". Page protection is not "pre-emptive". I would re-post if anything does develop. Mlpearc (powwow) 19:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Per above ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Constant vandalism and unconstructive edits as well as unsourced edits by IPs. Has been happening since it got unprotected. When it was ever unprotected it was often vandalized. See its history.

70.199.134.203 (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for six months. Dianna (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Vandalism. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 17:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Multiple IPs have re-included information that is similar to what another editor, who is now blocked for edit warring, did. Suspected socks. Xeltran (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I affirm this too. Just removed spam edits similar to the one posted by VicIlongo. SenyoritaMaestra (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 15:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Highly persistent non-constructive edits from an anonymous IP user resulting in edit wars which spanned several months. I managed to temporarily broker a truce (somewhat) on the talk page, but the IP user has recently resumed with vandalism. I have previously requested protection for this article, but was declined. Aero777 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks. I am pretty sure this will be inadequate, but don't want to do long term protection at this point, as the article has never been protected before. Please re-report if the activity resumes when the protection wears off. Dianna (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of vandalism caused by 112.205.159.170 and 120.28.149.181. SenyoritaMaestra (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks. Dianna (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pauley Perrette (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Asked for protection on the page yesterday (request denied), vandalism continues today. Requesting that the page itself be granted indef (or very long term) semi-protection (due to ongoing vandalism) and the talk page be granted temporary semi-protection (due to recent vandalism). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected The problem is on the talk page, not the article page. The article has not been edited since the 28th. I have semi-protected the talk page for three days for BLP violations. Dianna (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2013/03&oldid=1241686439"