Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2013/06

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2013

01 June 2013

Semi-protection. Edit war in progress Moosehadley 12:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Long term disruption by IPs and SPAs pushing WP:FRINGE papers. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Please re-report if the problem worsens. Please try to educate the users as to our sourcing requirements regarding medical articles. Dianna (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect and enable PC: The page was semi-protected because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that PC is back, why not unprotect the page and enable pending changes? Webclient101talk 18:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Welcome to Miami! Lectonar (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Armenian users like Yerevanci, Proudbolsahye and Ninetoyadome all of been which has been previously topic banned from editing Azerbaijani related articles and removing well referenced sentences, has been heavily adding biased information and removed good references, while adding none required tags. Moreover, their sockpuppet IP's heavily section blanking without reading talk procedure in articles which is against Wikipedia's guideline policy.

Furthermore, some of them have been section blanking this topic. I've request topic ban to them and 3 month temporary page protection to this article. NovaSkola (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is a content dispute. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and BLP issues. Koala15 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • User(s) blocked. one IP, who was ready for a block already for other reasons. There's one other incident of vandalism in the past dozen or days or so, but given the high level of constructive IP editing, I think it's best to not protect at this time. Please let us know if persistent problems recur. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection. Content dispute/edit warring.Farhikht (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked.. Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – User:Eolise4356 keeps recreating & adding copyrighted content. –
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection:‎ Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 16:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 7 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Jim1138 (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unconfirmed and unsourced transfer. Kingjeff (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. by Lectonar --j⚛e deckertalk 17:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Blatantly misrepresenting sources to make extremely degrading claims. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 7 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Persistent sock puppetry. This guy is socking again and is editing from Special:Contributions/178.98.27.148 and Special:Contributions/31.109.111.104. This article was previously semi-protected twice to stop him‎, most recently to for one month, until May 25. Since he is back less than a week after the protection expired, I think the article should be protected for longer than one month.--Jahalive (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unsourced transfer speculation. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – BLP vandalism. SFK2 (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Now semi-protection has expired, the same childish vandalism has returned. Can we get it at least set to pending changes?. Biker Biker (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There's been no edits worth keeping from unconfirmed users, so pending changes is not as good an option in this case. Dianna (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Persistent long term vandalism by IPs and new accounts (twice since listed) Widefox; talk 17:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Semi-protection works better when there's few or no valid edits by unconfirmed users. Dianna (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for a year or more considering the history, and an obvious target. A stable DAB hence the PC1 suggestion. The talk page collects some too, but not as much. Widefox; talk 16:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: No recent vandalism or disruptive activity. KyleLandas (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The lack of vandalism and disruptive activity might simply be due to the fact that it is still protected. I do not feel safe enough for the moment to lift this; the article has been heavily vandalised since it is on wikipedia. Add to that that the topic is still quite controversial. Lectonar (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous IP users adding unsourced content, changing tour gross, updating the list falsely with artist's names etc. Pure mayhem every day. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Requesting indefinite semi protect due to persistent troll on mine and others user pages. This page should not need to be changed by others so indefinite should be fine I think. . Blethering Scot 23:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Legoktm (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 20:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected For the bot Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Reaper Eternal.. Legoktm (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism from multiple IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts, but some constructive editing. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 23:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Steven Walling • talk 00:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – One registered user and several IPs. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 23:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. Steven Walling • talk 00:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No protection yet: My radar on this article is negative, it doesn't seem protected yet. PrivateMasterHD (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Loads of recent IP vandalism. 1966batfan (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one more month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs and new users are continuously adding unreliable sources and spam links. Tolly 4 bolly 16:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of a fortnight, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lots of recent IP vandalism. 1966batfan (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three months. Dianna (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page was vandalized 7 times this month. Also it is a bad political condition in Bangladesh. So I'm sure this page will be vandalized in future before the 2014 General Election. Sheikh Hasina is a prime minister of a country. And I don't think it'll be helpful for WP if an article of a country's prime minister vandalize continuously. So please semi-protect this page for at least 6 months. It'll be better if it's 1 year. I'm from Bangladesh and I know the situation here. I beleive you understand my talking. . Pratyya (Hello!) 14:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks to start. The page has never been protected before, so long-term protection is not appropriate at this time. Dianna (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 23:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Steven Walling • talk 00:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – IP editors repeatedly edit warring to include gossip about subject's dating history, generally unverified, certainly unencyclopedic. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Steven Walling • talk 00:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism from multiple IPs and new users, again. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lots of recent IP vandalism. 1966batfan (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

02 June 2013

Unprotect & enable PC: I request unprotecting the page because it is protected due to an edit war caused by NovaSkola who is now topic banned for doing so. There will be no further problems. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected. Follow the instructions and contact the blocking admin first. Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 01:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 01:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected This seems like a particularly bad time to allow IP's onto this article, given recent news. Courcelles 15:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – My user page has been victim to a series of recent personal attacks against me, insulting me etc. check page history for more info. PrabashWhat? 04:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely Dianna (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Requesting one month of semi-protection to prevent continual addition of irrelevant content; it doesn't matter in the slightest that the Gordian Knot was mentioned on a TV show.TheNeutroniumAlchemist (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Michael Greiner 06:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: There are IP's that are constantly adding unsourced info. Koala15 (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The edits are not vandalism. Dianna (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. — Abhishek  Talk 15:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined You need to try talk page discussion first. There's been no talk page edits on this article for over two years. Dianna (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP vandalism resumed after one month semi-protection was lifted. Request 3 month semi-protection. Msw1002 (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2013 Taksim Gezi Park protests (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Massive vandalism - possible sockpuppetry involved. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 02:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – most recent revisions are vandalism and its removal. 1966batfan (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry, by User:Subhaan08. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. The Banner talk 23:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: We have 2 IP addresses constantly making the same unsourced changes to a BLP. No edit summaries, no attempt to discuss. NeilN talk to me 23:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Occasional spamlink insertion and low-level vandalism for the last several months. Try 60-90 days of PC1 and see if the spammers get the hint. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Semi-protection might work better since almost none of the edits from non-confirmed users are being accepted anyways. You might consider that as an alternative in the future. Dianna (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection:‎ Edit warring with copyright violations and NPOV concerns. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. by another admin.-Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Amaury (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Michael Greiner 02:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP editor using different IP addresses keeps changing the height in the infobox by small amounts. This has been ongoing for some months, is never sourced and contradicts the main source for this person. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unsourced speculation. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three days, till the rumors cool down. Please re-report if this turns out to be inadequate. Dianna (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Inbound attacks by IP socks of Ryanjay1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please see also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ryanjay1996. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: High level of vandalism. People are complaining this is the worst song in the world. I know this anti-police song is explicit but never let your guard down for any purpose at all. PrivateMasterHD (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one edit from the last 10 days. How is that a "high level of vandalism"? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined There hasn't been a reverted edit in a month and a half. Please read the protection policy. Michael Greiner 22:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: It is under persistent atack from an IP. IP vandalism and edit warring. Jingiby (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Michael Greiner 22:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism/edit warring. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Michael Greiner 22:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nintendo GameCube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other redirects

Temporary move protection: Someone else renamed the article from "Nintendo GameCube" to "GameCube" last year, which was against the prior consensus. Then Talk:GameCube#Requested_move the new consensus agree with the new name, "GameCube", prompting the nominator to withdraw. George Ho (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Don't see why move protection is needed, no indication anyone is going to go against the consensus that was established. Michael Greiner 21:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tolly4bolly 18:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Michael Greiner 22:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection Indefinitely: Page was temporarily protected from sock user(s) in April which expired on the 25th of May and appears the same sock user(s) is back at it. --TwoNyce 06:24, 1June 2013 (UTC)

Already protected by administrator Bbb23. Indefinite full protection is very rare for an article. Michael Greiner 22:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Fans of this series keep changing the name to an unofficial one, when this has clearly already been decided on the Talk page. . KirtZJ (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tolly4bolly 10:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. IP has stopped after last warning. Lectonar (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism. The IP vandal has also been targeting other Japanese Emperor pages (Emperor Ichijō, Emperor Kazan, Emperor Sanjō) recently after I successfully requested a degree of protection to be added for Emperor Kōmei page - which was previously the IP user's favorite page to vandalize. Seems like the unregistered vandal has found a new favorite page. (Vandal has been editing from the following IPs so far: Special:Contributions/189.170.1.103, Special:Contributions/189.170.1.116, Special:Contributions/189.170.37.95, Special:Contributions/148.225.103.2 and Special:Contributions/189.170.19.139) Splitfusion (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and persistent vandalism, please protect this article from IP.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect the page as well as Rafael Nadal, is constantly vandalized IP address, please stop them.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When was the last time Rafael Nadal was vandalized by an IP? The article is semi-protected....Lectonar (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined The article is under pending changes protection lvl.1 (which means the vandalism does not go "live"), so this should be enough....more care should be taken regarding the acceptance of IP edits. Lectonar (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

03 June 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP editor constantly adding god, and has been doing it for quite some time. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lots of recent IP vandalism. 1966batfan (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protect Sockpuppetry attacks latest by User:GMEmaliceFunded; at least third account today DeceptionAtGMEoffice (talk · contribs) and UMKCdeceitLIES2ACGME (talk · contribs).Novangelis (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – New editor and IP warrior reverting because of how the infobox displays British Raj. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 monhts, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I note for the record that this has been protected five times prior. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I've reverted several instances of vandalism, one vandal has been blocked, but I noticed it again today. The page is changing rapidly as this is news worthy event and it's difficult for regular editors to spot the vandalism. We do have some very helpful IPs editing, so perhaps a short protection of a few days? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. where edit summaries talk about fixing links, and typos, that's one of the vandals. BracketBot spotted that. Everything had to be reverted manually. I reported that IP and he got blocked for 31 hours. I've given warnings to the others. But they keep changing the number of cases and deaths in the info boxes, and add in silly bits that are tedious to go back and fix when they are finally discovered. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Unsourced rumours that may be libellous. Oversight for some recent contributions should be considered. . Iselilja (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Offending edits deleted too. BencherliteTalk 20:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Loads of recent IP vandalism. 1966batfan (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent minor vandalism by anon IPs - almost every edit, going back a long long way, is vandalistic. . andy (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unsourced transfer speculation. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GiantSnowman 15:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unsourced transfer speculation. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GiantSnowman 15:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Extensive vandalism by IPs. —MelbourneStar☆talk 10:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Numpty vandalising using GSM ISP, so very likely to hop to new IP address once blocked. Temporary protection for a couple of days would stop this. . Biker Biker (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Content removal by hopping IPs, after appearance on main page. This should suffice.--Ekabhishektalk 11:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 01:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, no, that's a huge vandal target GedUK  19:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it's a huge vandal target, but pending changes could go well with this article since the page was infrequently edited by IPs and new users. Webclient101talk 20:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it was semi-protected... Legoktm (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi or Move protection: Computer/video game biography policy violations. Needs construction. PrivateMasterHD (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 01:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. There were BLP reasons for the semi-protection. These mass requests aren't a good idea; it would be better to bring pages individually if you think semi-protection isn't needed. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 01:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. It's been an ongoing problem over months in which the same boring nonsense is used to vandalize/disrupt the article. Evenrød (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, no edits since December 2012 SlimVirgin (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Per Talk:Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka this article will need to be re-written. I'd like to protect the current redirect from all registered users until a new version is ready in the incubator. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Hi Chris, that's an unusual request. I think we'd have to see strong consensus to do that, or else serious and persistent policy violations in the previous version. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP changes to remove sourced information or add unsourced rumours apparently due to recent shutdown of the illegal movie streaming site which is the subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. More details would be appreciated if protection is still needed. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Apologize for the hassle - disambiguated article title.. High level of IP vandalism. It's been an ongoing problem over months in which the same boring nonsense is used to vandalize/disrupt the article. Evenrød (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 14 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Webclient101talk 16:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As much as I don't want this user's socking and vandalism, I think I am contacted infrequently by IPs too. Given this user's long history, maybe a rangeblock, or some other way to getting this user away might be better. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've semi-protected for one week, but let me know if you want me to lift that sooner. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. - MrX 15:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 7 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Too much of daily vandalism goes on, repeated protection not helping at all. Needs to be indef'd . —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 14 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: from assorted IP vandalism. Span (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 14 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: This page should be unprotected because the page is being used for propaganda with no references and free wikipedia is a source of free and true knowledge for people from all over the world. Paradigm999 (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, not a chance. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection Has been semi-protected many times, once for 12 months. Still being regularly vandalized with WP:BLP violations.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tolly 4 bolly 11:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 14 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Requesting 3 months semi protection due to high level of IP vandalism, continual changes to Age and personal life without references. Invalid comments on the talk page. Trunky (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 14 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection - Article just came off of semi-protection, and the same IP editor is adding the same content that got the article semi-protected in the first place, and is edit warring to keep it there. - Sudo Ghost 05:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 14 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Looks like it's been increasing in the last week or so, but it's been ongoing for some time. --ElHef (Meep?) 22:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP vandalism with unsourced edits resumed after three day block was lifted. Request one week semi-protection. Msw1002 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 14 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
La jaula de oro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – Someone moved it again while the move request is still ongoing. George Ho (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

La jaula de oro must also be "move-protected". --George Ho (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable PC: The administrator semi-protected the page because the pending changes trial was over. However, now that pending changes is back, it would be a much better idea to have the page unprotected and pending changes enabled. Webclient101talk 02:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. I'm with Rodhullandemu on this one. Any form of unprotection would not be a good idea. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

04 June 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent speculations. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – BLP edit warring. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. As the account adding the material has been blocked, I've added semi-protection for two weeks, but please ask again if full protection is needed. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection - A single editor (blocked for disruptive editing as 89.139.168.33) is using multiple IPs to push their POV, editing through the block, and refusing to use the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Apparently fans are annoyed that they have sold their star player to a rival team. Protect until July 1 (00:00 UTC), which is when summer transfers can first be applied. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Target page name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Also is the default redirect link used when inserting a redirect via the page editor tools. (#REDIRECT [[Target page name]]). Michaelm55 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the last culprit of the mistaken creation of this page and the only one since 2011, and I'm an admin... wouldn't have stopped me. :p :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: By its nature, this article attracts a steady string of IP editors who want to use the article as a soapbox concerning disputes such as whether the new Mattel Scrabble app on Facebook is better than the old one. (Full disclosure: I used to work for and still occasionally consult for Mattel, but in Toy Design, not FaceBook Apps) --Guy Macon (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Support--0pen$0urce (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Daily IP vandalism; defamation ([1], [2]), incivility and unsourced/poorly sourced OR, reoccurring addition of unsourced content that mirrors additions by multiple IPs ([3], [4], [5]), incivility and removal of material that is actually cited. Dan56 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent IP and new accounts. As a popular/high profile article this will be ongoing. Widefox; talk 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alexf(talk) 18:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The article Soledad Mexia has been subject to repeated IP vandalism by submitting it to AfD and creating redirects. I am One of Many (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator JamesBWatson. Alexf(talk) 18:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Newly released movie...persistent vandalism of Box office section by IPs.....temporary for a few days should suffice. Strike Σagle 03:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alexf(talk) 18:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. IP keeps on removing middle name initial for days. Please semi-protect for at least a week. --bender235 (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alexf(talk) 18:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect for one week. Media reporting on a move to Everton but nothing official yet. JMHamo (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 14 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tolly4bolly 10:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alexf(talk) 18:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: vandalism from dynamic ip. Current championship will soon come to an end.Nuno93 (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alexf(talk) 18:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This particular season seems to be hit by vandals daily, and it's getting disastrous. – Recollected • 06:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection, or pending changes protection Repeated insertion of unsourced information into this BLP since late April and apparent sock puppetry (quack, quack), User:108.207.250.230 and User:Tyl0rles have been blocked for these edits, but just today two "brand new" users have started making the same edits. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – In the news for controversial slur at press conference and subject to regular vandalism. TM 10:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I know WP:PEND is unpopular, but this would seem the best solution right now.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Fairly constant vandalism over time, with a smattering of useful contributions thrown in. . --ElHef (Meep?) 03:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 14 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Permanently banned user Doctorlaw has come back with new sock puppets to push WP:ARTSPAM and is now continuing to edit and make legal threats through IPs. This problem has led to temporary protection numerous times in the past. The user has simply waited out the semiprotection (or created new sock puppets in order to evade it). RJC TalkContribs 03:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by another admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbuzz be UNSALTED.

Nimbuzz is a major player in the mobile Over The Top instant messaging market. It has 150 million users, across 200 countries. The Nimbuzz page has been created 6 times, and deleted 6 times. Following this, the page was permanently blocked from creation by User:Jmlk17 on 20 July 2010. Shortly after this, Jmlk17 went inactive, hence I am unable to appeal to him or her. Nimbuzz appears to be mentioned 14 times in the English Wikipedia namespace, and probably would be higher had the page been allowed to exist. An additional attempt to create the page was made at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbuzz_IM. Nimbuzz has pages on the German, Arabic, Spanish, French, Indonesian, Italian, Portuguese and Russian Wikipedias.

I have written new content for Nimbuzz from scratch, and I don't work for them or anything like that. I request that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoltColaOfEvil/Nimbuzz be moved to article space as I believe it is notable enough for a page.

JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected SlimVirgin (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Persistent sockpupptery. User:KunoxTxa. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Persistent sockpupptery. User:KunoxTxa. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Persistent sockpupptery. User:KunoxTxa. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Persistent sockpupptery. User:KunoxTxa. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Persistent sockpupptery. User:KunoxTxa. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpupptery. User:KunoxTxa. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dawnseeker2000 02:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: User request. Qwh (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Jac16888 Talk 22:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now; not clear whether it's vandalism or editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing, including the additions of improperly cited or unsourced material from IP's. Wesley♦Mouse 02:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I am unsure if this should be done, but another sysop may handle this case. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Cncmaster/Archive 2 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: User request. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 20:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Indef semi. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism, continuing after lifting of previous protection. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Vandal is auto-confirmed so semiprotection (and pending changes) won't do anything. Michael Greiner 20:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 7 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

05 June 2013

Indefinite semi-protection: Switch to semi to allow modification without getting these misplaced drafts. Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. I also setup the editnotice from WP:YFA, hopefully that will help as well. Legoktm (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: -edit warring This user, coming under different IPs after being blocked, insists adding unsourced text in spite of warnings [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:46.139.158.32} Raysdiet (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alexf(talk) 18:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Declined Also, if you want to have a page with info about you, use your user space. Michaelm55 (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: ip vandalism HowardCM (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protectedHowardCM (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try it again. The page should show that it exists. HowardCM (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't apply semi-protection to your own page; an admin must do that, and judging from your history of applying s-p templates to your page, I don't expect this request to be approved, not to mention user talk pages are very rarely protected in any form. Nate • (chatter) 18:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm administrator (self-nominated). What s-p templates ? I barely use them. HowardCM (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating yourself (even when done correctly) does not make you an admin, you need to actually be approved, for which you need to have the experience necessary to show yourself capable--Jac16888 Talk 18:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Content dispute/edit warring – No effort made to address on-going and persistent content dispute at TP. On reflection, looks like block-evading IP hopper. RashersTierney (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for quick response. RashersTierney (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: People insist on adding frivolous content. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  15:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 18:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Until end of day - persistent vandalism of featured article. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 72 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 18:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – We've got tons of vandals here. DaL33T (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alexf(talk) 18:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. King Jakob C2 12:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Also kept indef move protection. See the log for past actions by other admins. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long term semi-protection. Persistent unsourced addition of negative BLP content by IP-shifting users. Address range too wide for range block (99.231.106.68, 99.232.136.124, ...) Page was protected before. Seems not to help. Now they have created a username PaganPleasures (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the purpose. DVdm (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I also continued the indef move protection. Have you reported the suspected sockpuppetry? Bearian (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since they are single purpose, I hadn't planned to report SP. If/when they start again when the protection expires, I will. Cheers and thx. - DVdm (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unsourced transfer speculation. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Move protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This has been semi-protected over a dozen times in the past, for three to ten days, and often move-protected, so more was needed. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For background, please see this very long log page. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent addition of fan speculation/unverified info Rdlobo (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It's not that bad at the moment. Only two IP edits this month, and neither were really vandalism. GedUK  12:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection At least 5 RMS, much of the talk page history is requested moves, and there are several instances of unilateral moves against consensus. It is clear the title of this article is divisive, but people should talk it out via RM, so requesting permanent move protection accordingly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to a week-long moratorium on a page move while debate continues. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for this, but the debate is not raging currently - this is more of a protective block. Given the page has been moved to at least 6 different names over the past 3 years, and had 5 different RM discussions, I think a pre-emptive indefinite protect, or at least for 1 year, should be considered. Cheers. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent reverts by dynamic IP who refuses to discuss. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protectedI was protecting it as you were making the request.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: This article has been experiencing disruptive activity, with a recent flair in vandalism over the last few hours. In addition to this fact, it has been the subject of interest for certain editors that are banned from Wikipedia. DarthBotto talk•cont 06:17, 05 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Anons persistently adding completely unsourced info. Egghead06 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Anons repeatedly making unsourced or poorly sourced claims about subject's birth date. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. INdef semi would be way too much for a first protection. I'd like to give PC a try because it should work well on a situation like this with pretty low editing rates. IF problematic edits are being approved by patrollers, then we can look at semi protection. GedUK  12:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For persistent Vandalism and/or for the addition unsourced info. Digifan23 (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of fan speculation/unverified info by IP editors following expiry of semi-protection on May 20. Longer block needed. Creativity-II (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. Historically problematic sockmaster who frequents the talk page is back - this time with dynamically changing IP address. I appreciate that it is a talk page, which traditionally is not semi-protected, but I don't think anyone is going to complain for a 72-hour protection on the talk page of a school's article. Singularity42 (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. It seems to have settled down. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Most recent revisions are ip vandalism and its removal. 1966batfan (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of fan speculation/unverified info by IP editors three days after removal of semi-protection. Longer block may be needed. Creativity-II (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – PC is not working here. Almost all the edits by new users and IPs have been vandalism. . Tolly4bolly 08:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. I've kept the same expirty date. GedUK  11:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism where the same user, through different IPs, keeps repeating the same vandalism. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator ronhjones.. GedUK  11:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Legoktm (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 20:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This is a page about a Bengali language little magazine which is known for the philosophical works it's issue. I check every references included here. And all of them are relevant to this. Thank you. Leela Bratee 19:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC). Leela Bratee 19:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, not clear why it's needed SlimVirgin (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing, including the additions of improperly cited or unsourced material from IP's. I had made a request yesterday but the thread has archived itself, and an admin member has labelled it as "not done". In previous years Eurovision articles such as this have been semi-protected at this early stage as they have become victims of severe vandalism from IPs adding unsourced and speculative information. Some of which had been reported on various websites such as ESCToday.com, ESCKaz.com and even the official website Eurovision.tv; and they accused Wikipedia of "causing false hype regarding countries that were not planning on participating". Wesley♦Mouse 13:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. Can you give some examples of the vandalism/problematic edits? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article is edited a lot by IP users, who tend to rearrange the page as well as add false information to certain sections. The vandalism is usually persistent and is very tedious to be constantly reverting all of it. Creativity97 21:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For two months now this page has seen several reverts with an IP-hopping editor, who insists on keeping this article like a gameguide. Talks and warnings have made no difference. A temporary semi-protect might do the trick. Soetermans. T / C 13:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was protected as a redirect a few months ago, because of a cut and paste move by a new user, and partly because of confusion over the topic of the target article (now resolved, see Paris College of Art and its hatnote), but no expiry was set and now it's a double redirect. Peter James (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. I also fixed the redirect.SlimVirgin (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... SlimVirgin, you missed unprotecting Ecole Parsons à Paris and fixing ITS redirect. One of Peter's requests had a E, and the other had a É. Was this intentional that you missed it? Michaelm55 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is now Done. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I unprotected École Parsons à Paris and thought the second request was repetition. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page was vandalized within 48 hours of protection template removal. Paris1127 (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: This person just died recently. Vandalism/sock puppetry could happen at anytime. PrivateMasterHD (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: This person just died recently. Vandalism/sock puppetry could happen at anytime. PrivateMasterHD (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. I can't see recent vandalism there, but please ask again if that changes. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page is subject to multiple promotional spam uncited content additions from a series of anon IP and new SPA accounts. . ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 14 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

06 June 2013

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism is not frequent, but is the only contribution to the article for quite a while, all form IP's. TimL • talk 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruption. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Needs improvement. PrivateMasterHD (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, There's almost no vandalism there at all that I can see. GedUK  12:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection: - edit dispute between someone running a pro-Jodi blog and other users.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I don't think that's reached edit war levels yet. GedUK  12:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Edit war, with over 30 edits in just over a week with regard to anti-Israeli comments and content. No significant discussion on the talk page. Suspected sockpuppets. --Dmol (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post script - I just noticed that the issue has been on the talk page but is archived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linux_Mint/Archive_Israel-Palestine_Controversy --Dmol (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, This has probably gone a bit stale by now, and there's a substantial discussion on the talk page, so I think I can decline this now. Relist if it picks up again, but it should be for full protection, not semi. GedUK  12:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Target for a serial IP vandal. SFK2 (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator JamesBWatson. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Kingjeff (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: This also applies to Dirty Pretty Things (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Eleanor Put Your Boots On (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Klaxons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Lucid Dreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Murdoc Niccals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), No You Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Rab C. Nesbitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Tonight: Franz Ferdinand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ulysses (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Walk Away (Franz Ferdinand song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A number of ever-changing anonymous IPs has been edit warring over these articles and likely more, changing any mentions of them being English/Scottish to British and vice-versa. This happens every day or two and has been going on for over a month now, with the anons showing no sign of heeding any warnings or engaging in any talk page discussions. Semi-protection should at least force these anons to register accounts if they want to continue edit warring and should also make it easier to contact them. I previously took this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring but nothing came of it, so I'm bringing it here. -- I need a name (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blood: Franz Ferdinand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Die on the Floor/Katherine Hit Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Fallen / L. Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) too. -- I need a name (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm in the process of semi-protecting them all for a month. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Vandalism by different IPs (but undoubtedly the same user) originally on page Parker Lundgren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)—which got semi-protected yesterday—now moves to pages of other Queensrÿche band members. It might be advisable to temporarily also semi-protect Michael Wilton, Scott Rockenfield and Todd La Torre. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I've left it at him for the moment, but if he hits one of the others as well, I'll do all of them if you tell me. GedUK  12:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This had been indefinitely semi-protected by User:Hoary but the semi-protection was automatically removed when full protection expired (a glitch in our system). Could someone please restore the semi-protection; the article has faced BLP issues over the long term. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. We'll see what the need is after that period. Maybe indef again next. Alexf(talk) 19:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template correction: No expiration date is listed on the padlock template. 21:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)PrivateMasterHD (talk)
Semi-protected for three months by Alexf. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Need this article protected while attempting to build consensus for neutral language in this controversial BLP. Federales (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. I can't see the need for it, but if you have diffs showing the problem, please ask again. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: user request. Qwh (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Courcelles 23:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Long term target of banned user HarveyCarter using IP 92.7.*** and registered sock accounts. RashersTierney (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. →AzaToth 20:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bad call. As if, having for two years entirely ignored their ban, they are suddenly going to see the light. We either enforce bans or we don't. RashersTierney (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected. The only thing I can chalk this decline up to is an unfamiliarity with this SPI. Years-long problem. Courcelles 00:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent reverts by IP editor who refuses to discuss ignoring edit summary indicating navbox should contain actual articles. --Spshu (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – spam article about entirely non-notable company, created 3 times in 4 months by serial spammer/linkspammer who's just been listed at AIV and will probably be blocked in a minute. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm running into bugzilla:49174 when trying to salt it. Legoktm (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creation protected. It seems to have worked okay this time. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: IP vandals continually asserting four years dead channel is coming back; pending probably a good frustrating step to chase them away. Nate • (chatter) 11:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
La jaula de oro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unprotection Slim intended to move-protect them (see archive). Now RM is official, no need to be protected anymore. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Courcelles 23:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. (+rangeblock). Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeat of edit war by SPAs shortly after expiry of previous protection. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I can't see it at the moment. The most recent content removal doesn't seem to be the same that was happening before the previous protections, so I'm not certain it's the same. ANother admin may spot something I've missed though. GedUK  12:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dispute over a player's nationality. 187.234.23.93 (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Same as posted in AIV on this issue. Both users warned. Alexf(talk) 19:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect & enable pending changes protection: The page is currently semi-protected because the pending changes trial was over at that time. However, now that pending changes is back, can we try re-enabling pending changes instead? Please note that this BLP page received excessive BLP violations and it would be better for the page to have some protection rather than zero protection. Webclient101talk 04:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected If we already know the page attracts excessive BLP nonsense, allowing IPs to touch it will lead to more work as the history will need to be eventually Revdel'ed or oversighted. Courcelles 18:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

07 June 2013

Temporary semi-protection lots of vandalism from IP editors. Maybe 3 days would be enough to put them off.jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: an argument over the start date of the 21st century (1-Jan-2000 vs 1-Jan-2001) in viewer feedback on ESPN Cricinfo cricket commentary has spilled over into repeated IP edits of this page, changing the start date back and forth. Seventeen IP edits today and counting. Semi-protection for 24hrs should be enough. Dricherby (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Random student trying to launch his acting career. Completely non-notable so far. Page created five times in five hours. Maybe he'll be notable in a year. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator JohnCD.. Legoktm (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought just the same, Captain C, so I protected for a year. JohnCD (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs changing tips and "what to avoid" guidelines; also, this page is not the right place to post article feedbacks. Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Editing of this article by new or unregistered users must be disabled to avoid vandalism. Himanis Das  talk 11:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Editing rates are far too low for protection, and there's no obvious vandalism at this stage. GedUK  12:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 06:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Non-administrator comment) Not enough disruptive edits. Only 2 reverts in this month and 7 reverts in last 47 days. Protection span has not been mentioned in request. A temporary protection will not be helpful because disruptive edits are occurring in every 6—7 days and this article does not require an indef full protection. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 07:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  12:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary protection: I watch this page but I'm uninvolved. There seems to be a dispute on this page about the subject's lineage which is contentious. There has been a sustained edit war between a number of seemingly-SPAs and IPs. At least one person has tried to bring the dispute to the talk page but no one else seems interested in talking. Seems like it needs a third party to protect for a few weeks or something. —Ed!(talk) 02:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – BLP vandalism. SFK2 (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also last 50 revision are vandalism and reverting vandalism.--Pratyya (Hello!) 10:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined ·addshore· talk to me! 10:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. All edits described were coming from a single IP User talk:115.134.9.198 ·addshore· talk to me! 10:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – recreated three times in last year, if indefinite is inappropriate please modify. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. I've given it 6 months because I can see that it could become notable in the future. GedUK  12:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP edit vandalism and other vandalism. Aaaccc (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  12:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: The article is suddenly attracting a lot of vandalism for some reason.  Yintan  12:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – For 3—5 days or until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Muslim pogroms in India finishes.. . Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 07:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Shirt58.. GedUK  12:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent guarding of contents by party or parties with likely personal or professional association with the subject entry. Continual reversion of good faith edits by guarding editor who then defines edits as "vandalism". All attempts to reach concencus with editor in question met with off topic and convoluted arguments. Current edit is acceptable, but fear party with possible COI will turn it back into a glorified fan page rife with invalid citations.

Already protected by administrator Bbb23.. GedUK  12:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Spam edit war Jim1138 (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: This regards that a baseball player has been recently selected as the #1 draft pick for an MLB team not too long ago. Vandalism/sock puppetry could happen soon. PrivateMasterHD (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Frequent vandalism after the end of the last protection. STATic message me! 21:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. GedUK  12:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Kathovo talk 11:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short-term BLP vandalism, previous protection expired on June 4th. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Continue edit warr on the next match scenarios. Stigni (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. I've semi protected it for two weeks to stop the IPs. The two users need to be warned for edit-waring and pointed to the FOOTY consensus. If they continue we can take action against them as individuals. GedUK  11:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·addshore· talk to me! 11:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP disruption. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·addshore· talk to me! 10:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short-term should be good enough. King Jakob C2 23:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·addshore· talk to me! 10:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Frequent vandalism since the end of the last protection period. STATic message me! 22:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 15 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·addshore· talk to me! 10:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Mountaincirque (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: He is continously blanking his user page and talk page while undergoing sock puppet investigation, please lock the page until we have resolved this. ArleneCavendish (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. Hi Arelene, is there a need for those posts to stay on his talk page? I'm thinking that whoever is dealing with the SPI will issue a block and tag the pages if appropriate. Please let me know if I've misunderstood. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect for a few weeks... many unhelpful IP edits as you can see. JMHamo (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. It looks like normal editing, but if it's vandalism/disruption, some diffs would help. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Announcement of his appointment to the Senate is attracting vandals. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 17:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. It looks okay at the moment, but please ask again if it resumes. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Constant sock puppetry and vandalism, from page blanking, removing family members, replacing them with goofy names, etc. etc. Article has been temporarily protected in the past two times with no success the user(s) just will not stop. ArleneCavendish (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. I've added semi-protection for 14 days. If you still feel it needs full protection, please post some diffs and I'll look again. I see there's an SPI for Thesomeone987, so if that's the issue it may be dealt with soon. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Elizium23 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. There have been no edits for almost 24 hours, so it seems okay for now. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 21:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done As you yourself wrote, this is "Content dispute/edit warring". Take the content dispute to the article's talk page, then escalate to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if not resolved. If there is an edit war in progress, then go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, pages are protected for a period of time if there is edit warring taking place. I'm not sure why this article is an exception. Furthermore, I'm an uninvolved editor who noticed this and opted to request page protection. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 16:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The edit war has been going on for some time and you can see from this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Being Vandalized that both editors have been told to go to the talk page and discuss the situation yet at this moment it is still pristine. Page protection is the only way we are going to get them to discuss things and the decline is a mistake that makes no sense. MarnetteD | Talk 01:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Over the last couple of months, IP editors have repeatedly removed the name of a notable faculty member for some unknown reason (no edit summary; VU website confirms she's still employed there). Esrever (klaT) 18:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here for indication that the targeted professor is indeed still a faculty member. Esrever (klaT) 18:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Edit warring Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of vandalism. Spidey104 14:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Lord Roem.. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Several anonymous edits keep listing Powerball winner from Publix under notable people which is violation of WP:N and the winner herself does not have a Wikipedia article. --ZLMedia 14:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP hopping editor suddenly enforcing what he believes to be a "consensus" version of the guideline based on a discussion from 5 months ago despite the "amendment" having never appeared before; likely the IP of a banned editor. —Ryulong (琉竜) 17:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion took place 3 months ago and was 4:1 in favor of the current wording. Did it ever occur to you that there might be a reason I am editing logged out? Maybe one sockpuppet on the losing side of that debate was posting (and is continuing to post) personal information about me off-wiki? 182.249.241.22 (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's not my problem. You should not be logging out to avoid scrutiny because of some asshole harassing you off project when it is so obviously you. There was no clear outcome from that debate and the wording you have suddenly decided to impliment on the page certainly has no consensus because you just made it up yourself within the past 24 hours.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell whether this is a regular content dispute or disruptive editing/vandalism. To the anon, are you willing to stop reverting and discuss on the talk page instead? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. I see there's discussion on talk so hopefully protection isn't needed. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protection: User request within own user space --Archcaster (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – User talk pages are not protected except in response to severe or continued vandalism. Jac16888 Talk 19:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archcaster userspace requests

Semi-protection: User request within own user space --Archcaster (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Jac16888 Talk 19:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

08 June 2013

Temporary full protection: Immediately after the end of the previous FP, the same parties are edit warring over the same content. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-length semi protection: Long-term, slow-burning edit war by various IPs that insist on doing this edit:[6] (which is the first iteration of the edit). Article hasn't had any positive contributions by other IPs for a while either. Can't block the IP as it's a dynamic one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Pending changes is... not working out. No constructive IP/non-autoconfirmed edits, and plenty of unconstructive ones. Vacation9 21:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Legoktm (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by various IPs. Additionally, several sections are being arbitrarily blanked. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 20:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Persistent BLP violations by anons and SPAs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note this began with Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song). Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. All articles listed have been semi'd. Legoktm (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Webclient101talk 17:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Steven Walling • talk 17:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection - edit warring between two editors. Frietjes (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I can lift the protection if consensus is reached and edit warring will cease. Steven Walling • talk 18:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. Semi-protected until June 17th. Seems appropriate. Steven Walling • talk 18:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Addition of unsourced positions by IPs and socks. Endemic and longterm concern to all K-pop articles. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Steven Walling • talk 18:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: - This conference is in the news this weekend, and attracts much conspiracy theorist attention. A series of edits from unregistered users with Australian IPs have been used to insert poorly sourced or irrelevant information, and repeatedly mark the page as POV when these edits were rejected. - Crosbie 13:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Acroterion (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – The article has previously been protected, but no longer is, and now the vandals, both IPs and newly created SPAs, are at it again, making unsourced changes relating to Bangladesh. Thomas.W (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Steven Walling • talk 17:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpupptery, see Songs in A Minor as an example. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Steven Walling • talk 17:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpupptery. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Steven Walling • talk 17:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Frequent additions of unsourced content or vandalism. STATic message me! 17:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: For the same reason I request the protection for the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round, add the next matchday scenario is against consensus (OR, Crystal). Stigni (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one week. Hope this is long enough if it's just about next match day, though I couldn't tell from the history. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – The page had a full protection because of a large number of sock puppets (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AbioScientistGenesis/Archive). Apparently the person is back now. Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Reddit related vandalism: [7] likely to continue. Vacation9 00:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Michael Greiner 01:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Repeated addition of BLP material without reliable sources by socks and sock IPs. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Unprotection: Page has been fully protected for quite a while, no DR pending, previous RFC closed. Several discussions on talk page are not getting wide response, so building consensus for editprotected requests is cumbersome. suggest movement to semi or pending, or perhaps 1RR or something. If everyone plays nice normal BRD. . Gaijin42 (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Protecting admin is inactive, so I'll lower this to semi. Courcelles 18:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP-hopping POV-pusher (from Energy Catalyzer article, which has been semi-protected) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 00:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent addition of spamlinks. ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 18:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – IPs adding material against WP:BLP, and removing of page tag (unreferenced). Murry1975 (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

09 June 2013

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism, especially from users whose articles have been tagged for deletion by me. smileguy91talk 15:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined →AzaToth 15:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: BLP violations, edit warring, vandalism, etc. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. I've added two weeks semi-protection. Please ask again if it still needs full protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Time out needed to show "ITE College East" that this is not their own page and let them stop their spamming. The Banner talk 03:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This looks more like spamming than a content dispute, and as one account has been blocked, semi-protection is enough stop the replacement account from editing the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The I.P. has insisted on adding TMZ-esque material and has been unreceptive to collaboration. A current investigation is open about a potential sockpuppet account. The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The article has never been protected before, so jumping to indefinite semi-protection is not appropriate at this point. Dianna (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Very high level of unsourced edits by Anon users. STATic message me! 01:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. →AzaToth 13:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Flag Debate

Australian Flag Debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodyrootes (talk • contribs) 12:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Hi Jody, Australian flag debate (note the lower case) isn't currently protected, so let me know what you had in mind. There's also no recent editing there, in case you meant to request protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Being vandalized by two IP editors'. I dream of horses (T) @ 05:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, as those two IPs are both static. I've blocked them for 24 hours. Let me know if problems continue. Bishonen | talk 07:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. A lot of people are complaining about this Obama-care thingy. PrivateMasterHD (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Legoktm (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect for a few weeks. IP vandalism due to a rumour of a move to Australia. JMHamo (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Reliable sources report that he has been approached by Melbourne Victory, no more than that. Shirt58 (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Created several times as MuneyMitch and Muney Mitch. Cindy(talk) 04:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both redlinks Creation protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Heavy vandalism; high-profile article. Kevin12xd (contribs) 21:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Let's try pending changes before indef semi-PP. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Going for indef semi here, since it seems every time the protection expires the low-intensity disruptive edits start up again. . §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected I'd rather give pending changes a go before indef semi-protecting. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IPs adding unrelated and unsourced white nationalism. Previously protected 17 April. Blackguard 01:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi protection- Another page hit by 31.6.44.73. Just in case the user comes back under another IP real soon. Crboyer (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi protection-An IP 31.6.44.73 keeps vandalizing my page with a picture of nude Egyptians. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 01:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and can you extend that to my User Page, because I think he'll get to that too. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 01:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I need it desperately, he came back under a different IP! Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 01:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 12 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I can make the one on your userpage indefinite if you want, just drop a note on my talk page. Legoktm (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that file needs to go on the bad file page...--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say this, but that goes against WP:NOTCENSORED. It has a place in an encyclopedia, just on articles on Egyptians, not user's talk pages. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 01:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP editor edit warring, and making changes opposed by all other edtiors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected. Hi, it seems to be a content dispute with BLP implications, so I've added three days full protection. Please ask if you need an extension. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent spree of BLP vios. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-Protection: Persistant vandalism, people changing fighter names etc. Luchuslu (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Four speedies so far. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by RHaworth. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: - edit-warring betweens several user and biased user Geebee running a pro-Jodi site. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but new situation since last request bot.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined for now. Semi-protection wouldn't help, and I can't see any issues that would require full protection. Please ask again if the situation changes or if I've misunderstood it. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Slim. The issue is currently on ANI.[8] Bishonen | talk 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – There is some kind of concerted attack by socks on K-pop articles these past few days. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Steven Walling • talk 17:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP vandalism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Steven Walling • talk 18:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There's been no vandalism for a day or so, and helpful edits by newbies, feel free to bug me again if it increases. Steven Walling • talk 18:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10 June 2013

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Chewie (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Clearly with news of being wanted, the IP's adding BLP issues are making it a problem. (To note I have commented about this article on its talk page before enabling the protection, but I don't believe that makes me involved to consider page protection.) --MASEM (t) 20:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Move protection: Highly visible page – repeated move without discussion, contrary to official sources for name of case. Trial starts today, highly visible and prone to vandalism. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Currently the reverting is isolated to just you and The Maigne Event. I would strongly encourage that you both initiate discussion on the talk page. Further reverts without discussion from either users could potentially results in blocks. Mike V • Talk 15:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protection: This is an attack page that is repeatedly recreated by User:GoldMorgsCom. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 13:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. by Yunshui (talk · contribs). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: speculation on a move to Benfica is bringing people out to update it as a done deal. Can we semi protect for 24-48 hours until things are more clear cut. noq (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – edit warring. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 17:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Non-administrator comment) After disagreeing with Kimur I was reverting to the article version before his edition, and proceeded to the talk page. While Kimur does reply there, he keeps on with his edition. I'm just leaving the previous version, without doing more than three reverts on less than 24 hours.—Nuno93 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – sockpuppet attack. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not necessarily sockpuppets, just a dynamic IPv6 user. Legoktm (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Numerous libelous edits made by same editor who keeps creating sockpuppets. Case is filed at SPI. Please help stop this guy. Thank you. Manway 17:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There may be some rev-deletion necessary as well. I'll take a closer look. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: - never ending re-adding of birthdate which has been going on for years by IPs. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – BLP violations have resumed after last protection ended. Webclient101talk 15:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I've provided a lengthy protection as the vandalism and BLP-violations started up again following the expiry of the last 6 month protection. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Created three times this week. It's the new name of Elang mahkota teknologi, salted after creation four times this week. . Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 15:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Following removal of last semi-prot, daily repeated recurrence of IP vandalism from a variety of IPs started up again. No IPs have added usable content. Please increase duration of semi-prot. Lexein (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Continuous vandalism by both unregistered and new users. The edits are negative, usually messing with names and chunks of important information. NanishaOpaenyak (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of unsourced edits/additions by anon IP editors. STATic message me! 18:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection: An editor is persistently trying to disambiguate the article title, rather than start a discussion for consensus. || Tako (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Legoktm. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Brand new high-profile article that has already attracted vandals and seems likely to pull in a lot of polarized POV editors over the next few weeks. Federales (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better protection is required, especially from IP users and newly-registered users, per above reasons. -Mardus (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for time being It's worth noting that annoying as these edits are, an IP (maybe the same person) has helped revert vandalism on several occasions in the last few hours. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC) From 03:00 to 04:00 anonymous contributors made six good edits, while they only made four bad edits, two of which could be considered vandalism. IP's in this case may feel they have good reason to remain anonymous given the subject matter, and overall they have been a benefit, which protection would hinder. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 04:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Considering this topic is in the spotlight right now and the page is already seeing fairly frequent vandalism (multiple counts per hour I'd say) it's worth protecting it for the moment. I agree that it is likely to attract more vandalism over the days to come and it's worth being pro-active in this case.BabyNuke (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I'm going to decline this for now. I've reviewed the page history, and there are enough IP constructive edits that semi-protection would be a negative. There are plenty of eyes on the page that any vandalism will quickly be reverted. Legoktm (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – unconfirmed transfer speculation added by IPs. Mr tim111 (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Mattythewhite. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. BijoyChakrabarty (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Legoktm (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP minor attack. Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Maybe they're just reading about this in school? Bishonen | talk 10:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism, people keep changing the current Doctor's status while his scheduled farewell episode is not until the end of this year, and nothing is known beyond that. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High level of vandalism. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are all the same vandal, and also the same as on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. User is creating new accounts after being blocked to make the same type of edits to articles about game shows. See User_talk:Franz_Baby_256#Your use of multiple accounts. — MusikAnimal talk 16:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection Frequent vandalism or unhelpful edits by unregistered IPs since a previous protection was taken down on May 26. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Just to stop any more pesky vandals. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 14:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Legoktm (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: On Google. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent edit warring by IP user who is pushing OR and fringe theory. BabelStone (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment: I took a look at the page history and the so called "fringe theories" that the IP is accused of pushing, and found nothing fringe in them. Quite the opposite, because it is the article as User:BabelStone is trying to preserve it that is full of fringe theories and unsourced or badly sourced claims. Which goes for both Runes and Ancient kings of Finland, so I'll add the same comment to both of them. Thomas.W (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The IP's claim that the Germanic languages of Northern Europe have a Finnish origin and that the oldest Runic inscriptions are in Finnish are however very fringe. So the IP's edits are a mix of fringe and not fringe. As is the entire article, even without the IP's edits. Thomas.W (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined This appears to be a content dispute. Discussion is taking place on the talk page and an experienced editor is monitoring. I have warned the IP for his aggressive behaviour, edit warring, and personal remarks. Please re-report if the situation changes. Dianna (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: The now appropriate article is located at The Art of Dying (Ca$his album), however that page must be moved to this one to avoid using special characters or stylizations in article titles. STATic message me! 18:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. The original title was salted, and the current title is at AfD, so it's best to wait until that's over. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent edit warring by IP user who is pushing OR and fringe theory. BabelStone (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment: I took a look at the page history and the so called "fringe theories" that the IP is accused of pushing, and found nothing fringe in them. Quite the opposite, because it is the article as User:BabelStone is trying to preserve it that is full of fringe theories and unsourced or badly sourced claims. Which goes for both Runes and Ancient kings of Finland, so I'll add the same comment to both of them. Thomas.W (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined The IP appears to be attempting to add sourced content. If there's a problem with the validity of the sources, please discuss it with the other party or take it to the relevant notice board. Dianna (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent edit warring by IP user who is pushing OR and fringe theory. BabelStone (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment: I took a look at the page history and the so called "fringe theories" that the IP is accused of pushing, and found nothing fringe in them. Quite the opposite, because it is the article asUser:BabelStone is trying to preserve it that is full of fringe theories and unsourced or badly sourced claims. After taking a look at King of Kvenland I'll extend my comments to that article too. Vital parts of that article as BabelStone wants to keep it (including a list of fictional kings that is supposed to prove that kings of Sweden, England and various other places were of Finnish descent) is based on nothing more than totally unsubstantiated claims made in personal blogs, and blogs are not reliable sources. Thomas.W (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined This looks like a content dispute to me. There's been no talk page edits since 2006. Please discuss the proposed edits with the other user on the talk page. Dianna (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Attack seems to be over. Please re-report if the situation changes. Dianna (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit war appears to be in full progress. (I am an uninvolved editor.) Judging by the talk page, there is an extensive amount of disagreement on a range of issues, including whether this article should even exist. I think a cooling-off period would be useful. Taroaldo ✉ 03:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: subsequent to my posting of a message on both editors' talk pages, there was some discussion between them on the article's talk page. While the tone was less than pleasant, it appears some progress was made. Hopefully it will be sufficient. Taroaldo ✉ 04:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Normal editing seems to have resumed for the time being. Please re-report if problematic activity starts up again. Dianna (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Consistent unsourced additions mostly by anonymous users. This will likely continue until more information is released. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 03:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This front page article is the object of persistent vandalism attack. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Toddst1.. Legoktm (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism from various IPs. Amaury (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 00:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Can't tell what's going on. The article is nothing but a giant toybox of vandals. --Ginsuloft (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Continual addition of misinformation by IP users. List has been protected in the past. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Blocked editor and serial sock puppeteer User:Ashton 29 keeps using multiple IPs to push though their edits. Short term semi protection is needed. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Every other edit to this page recently has been vandalism or spam. Please can we have semi-protection or even better pending changes (as the odd IP does have constructive material to contribute)?. Biker Biker (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a one month trial period. Please re-report if this works out and we can extend the protection or switch to semi Dianna (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Lord Roem. Protection expires 16 June. Dianna (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Plug-unplug IP continually removing content from page; suspect an IP sock of a blocked user. Nate • (chatter) 03:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Heavy vandalism from IP vandals. Adding opinionated and defaming materials. Semi protection so that no one can edit without responsibility. Esha Karim (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – for vandalism and/or the addtion of unsourced (and nonsense) info for programing. Digifan23 (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Article has been created at Blayne Wilson (footballer) as this was salted. . The-Pope (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected and article moved. Dianna (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: She is the subject of a high profile current event. Aaaccc (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's time to re-semi-protect my user talk page, as the trolls are getting annoying. They can post on my unprotected page if they want to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism, esp. to the Temperament section TKK bark ! 22:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

11 June 2013

Indefinite semi-protection: IP vandalism to insert claims that cabbits are real creatures has continued despite two consecutive year long periods of semi-protection (May 2011-May 2012 and May 2012-May 2013) and an earlier six month semi-protection in 2007-2008. Since the IP vandal(s) don't seem to be going away and return immediately when the article becomes unprotected, I think it should be semi-protected indefinitely. Calathan (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Gamaliel (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: This player has signed with Manchester United but the football project recognized that he will not be on their roster until 1 July. Despite adding hidden comments and zealous reverts, editors (both registered and anon) have been apply the transfer early. Please lock completely until 1 July. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: There's an ongoing edit war regarding content. Despite this might fit into a matter of full protection, there are also concerns that two, recently-created accounts disrupting the article belong to the same editor. An admin must-see. Jetstreamer Talk 19:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect: Persistent sockpuppetry (different case). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Promart Retail India Pvt. Ltd. (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – Spamming even after being indef block. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Bishonen | talk 12:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC). It's a username block, and it looks to me like the new and confused user is just trying to get help changing his account name. Bishonen | talk 12:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: IPs don't need to be editing this page. Amaury (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined — there is an RfC about allowing this here. Semi-protecting this now is against policy and would serve to do an endrun around developing consensus at the RfC. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This children's TV show is a persistent target for conflicting unsourced and disruptive information from IP-based editors. (WP:CRYSTALBALL vio). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Vandalism and persistent edit warring from multiple ips. This article is related to E3 and is getting hit hard with traffic currently thanks to a twitter post that is propagating the vandalism. Invincibility (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This and List of burn centers in the United States are now on Kotaku, so protection needs to be done as soon as possible. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 04:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator Jauerback.. Legoktm (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent vandalism from multiple ips. Gobōnobō + c 03:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Jauerback.. Legoktm (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template correction: This article is currently fully protected. Neither the padlock template nor the expiration date shows. Can someone please correct that? PrivateMasterHD (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Legoktm (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content. Jetstreamer Talk 22:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Amatulic.. Legoktm (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs adding spam links. Tolly4bolly 19:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC IP disruption. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Kww. Legoktm (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Various vandalism and unconstructive edits on a BLP. STATic message me! 03:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 02:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Valentin Roberge has not joined yet. He'll join in July. Please protect until July. Many unhelpful IP edits that need reverting. JMHamo (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected until the end of July. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – IPs and new users adding unsourced contents and also removing sourced ones. Tolly4bolly 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. As this is very persistent I've added indefinite semi-protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – IP seems intent on changing birth date to 1979, based on a "copy of her passport" (see comment on my talk page). ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Michael Greiner 19:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Seems to be attracting edits that are biased toward or against his American patriotism, e.g. mentioning that he is either a hero or a traitor in the biographical section of the article. Kilcoyne (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection was recently made for this page, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days. Snotbot  t • c »  18:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Non-administrator comment) An example of the vandalism, I came here to request this same semi-protection. There seem to be several editors who are doing a poor job of reverting the vandalism, reverting only one claim while leaving the rest, making it difficult to undo (I cannot simply use the "undo" link, nor can I simple roll the page back). This seems like a prime candidate for semi-protection. — λ (talk | contribs) 19:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article needs to be semiprotected, I'm going to flag it on other boards as well. (And Lambda: I made my edit not having yet noticed how screwy the rest of the article was, or realizing how rapidfire vandalism was appearing.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echoing the above points. The last hour has seen a wave of very defamatory edits. — Pretzels Hii! 19:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Masem. for a period of seven days. Tolly4bolly 21:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection" IP disruption turning into a "content dispute" between an IP address and myself. Digirami (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Non-administrator comment) If it is a content dispute, it'll be unfair to semi-protect the page, because a) it'll bar the IP but not the registered editor b) there is only 1 IP in question. You can continue the talk page discussion and warn/report against him if he continues edit warring! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 15:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism, people keep making adding non sense stuff multiple times toying with the article.Magentic Manifestations (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Michael Greiner 19:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12 June 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High-ranking thread on Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1g7hn0/radical_muslim_preacher_anjem_choudary_wanted/) - vandalism will continue for several hours, request 12 hour protection. Parrot of Doom 20:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Renewed spate of IP blanking after recent semi-protection lapsed. RashersTierney (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Involved parties in a dispute over museum exhibits are inserting commentary about the dispute. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checking to see if protection is necessary. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. Only IP 75.175.28.26 has been blocked, and then after repeated warnings about WP:3RR, WP:POV, etc.. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Excessive and repeated addition of unsourced material with a fair sprinkling of sockpuppetry to boot... Biker Biker (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone stop Biker Biker , who vandalizes the whole time this list to German inventors. All edits are correct and User:Biker Biker dislike Germany and German inventions. 88.70.24.37 (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....And the sockpuppet uses yet another guise. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The IPs do not appear to be vandalizing. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Very highly used redirect. No need to be editable. Potential for significant disruption if changed. LukeSurl t c 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: /b/ style vandalism from multi-IP. — Ginsuloft (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent IP vandalism, trolling, and removal of sourced material. Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, It's on the border this one. Whilst there has been a fairly high number of vandal or unsourced edits, there's also been some good contributions from IPs, which is swaying me towards keeping it open for now. Please relist if it picks up over the next couple of days. GedUK  12:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Will do. Thank you! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – high profile film release attracting IP vandalism and NPOV edits. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It's not horrendous at the moment, and there's some constructive, though not necessarily right, edits from at least one IP as well. GedUK  12:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: The page is being vandalized on a weekly bases. Requesting a "temporary semi- protection". Just until my team can gather enough information on Larry Tomczak, so everyone can benefit from the page. We want 100% truth on Mr. Tomczak's page and nothing less. User:Gspeas 1:22pm 11, june 2013

Checking to see if protection is necessary. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Gave final warning to one IP. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. User:Gspeas just deleted what I reverted. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can another admin check out this page's history? Bearian (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Non-administrator comment) Protection not needed. Rightly declined. Final warning was unnecessary too, a general level 2 warning could be appropriate. The IP's this edit was not a vandalism. What did "semi-official website" mean? Why previous Church's website link is needed in his biographical article? And the "Child abuse lawsuit" was incomplete, needed more citation and details. It is clear, the IP is trying to hide that sensitive section.--Tito ↂ Dutta 20:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection., I agree, there's not enough at the moment. I'm a bit concerned at who 'my team' is that the requestor mentions. GedUK  12:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This was Indefinitely protected, and now that it is not, The page has been vandalized about 1 in every 6 edits. Thus Spake Lee Tru. 13:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It's never been protected before, and the current level of vandalism is pretty low. GedUK  11:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Every article by Loubnan (talk · contribs) that was AfD'ed or BLPPROD'ed had those tags removed from them repeatedly by IP's controlled by Loubnan tot he point were most of them had to be protected and Loubnan has been blocked twice for this. This article is no different. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Change wars. Aldero (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Aldero June, 2013[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  11:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism and edit war. AndrewrpTally-ho! 21:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It's not that bad at the moment, though it's certainly been a while since you requested this, sorry. GedUK  11:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Venezuelans keep changing Guyana's map to reflect a completely outdated Venezuelan territorial claim to 2/3 of Guyana's territory. the7businessUser talk:the7business 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Shirt58 (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 11:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page has been the target of serial BLP violations by what appears to be an IP-hopping sock of blocked editor User:AmericanDefender. Related article Edward Snowden was already semi-protected because of this same issue. Federales (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page recently unprotected and IP vandals are back. Please protect until 1 July. JMHamo (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Until 2 July. GedUK  11:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Michael Greiner 07:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ips have tried to frequently adjust the no of seats of lok sabha wrt each terrirtory especially under the section Composition of states and territories. In fact at one occasion, i had to revert to old revision due to several ips involved in vandalism by just tweaking the numbers without assigning any reason. Suri 100 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism to article from different IP users - most likely NZ school pupils supposedly studying local cultural event. FanRed XN | talk 09:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect: Persistent sockpuppetry. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation) There's no need of protection because Til Eulenspiegel is forcing irrelevant categories and false accusing for sockpuppetry. --HistorNE (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Says the latest sockpuppet account of indefblocked User:Shaushka. Please protect page ASAP. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
False accusations --HistorNE (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only falsehood here is you taking that diff out of context to make it appear as if you got off the hook when you most certainly did not. Stop lying and misrepresenting your block evasion. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for longer than a month: The article has had to have been protected against a vandalising IP-"floater" twice...once for a week, then for a month. Once again, that IP is back and continuing to vandalise. Page needs to be protected for much longer, if not perminantly 88.109.20.138 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected — Two months. Lately an IP is revert warring to say that this franchise has been *abandoned* by its owner, Activision, in spite of giving no sources for the claim. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Serial vandalism by IP-hopping sock. Federales (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what sock. Materialscientist (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, I'm not seeing the socks, and there are also constructive IP edits. Legoktm (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jilu Mandarin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – I have never seen a total mess. First it was proposed three times (two resulted move without hyphen), moved without hyphen, then re-moved without hyphen, and then reverted back.... long story. George Ho (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – a POV user with dynamic IP is duplicating content in article. One week of protection is enough. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 12:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: high level of IP edits at the moment hard to keep track on and removal of vital information going on.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. If vandalism continues, or breaks out into a full edit war, post this again. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Pending changes hasn't helped, bunch of IP socks adding the same unsourced statements. JayJayWhat did I do? 22:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected with the expiry set to when PC was supposed to expire. Legoktm (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: spate of "gang" names being added. Martin451 (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Every other edit for the past several weeks is a registered user reverting an unhelpful IP. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Legoktm (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – I would like to request the restoration of this revision and full protection of this article until this AfD closes. Some users are continuously removing the contents of the article just to justify the existence of Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh in the AfD which largely overlaps with Stranded Pakistanis. Zayeem (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is not eligible. Pointless request. Not a noticeboard where you are asking to restore a revison. That has been under discussion at the talk of the article, and an AfD. Faizan 12:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked you to not remove the contents before the AfD closes but you are still removing them. Hence, the revision prior to the beginning of the AfD should be restored and should be fully protected until the AfD closes.--Zayeem (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned with the protection here. Not interested in tales. Faizan 15:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Non-administrator comment) Edit warring among auto-confirmed editors is a legitimate reason to fully protect a page for a short period. If it is requested to restore a particular version before fully protect the article, that might need consensus. --Tito ↂ Dutta 20:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Nothing but IP vandalism and the reverting of it. With the exception of one letter having been fixed, article is back where it was 5-1/2 weeks ago (33 revisions later). For reasons unknown, it is a magnet for IP vandalism. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Legoktm (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

13 June 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Sudden surge of vandalism. Perhaps protect it for a week. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 09:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Gamaliel (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection - Garay has been the subject of rumours regarding a move to Manchester United recently, and this has brought about a lot of vandalism, both positive and negative. I suggest at least a week of semi-protection. – PeeJay 09:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There aren't a lot of sources confirming his death. This has a all-out edit war going on. Nascar1996(Talk • Contribs) 02:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AP, ABC News, Sporting News, NBC in Philadelphia among others are all reporting it. Michael Greiner 03:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were created a few moments after I asked for protection. -- Nascar1996(Talk • Contribs) 03:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is protection still needed? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, Doesn't seem necessary at the moment now things have been confirmed GedUK  12:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Fictional character biography violations. A lot of edits are regarding that Mega Man is going to appear in the new upcoming Super Smash Bros. game for the 3DS and Wii U. PrivateMasterHD (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, It's not too bad at the moment, and rather lumpy which makes short term protection slightly harder. GedUK  11:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring going on here, with addition of AFD. Solomon7968 20:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Non-administrator comment) If you are talking about that IP, then semi-protection will help. That IP is very suspicious. Darkness Shines is blocked for 2 weeks. --Tito☸Dutta 20:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admins will decide if full protection is needed, but technically speaking, full protection is not needed unless two or more auto-confirmed editors edit war in an article. Warn them if it has not been done already. --Tito☸Dutta 20:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another new IP descended on it. Just warned the IP. Solomon7968 20:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. BaldBoris 18:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Can we semi protect for a few days to stop an IP hopping editor from making unsourced number changes without explanation. noq (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – multiple edits from ips and not users due to the transfers period. (Argento1985) 00:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 12:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Non-administrator comment) Article was indefinitely semi-protected in November 2010. On 29 May 2013, unprotection was attempted and since then 17 IP edits have been reverted (actually almost all IP edits have been reverted). It might be the time to re-protect the article. --Tito☸Dutta 20:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected. GedUK  11:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Dates, C++ and facts keep getting changed by anonymous users and newly registered ones who do not know their facts. MThinkCpp (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: As it discussed in the Talk page of article with some Wikipedia admins, the page has reliable sources problems. For solving that some non-trusted parts are deleted from article and some reliable sources are added, but with some IP and new users the deleted parts repeatedly add again to the article and the added reliable sources are also removed! Check the History page of the article. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 08:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I can't see a clear consensus on the talk page, but the page history needs some stability and there's users as well as IPs reverting each other, which amounts to an edit war. Resolve the issue on the talk page. GedUK  11:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: page is getting repeatedly vandalized by the same vandal (using different IPs) who also vandalized Parker Lundgren and Eddie Jackson (musician). The vandalism just keeps moving to the next Queensrÿche band member. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Incoming attacks. Webclient101talk 03:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by another admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism – To me, this seems to be the only way to stop further controversial changes (including the content blanking that I consider vandalism) from being made against consensus or even without discussion altogether. Note that this page is not currently at my preferred version. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked.. Dogmaticeclectic has been blocked based on a report at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism from different IP users resulting to unverifiable sources or hoax additions. Jrplaza (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – The usual unsourced position-related additions which plague most K-pop articles. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection - subject to constant vandalism and promo-spam. Skateboard and skateboarding are both semi-protected for similar reasons and so the kids have moved to other closely related articles. Longboarding is subject to the same, but probably to a lesser extent. Stalwart111 01:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism from different IP users. Astros4477 (Talk) 01:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks as I see there were BLP issues, but this revert doesn't look appropriate; assuming it wasn't already in the article, it could have been moved into an FR section. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by IP sockpuppets of blocked user Jajadelera. Areaseven (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Acroterion (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Those recent bunch of IPs that I have reverted fully are all from Cyprus, based on whois check. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: This regards a professional baseball player who was the #1 draft pick back in 2011 that made his Major League debut recently. Vandalism or any disruption could happen soon. BLP promotion could be a must for this new baseball player. PrivateMasterHD (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined As a general rule, we don't protect pages until vandalism has occurred. The level of vandalism here in the last month seems typical, and what little has happened has been quickly reverted. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from different IPs. User has been warned before but continues to revert edits without explanation. CoolingGibbon (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected. I can't tell whether it's vandalism or a content dispute, so I've added full protection for three days. CoolingGibbon, if it's vandalism, can you supply some diffs here showing that? Otherwise talk-page discussion is the way forward; there doesn't appear to have been any. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Just a thought, but I feel like this page should be fully protected so that nobody changes that address. I've seen other pages where that is the case, and I certainly wouldn't want to send my passport image to the wrong address, fax, or e-mail if someone decided they wanted to steal my information and managed to slip the update past the page watchers. Jackson Peebles (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. While its possible, doing something like that just seems like a bunch of FUD to me. This email is listed on many many pages across the wikiverse and I doubt any of them are full protected. Legoktm (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: I got this protected pre-emptively not because I actually wanted protection from vandalism or anything, but merely because I wanted to have something that other users also did (yes, I was admittedly stupid enough, but refuse to call it hat-collection). This request does not imply I'm withdrawing my RfC; I still want a clearer policy. I only don't want a protected user page anymore. smtchahaltalk 15:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected SlimVirgin (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: The was page was semi-protected in 2010 for vandalism, page is slow now, try unprotection?. Webclient101talk 03:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected SlimVirgin (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page was semi-protected in 2010 for vandalism, page is slow now, try unprotection?. Webclient101talk 03:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected SlimVirgin (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page has been semi-protected for three years and has been slowly edited by other users. Why not try unprotection? . Webclient101talk 03:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected SlimVirgin (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14 June 2013

Semi-protection: This AfD has been flooded with socks (now blocked) and IPs with an obvious connection to the subject. However, it has now turned personal, as seen here and here, attacking another editor and possibly revealing his real name. The diffs should be erased as well to protect privacy. freshacconci talktalk 19:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Since the AFD has already closed, protection not needed. No activity thereafter. Issue of possible WP:OUTING dealt with, two revisions you mentioned deleted, please check if any more, and thank you for point that out! --Ekabhishektalk 11:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary PC A person from Venezuela has been adding to this article (and some other listed here, but with less frequence) a supposed ideology of the party under this argument. Apparently this person has no interest in source or discuss the changes but to use several IPs. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. GedUK  11:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection long enough to fend off the IP-hopping vandal who's also making vulgar personal attacks in the process. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He struck again today, and continues to leave me little hints that he's a long-time banned user. Since he's an IP-hopper, it's no good blocking him. The article needs to be semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, I'm inclined to agree with you that this is probably a sock of someone probably blocked. However, now that the disputed info has been readded by someone else, with a better source (and inline for that maatter), I think the problem will be solved. However, if they come back and remove it again, then we can protect. GedUK  11:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Two editors have been at loggerheads on several articles, but principally this one. While there has been some engagement at TP, it hasn't stopped the ping-pong deletion/revert cycles of large amounts of text. Both editors have previously been warned about edit warring. RashersTierney (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been protected a few minutes ago, so this request can be ignored now because the problem is solved Raysdiet (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't solved. The problem is edit-warring and this protection is a direct result of that problem. I'll seek blocks on both editors if issues are not addressed by them through meaningful discussion and agreement at TPs before controversial changes. RashersTierney (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator Kudpung.. For the purposes of this page, the matter's dealt with. Obviously repoert edit waring to WP:3RRN. GedUK  12:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection - Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 02:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Keith D.. GedUK  12:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Has had a history of vandalism, and has been semi-protected several times. Let's try long term pending protection, and if vandalism continues, then it could be indefinitely semi-protected. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: This page has been a long term target of self promotion by SPA accounts which just want to promote their group. Werieth (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indef is too long for first protection. GedUK  12:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then Ill see you in two weeks for re-protection. Werieth (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by IP sockpuppets of Jajadelera. Areaseven (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Constant racist vandalism. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of Indefinite, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I agree, considering the long history of racist vandalism. Ekabhishektalk 11:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's been doing my head in. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP editing, each one adding a different set of judges for the upcoming season with no sources for any of the judges. I am asking for a temporary semi-protection until the judges are announced by Fox. Aspects (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. There had been many IP address users changing the actual contents repetitively. This could mislead readers gaining true knowledge about the article Daan0001 (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. THe problem is that so much of that article is unsourced, including several of your edits I notice. This makes working out what should and shouldn't be there much harder. GedUK  11:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of new user vandalism, deleting large sections, likely sockpuppets of Hugule 19 (talk · contribs). 220 of Borg 13:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (14 days) Webclient101talk 03:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jamie Foxx (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection or range block: Persistent sockpuppetry. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. I range blocked 174.34.161.0/24 for 1 month. Mike V • Talk 20:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if those permitted to edit the page mentioned above could disentangle the lines relevant to the LDS Church in the "Christianity" subsection of "Religion and Views on Abortion." I feel the views of the LDS Church would be best presented separately, perhaps in paragraphs below those discussing the Christian view of abortion. The LDS Church is regarded by Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and other Protestantism) as at best a very modern heretical sect, and at worst not Christian at all. Whilst I don't think this needs mentioning in this article, I believe that the reality of this attitude of the "Nicene" Christian Churches to Mormonism warrants the LDS position being stated in a separate paragraph or subsection. It also bears mentioning that the LDS Church views Christian Churches that accept the Nicene Creed (and indeed any other religion outside of Mormonism) to be 'false;' and its founder Joseph Smith started the LDS to be quite apart from established Christianity.

76.189.155.146 (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Request is way too vague to accept. See Wikipedia:Edit requests for further guidance. Michael Greiner 05:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Anon persistently removes afd tag. —teb728 t c 11:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, It's been speedy deleted now GedUK  12:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – repeated ip edit warring inclusion of unsourced material. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Applies to IP addresses of vandals. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP editor is engaging in edit-warring and POV-pushing (potentially in violation of WP:CHILDPROTECT since POV appears to be child abuse apologetics), violating 3RR, and refusing discussion.Legitimus (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. There are a lot of recent IP edits, yes, but 68.55.8.242 has already been blocked for a year by Risker. This only leaves 98.117.95.253, who hasn't done that much, and hasn't so far edit warred. I suggest you try to engage them on article talk. Feel free to ping me on my usertalk if problems continue. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

15 June 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Rumour about a move to Liverpool. Please protect until official. Many unhelpful IP edits being made. JMHamo (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  21:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Continued vandalism by multiple IPs since last protection expired. RJFF (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protection: edit-warring between ip's and users. Stryn (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now there is also one reviewer warring... and also using wrong his/her rights. I mean that user can't reject changes, if edits are not vandalism. --Stryn (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected — 6 months. Long-term problem of warring by IPs who don't use Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent insertion and removal of unsourced material by various IP accounts. Not sure who is in the right, though the edit war helps no one. Psychonaut (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Considering its past record..Please also check history, a set of IPs remove all references in India television related articles. Recently a bunch were semi-protected. --Ekabhishektalk 12:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit wars over Heard’s personal life and rumors. Aaaccc (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. But feel free to ping me on my page if IP vandalism gets worse. Meanwhile, I've commented on your page about the editorial disagreement between you and an autoconfirmed user. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. User:Lollsan1900 keeps adding unsourced puffery about one of the Rothschild daughters. Already reverted it twice, and gave a WP:WARN twice, but no reaction. Please protect this page. --bender235 (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. - before you both get whacked for 3rr. Semi protection only stops newbs and IPs.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the dispute? IP/SPA is adding bogus information w/out source. But now I'm the one threatened with a 3RR block? You gotta be kidding me!
By the way: neither User:Lollsan1900 nor 95.197.7.111 reacts to my comments on their respective talk page. So how am I supposed to argue with him/her? --bender235 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The vandalism just goes on and on. Can finally somebody protect this article, please? --bender235 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP hopping editor persistently changing data without sources and which are contrary to the good quality sources quoted. Now also active at Haifa, Negev, Dead Sea, Eilat, Beersheba, Ashdod and Rishon LeZion. IP range looks too wide to block  Velella  Velella Talk   15:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected - Two months semiprotection for Tel Aviv, Dead Sea and Eilat. Another admin has blocked 84.228.16.2 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page was indefinitely semi-protected in 2010 for vandalism, page is slow now, try unprotection? Webclient101talk 05:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected - EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page was indefinitely semi-protected in 2008 for vandalism, page is slow now, try unprotection? Webclient101talk 20:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected - EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page was indefinitely semi-protected in 2010 for vandalism, page is slow now, try unprotection? Webclient101talk 23:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected - EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. King Jakob C2 23:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected — Three months. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection requested. Slow edit war developing on this page. A discussion has been opened and the other party invited, with little result. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I've warned the user. GedUK  11:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

16 June 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Google doodle has brought a spate of IP vandalism today. Safiel (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  18:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Edit warring IP hopper despite repeated warnings and extended discussion at TP by numerous editors. RashersTierney (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Can we have some action on this please. Now they are repeatedly applying cut-and-paste copyvios and removing associated templates. RashersTierney (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For unambiguous evidence of recent socking, see Atticus Maycomb in immediate support of the edit warring IP. RashersTierney (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Blocking Atticus Maycomb. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please update Pioneer_Courthouse_Square per this request diff: [9]. I believe this would be th correct way to reflect a quote, per the MOS. Thank you. 177.43.72.251 (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor is a troll going back many years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined GedUK  10:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update from sandbox: Added a new decline reason. Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nathan, you would need to post here, or link to, the edit you're requesting. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just need Template:AFC submission/comments/sandbox copypasted to the page. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 16:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The diff shows you would be changing:
"Unfortunately, the target article was previously deleted through an articles for deletion discussion, so the only way to create a new page there is by going through deletion review"
to:
"Unfortunately, the target article was previously deleted and has been prevented from recreation, so to create a new page there you will need to request unprotection here. Afterwards, your submission will be moved to article space."
Is that something that needs to be discussed on the talk page first? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, I'm sure that any change to 100,000 plus transluded template needs discussion before it's done. GedUK  10:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long-term vandalism since mid-May. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:RFPP/sandbox|pend|1 month} GedUK  14:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect for a few weeks.. a lot of IP vandalism that need reverting due to a rumour of a move to England. JMHamo (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. These things tend to burn out quite quickly, one way or the other. Relist if this proves to be an exception. GedUK  14:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  14:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP issues. Koala15 (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  14:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For almost a year, nothing, really nothing but reverted vandalism. I propose to semi this for a 6 months, as it is obviously common ground for vandalism,. WhiteWriterspeaks 11:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. FOr it's first protection in a long time, I'm not prepared to go straight to a long protection like that. Relist if necessary if it picks up again after this protection. GedUK  14:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Note: The bot may say it was declined in the past but it was a withdrawn request. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, AfD is closed now, and article is gone. GedUK  10:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by an IP - user has also been reported. . Dusti*poke* 05:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. and User(s) blocked. GedUK  10:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full-protection: Content being rewritten to revise history. Dagnome27 (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC) dagnome27[reply]

Declined, Apart from your edits yesterday, there haven't been any edits for a fortnight. GedUK  10:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: WP:BLP vandalism. STATic message me! 18:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I can only see one recent BLP issue, which I've removed. Protection seems overkill at this stage. GedUK  09:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Persistent IP vandalisim. Nathan2055talk - contribs 15:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, There's not really a lot of vandalism, there's quite a lot of constructive, or at least good faith IP edits, the overall page edits have slowed a lot in the immediate past as well. GedUK  09:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection:Persistent genre warring and removal of sourced genres

174.227.193.101 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Yes, you're the one warring, and yuo've been blocked for it GedUK  09:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism and unconstructive edits by various IP users. Areaseven (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Plenty of constructive IP edits GedUK  09:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 14:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. No edits for a fortnight .GedUK  09:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Dusti*poke* 04:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Legoktm (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: The article is being assaulted by an IP-hopper for the sole purpose of disruption. He's imitating some of the long-blocked trolls I've dealt with in the past. A few weeks semi'd should cause the troll to lose interest for a while. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Well, you keep adding in a single line on something that's since be added in a fuller way, with a better (and better formatted) source in a whole section about construction, so the IP's last removal of it was probably justified. As I pointed out last time I declined this, now that it's better sourced they will probably leave it alone, and had you not put it back in, they would have done. GedUK  09:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Lady Lotus (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I'm not seeing much vandalism, just a disagreement over which picture to use. Discuss it on the talk page GedUK  09:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism. Bishnu Saikia⇒✉ 17:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  09:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lots of vandalism and cruft; recently released film. Adabow (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  10:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection contentious discussion including accusations of sock-puppetry and several undiscussed moves that happened in the middle. I've just closed the discussion, and would prefer that future moves take place via RM; thus asking for something like 6-month page-move protection. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. GedUK  10:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Failure to adhere to MOS:RETAIN and MOS:ENGVAR by various IPs. Elizium23 (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I think pending changes may well work well here. GedUK  10:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism, sockpuppetry . SFK2 (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  10:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant manipulation/removal of content by IP users. It has become a daily issue. – Recollected • 02:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  10:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tomcsy (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  10:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes. Heavy level of IP vandalism, with more to come as season approaches. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  10:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Various unsourced content additions by IPs. STATic message me! 19:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 9 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Should take us up to release dayGedUK  10:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dawnseeker2000 17:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: According to m:SRP and de:Benutzerin:Lady Whistler/Kondolenzliste, this user has died. User page should be FPP'd per standard practice. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected. GedUK  09:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Multiple IPs (probably same person) removing sourced section. Request temporary 36 hour semi-protection. Msw1002 (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – persistent non-constructive edits for last few weeks. It was reported at WP:BLPN too. . Tito☸Dutta 13:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi protection: Persistent vandalism by IPs. This article is about a person who has recently died.Terminator92 (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi protection: Multiple iterations of vandalism have occurred in this article over the last 2 or 3 days, such as BLP violations, and unsourced, incorrect claims about him changing clubs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi protection: This article is a constant target for vandalism, be it by IPs, or brand-new accounts. The amount of good edits by IPs in its entire history can be counted on the fingers of one hand, pretty much. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  09:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Currently a very hot and popular movie since it was recently released on 13 June. Perhaps PC it for about a month or two first while the excitement gradually dies down. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 06:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I know I was the one who declined it earlier in the week, but the bad edits do seem to be outweighing the constructive ones. Edit count is way too high for PC I'm afraid. GedUK  08:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lots of vandalism from anon and unconfirmed accounts. Adabow (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  08:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism resumed after last protect expires. Latest is a roving IP and set of single edit accounts adding bogus credits about her person being used as a character in some fanfic – this can be considered derogatory to her and is irrelevant to anything that should be in this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  08:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Suffering a lot of IP vandalism over recent pricing decision, it's a storm in a tea cup that should blow over in the coming weeks, and will be a non-event when the game actually launches at the end of the year for a reduced cost. Oosh (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  08:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Requesting full protection to ward off further WP:POINT edits. Federales (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  08:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template correction: This article is protected but neither the template padlock nor the expiration date show. Can someone please correct that? PrivateMasterHD (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Vandalism/edit warring over Richie Sambora's status as a band member. He's by all means still a current member, but the page keeps being edited reporting him as a past one and Phil X as their current guitarist. My account has also been blocked as a consequence for edit warring. Jessycardy (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Full protection declined for now, as confirmed users are not presently edit warring. The article already has pending-changes protection. Dianna (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. JetBlast (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Legoktm (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 14:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Revert war in BLP over homosexuality. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Edit war has ceased for now. Dianna (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I've left a note for the editor who's reverting. Please ask again if problems continue. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. People seem obsessed with changing her date of birth all the time. Josh1024 (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Non-administrator comment) We generally post new requests at the top of the page. You can use WP:TWINKLE to quickly and easily request protection. Anyway, three recent reverts and seems to be a single IP issue. --Tito☸Dutta 14:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Dianna (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Dispute between St0n3 BG and 88.64.31.183. Dusti*poke* 06:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Toddst1. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from IP-Hopper. Crboyer (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – AfD being flooded by newly created SPAs who in an attempt to keep the article edit disruptively/vandalise the page, including removing delete-votes. The article in question is a recreation of a previously deleted article, and the creator has already been blocked for abusing multiple accounts when removing the AfD-tag. The swarm of new suspected socks have been reported to WP:SPI but not much seems to happen there right now so temporary semi-protection might be needed to calm things down. Thomas.W (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC) All of the troublesome users have been blocked as sockpuppets and an IP range block has also been imposed in order to prevent further problems, so protection is no longer needed. Thomas.W (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Withdrawn, tag for the bot Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – WP:BLP violations by various IPs. Elizium23 (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism and addition of jokes from Ips. Page has a long history of vandalism. I call the big one bitey (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – several undiscussed genre changes by IPs over the last week or so . L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: The page is constantly being vandalized by an user (Isaacsirup) for crediting recently deceased actress Jiah Khan. The necessary discussion on the talk page is not being used for the article. - Vivvt (Talk) 19:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: User Vivvt is not taking notice of talk page consensus, is constantly removing sourced material from Dil Se and adding unsourced material. He has been reverted many times by several editors--Isaacsirup (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please list all those "several" editors here. I would also like to know all of those. - Vivvt (Talk) 19:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User BollyJeff also reverted this vandal (User Vivvt)--Isaacsirup (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He has not reverted or supported anybody. He has just added cn tags. - Vivvt (Talk) 19:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BollyJeff reverted Vivvt[10] --Isaacsirup (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats before talk page discussion started. Who else among those "several" has reverted me than Bollyjeff? Gosh! This is getting pretty childish. - Vivvt (Talk) 20:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hold on! Thats not revert for my edits. - Vivvt (Talk) 20:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion ensued here--Isaacsirup (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – IPs (and some established users) persistently removing sourced information regarding genre of song. . — Bdb484 (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one week to slow the edit war. Full protection does not seem to be necessary any more. Dianna (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection - Persistent addition of a copyright violation by an IP-hopping editor. Most of the edits for the article's entire history has been the insertion and removal of copyrighted material. - SudoGhost 15:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Dianna (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Fan reaction to the Metamoris 2 BJJ competition and mention on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBvAGbanc-I) has led to ongoing vandalism. I request protection of this article until interest dies down. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – BLP protection needed while details of Man City deal come through. JMHamo (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. Persistent sockpuppetry, refer to Rated R (Rihanna album), Loud (Rihanna album), Songs in A Minor, Whoa, Nelly!, Butterfly (Mariah Carey album), and some others. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistant IP changes and revert. Has been warned and unwilling to wait for editors to reach consensus on the issue. SonOfThornhill (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. Sockpuppetry resumed after unprotection. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temp-Semi - persistent IP address keeps re-adding information about unconfirmed medical studies linking the product to cancer and ADHD. It has been deleted several times by multiple editors and the IP keeps reinserting the information and not acknowledging requests to discuss. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temp-Semi - IPs and new accounts continually reverting good faith edits from different users on these pages for a long time!Chris1636 (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dianna (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

17 June 2013

Long-term semi-protection: An IP keeps adding incorrect information and unsourced information to the article...while removing sourced information. That IP has been reverted for months now at that article; see its contributions. Reporting the IP at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism will not help for long because the IP is not above using a WP:Sockpuppet to carry out the same edits, which I noted on the IP's talk page when warning him or her. The IP removed my warning and reverted again. Flyer22 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also need semi-protection of the talk page; the IP is removing the discussion about his problematic edits, as seen here and here. And, like I noted on that talk page, the IP has also removed my report here. Flyer22 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More destruction by the IP to this report is seen here. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The article and talk page clearly need to be semi-protected, along with the IP's block, however. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That IP is the same person, obviously; he or she is sockpuppeting, like I stated above. That's why I stated that reporting the IP at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (I meant the IP being blocked through a report there) would not work for long and that long-term semi-protection is needed in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 20:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. I'm willing to bet that the IP will continue vandalizing the talk page, however. If that happens, the talk page will of course need to be semi-protected as well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll be watching it. Talkpage protection is pretty unusual, but of course it can be done if necessary. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Gamaliel (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IPs continue to change album sales with no sources provided or sometimes they change album sales with unreliable sources. This has been happening since the last protection expired. 0z (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined It appears the edits are coming from a single IP, which has been blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Moderate level of vandalism (changing birth place), as well as non-neutral edits (describing election) to WP:BLP. Article was last protected for a month from mid-April to mid-May.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Hoax page, speedy deleted three times in the past week.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. PC is about to expire anyway. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection If I may upgrade. The article is attracting a wave of vandals.  Yintan  21:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Jac16888. Semi seems to work, re-report if full protection is needed. Materialscientist (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: User has died according to de:Benutzer:Peng/Kondolenzliste. His user page should be fully protected per standard practice. Lukas²³ talk in GermanContribs 19:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection Repeated IP vandalism and BLP violations on this bio warrant semi-protection. Tvoz/talk 05:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Ekabhishektalk 06:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – per persistent vandalism. KhabarNegar Talk 21:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User KhabarNegar keeps persistently edit-warring despite being reverted by several editors, multiple times. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&action=history --Isaacsirup (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TippyGoomba#User:KhabarNegar--Isaacsirup (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:KhabarNegar. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Persistent vandalism-, Bring back to last stable version is needed. Regards, KhabarNegar Talk 21:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Isaacsirup have been blocked for the same action for 24 hours just yesterday. A bring back of the page to the stable version before user arrive is needed, there is an active discussion in the talk page, Regards,KhabarNegar Talk 22:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Declined. This can play out at WP:ANI. Semi-protection would be worthless as all involved editors are auto-confirmed. This is also the pot calling the kettle black as Khabar is the problem, not the other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: An IP editor wrote an original essay on the prejudice of Singaporeans that starts fine then turns into an inflammatory treatise[11] and has been persistently re-including it for weeks. Tagged it on editor's talk page, reverted it, wrote a line-by-line on the things that would need to be done to make it acceptable on article talk page.[12] Unsure now if IP editor should be blocked or just protect page against IP User for a couple of weeks to deter. EBY (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. There seem to be two IPs, one static and one dynamic, no doubt the same person. I've warned the static one, and will try to keep an eye on the article. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I request unprotection for Catholic Church. 0alx0 (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Ummm... is there any particular reason you want the page unprotected? It's been protected because it was prone to bouts of unproductive editing and vandalism. James (T • C) • 10:31am • 23:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprotected No reason stated for unprotection. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. There is a constant, weekly abuse of unregistered users on the page, mostly to add insulting terms. I believe this page is notable enough to be permanently semi-protected. Threeohsix (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The most recent bout of vandalism was a single IP address which has been blocked. I don't seen enough vandalism in the recent history besides that to justify protection at this time. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Dusti*poke* 14:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Already semi-protected by another administrator. Gamaliel (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suharto

Please unblock the Suharto article, I believe the current form is filled with erroneous and mistaken information compared with previous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purnomor (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect Suharto page to allow for correction of false information, it seems the editors is keen in presenting the article in a biased manner and is preventing other users from inputting correct information with well-stocked references by unilaterally blocking the page for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purnomor (talk • contribs) 15:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18 June 2013

Semi-protection: Rapid vandalism from a few IP addresses. A. Parrot (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Many different IPs vandalizing article in reaction to his recent incident which is getting a lot of press right now. SubSeven (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. An IP actually removed vandalism. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can another admin take a look? Bearian (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. OK: continued vandalism and BLP violations now justify semi-protection. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Many anon editors are applying changes to the players teams that do not take effect until 1 July. The rosters are now correct and protected edit requests should handle minor changes. Please lock to new and anon editors for a period of two weeks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. See also WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs and unconfirmed users adding in unsourced content. This has going on for a while and will continue until new information is confirmed either way. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: High level of IP vandalism. User "mediapioneer" continues to add POV edits every few hours. Inserts claims about degrees DuBois does *not* have or claim to have, rather than simply citing his degrees. Uses a tweet from DuBois' account to claim that DuBois is a "leftist" and has "strayed from his early religious foundations." Requesting protection of page prior to mediapioneer's edits. Freephilly (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. I've given Mediapioneer a strong warning on their page, and will block if they persist. I think their WP:BLP violations are all gone from the article with your latest revert, but please check. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protection: the subject has had a couple of recent news articles written that are being forcibly inserted into the article in order to push POV. IP 71.105.111.52 has attempted to astroturf the edits to Reddit [13] and has set out his stall quite clearly with most recent edits "You can censor and I will repost all day long." and personal attacks. [14]. Believe IP editor should be blocked, but temporary protection would prevent immediate turfing to other redditors. Koncorde (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. User:Daniel Case has blocked the IP for 48 hours. Please come back here if problems resume, or just ping me on my page. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs are constantly vandalizing the page. This is very much seen in its edit history over the last ten days. 5 reverts have taken place in that time. . 155blue (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is the second 3-month semi-protection. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Comments left about living persons 65peachy (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mike V • Talk 18:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary PC or SP An user from Chile is abusing multiple IPs. Now, this user has been disrupting multiple articles here and in Spanish Wikipedia, like Roberto Pettinato and its Spanish version. This begun with ...But Seriously and is becoming to be absurd. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. IP 190.96.13.120 has been given a final warning. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

19 June 2013

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Jim1138 (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Too hot to handle. Any volunteers? Bearian (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For the same reason that List of The Lying Game episodes was protected. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 04:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. An IP recently made some formatting changes that do not appear to be substantive vandalism, but are rather constructive. Let's wait some more and see what happens. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent disruption from I.P editors, request autoconfirmed users only. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Vandalism and additions of unsourced content by IP editors. STATic message me! 17:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full-protection: Persistent vandalism. IPs (probably MISA members) are removing content, adding unecessary things and changing what was right (without any proves, Bivolaru is convicted of child sexual abuse and human trafficking in Romania). --Proud-of-the-new-Romanian-justice ✉ 17:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Edit warring, with possibility of escalating due to meatpuppets (it's an article about a cult leader and his followers could tune in). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Recent announcement of sequels has lead to lots of IPs adding unsourced content. Internet rumors about what characters actors with unannounced roles are playing also has a lot of IPs adding unsourced content. Vandalism started about a day after the week long protection expired, so please give a month. Spidey104 16:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Recent announcement of sequels has lead to lots of IPs adding unsourced content. Internet rumors about what characters actors with unannounced roles are playing also has a lot of IPs adding unsourced content. If The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is protected longer than this page IPs who want to vandalize that page will most likely just move to this page instead, so please protect for a month as well. Spidey104 16:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Page has been recreated 5 times & each time being deleted,
The article at somepoint went to AFC where again it was deleted & redirected to Boca Juniors (Gibraltar), ....
Thanks, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:34, 16:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Legoktm (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect for a few weeks. Many unhelpful IP edits that need reverting, as no move away from Celta had been confirmed officially. JMHamo (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Armchair QB (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page and Chris Dorner are suddenly under attack by multiple IPs and socks for no apparent reason. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bertrand101. Previously protected 3 times. Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Widr (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was apparently protected for 24 hours about a day ago, then vandalized soon after the protection expired, so someone should probably protect this for at least a week. ---Mathnerd 101 18:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – currently a FAC, so IP's don't have to vandalise. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: with revert to last stable version (16:59, 27 May 2013‎ 142.136.37.241). An IP address is edit warring in his/her preferred version. The IP address has been asked to respect WP:BRD but has chosen not to. Blocking the IP address is not an alternative, as it is one provided by an ISP and will change if the owner's of the account reboots the account's router. -- PBS (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checking to see if protection is necessary. Do you mean Battle of Worcester? Bearian (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. I blocked an IP for edit-warring for a week; see User talk:86.149.18.241. I am very confused about what else I can do for the Battle of Waterloo article. Please reply. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Repeated addition of defamatory content about Indian politician Rahul Gandhi (today is his birthday, so lot of IP are vandalizing the page.). Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 10:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator RegentsPark. for a week. Tolly4bolly 12:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Does Jim want this open? Just looking at the history and it's daily vandalism. Tyros1972 Talk 10:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined ...which is quickly reverted by one of the page's many watchers, thus showing vandals that it's not worth doing and giving persistent vandals an outlet to demonstrate that they could do with a block. BencherliteTalk 10:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting that Jimbo specifically encourages IPs to edit his page. — Richard BB 11:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection: Persistent vandalism/sock puppetry. There have been reports that a radio station has fired/suspended 3 staff members for mocking this blocked punt activity as they were shown on the media doing this. PrivateMasterHD (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and unconstructive edits. The1337gamer (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Seems to have settled down. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi protection: Persistent vandalism. A lot of people have been enrolling for this loyalty program but have been complaining that their accounts have been deactivated due to plagiarism, using hacks/bots, or even abuse to quickly earn Swagbucks. PrivateMasterHD (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Over the past few days, there have been a lot of edits coming from unregistered IPs regarding The content for which already a Third opinion has been taken, and decided not use that content without relevent source. I'm requesting the page be protected from edits from unregistered IPs for a period of time.Rajmavrick (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Seems to have settled down. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Even though it has been settled in Third Opinion regarding SEC, but still we are getting edits from un Registered IP's, Can't we stop this by making the page Semi Protection. Please look into this once again. Rajmavrick (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: This article has a 10-year history of disruptive edits by IP and unregistered users. It finally made it to GA class, and is currently up for A-class review at Military History. The review is going to require extensive editing to bring its content up to standard. Can we please get this semi-protected to cut down on the disruptive editing by unregistered editors while we bring it up to A-class standard?. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. I'm not seeing many recent problems, Maile. If you still feel it needs protection, can you give some examples? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism running rampant. See version history. XndrK (talk · contribs · count) 19:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Non-administrator comment) Not too many recent reverts and the recent one was a single IP issue. On the other hand it is also true that we are not getting constructive edits from most of the IP edits. --Tito☸Dutta 20:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent uploading of personal boasting picture to the article. Enough warning has been given. The user seems to be using sock puppetry using different ip addresses to avoid blocking. Ray Lightyear (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Seems to have settled down. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: A user is adding a rotating logo, and now a gradient image to the sidebar portal for a religion. Just get him to leave the standard vector that's been there for ages image alone 66.112.191.186 (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The old image is literally an over sized unicode image and does not fit well with the info box or comparatively with other religion infoboxes. The gradient effect is subtle and the image is small thumb on the page. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leave your "art" on your own website, it doesn't represent this religion 66.112.191.186 (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. Seems to be a content dispute being discussed on the talk page. Please ask again if you need full protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Emotions running too high to have a sensible discussion right now. 8 hours seems enough. The Banner talk 22:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The point is moot. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, for the bot. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High profile footballer was today charged (not convicted) with rape. The-Pope (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – Some purely vandalistic edits, and possible sockpuppetry, going on for about a month now – where editors (IP and registered) edit war over the subject's relationship status with unsourced or unreliable sources. Semi protection might be better fit as the majority of the changes to this article as of late appear to pertain only to this edit war. — MusikAnimal talk 20:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by another admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Widr (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Diannaa (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent tampering of record sales... Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 01:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Over the past few weeks, there have been a lot of edits coming from unregistered IPs regarding this film's cast, most if not all of them having to be reverted due to the information being either unsourced or improperly sourced. I'm requesting the page be protected from edits from unregistered IPs for a temporary period of time. LoveWaffle (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Bearian.. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – BLP vandalism. Martin451 (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – This article has been deleted three times in the last six months. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected ·addshore· talk to me! 22:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandals arrived the day the last protection expired. King Jakob C2 22:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ·addshore· talk to me! 22:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Unsourced commentary with negative connotations being repeatedly added in by IP editor. There have been vandalistic edits by other IPs as well. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Drmies.. Legoktm (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism following recent well-publicised court case. WP:BLP issues. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. No defamation under US law. What do other admins think? Bearian (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You think repeatedly calling someone a "nonce" is not defamatory??!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also support this request. IP vandals rarely wish to engage in dialogue and it just ends up a tiresome waste of everyone's time. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Persistent vandalism. Venezuelan users keep changing the map of Guyana to reflect outdated and unrecognized claims to 2/3 of Guyana's territory. Please lock the map to the standard map which doesn't reflect Venezuela's outdated territorial claims. There is already a page "Guayana Esequiba" which reflects these territorial claims, as well as a section in the "Guyana" page which reflects these claims. There is no reason for the main map to display territorial claims which are not recognized by any country other than Venezuela.

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I don't see what is the problem. There has been virtually no recent vandalism. Anybody else see something I don't see? Bearian (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20 June 2013

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Template creator dislikes the TfD and tries to hide it. The Banner talk 09:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Only one user, better to take action against them if necessary. Though you're getting a bit heated with him. GedUK  12:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Page in my own userspace. L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Note: No history of vandalism, and such pages are almost usually never vandalised. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - See my comments below. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: page in my userspace. L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Note: No history of vandalism, and such pages are almost usually never vandalised. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - Policy is not settled about user subpages which haven't been vandalized. See my comments below. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: page in my userspace. L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Note: No history of vandalism, and such pages are almost usually never vandalised. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - Uncertain policy about this. If you get any vandalism, contact me and I'll semi all these pages. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Tolly4bolly 10:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Non-administrator comment) Not serious one. I can see any recent discussion at article talk page or editors' talk pages. Have they tried discussing? --Tito☸Dutta 04:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Yes, it's only been reverted twice between them. At this stage it's not necessary. If they carry on, wanr both for edit warring, then report to WP:3RRN. Protection isn't necessary for two people. GedUK  11:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Constant/persistent edit warring over disputed content which would seem insignificant to the naked eye. I call the big one bitey (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Note: No history of vandalism, and such pages are almost usually never vandalised. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Error. =P Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected - 2 months. Violations of WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: My own userpage. L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Note: No history of vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Has been questioned by police in relation to a murder case [15] page should protected temporarily to let the facts filter out. Calidum Sistere 06:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection., At this stage there doesn't seem to be any major BLP violations. Everything's sourced bar one actegory addition which might be vandalism GedUK  11:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection, 24 hrs With the 2013 NBA Finals ongoing, a lot of fans trying to add their favorite player to the list, which is not helpful. Please protect for 24 hrs, until after today's Game 7 (it ends around 05:00 GMT, so 20 hrs would be enough, too). --bender235 (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 20 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 20:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Tolly4bolly 20:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected - 1 week. Please try to find consensus on the talk page. If this continues after protection ends, consider WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism by IP-shifting vandal DVdm (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Vandal with dynamic IP is constantly forging content since last protection expired. Oleola (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Widr (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please restore recently-lapsed protection. Series of IPs posting soapboxing hate propaganda unrelated to editing the associated article. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi protection: Content dispute/edit warring – This article was mentioned in a post on reddit, which specifically stated that it was involved in edit warring with a side of COI. Involved users appear to be IPs. Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) 22:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 08:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. King Jakob C2 21:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. :-) Bishonen | talk 08:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Way too many edits from specific Ips without ref. (Argento1985) 01:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Many of the IP changes are sourced, though not discussed. If you think the IPs are making errors please explain on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – This article is the subject of an AfD. Two editors are edit warring over which version should be "preserved" for review at the AfD, and neither seems to understand that the version that is "live" is not directly relevant to the AfD outcome. Requesting full protection for the duration of the deletion discussion to stop the revert warring (in my opinion, the outcome of the AfD is unlikely to be influenced by cleanup of the article over the next few days). VQuakr (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – It looks like the person who was reverting has stopped. The current editing is reasonable, though the article seems messy and verbose. It may be that the article will be kept and the matter will have to go to dispute resolution. Report again if you think it's still a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – an IP continues to add unsourced info. Digifan23 (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – 2 months. IPs making unsourced changes. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Various IP address including 82.13.84.198 has been changing the Unscheduled Episodes and putting Plots on the header and not all of the lines are completely filled in, some are blanked, and I don't think that Plot is even supposed to be on the Unscheduled Episodes, also the IP address have changed the title to Upcoming Episodes, undid it and they keep reputing it back on. AKA, they keep changing "in the fall of 2013" to "this fall 2013." I recommended doing a temporary semi-protection and let it expire until sometime in the Q3 of 2013. Archcaster 15:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot if IP vandalism that needs reverting due to a transfer rumour, please protect for a couple of weeks. JMHamo (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, seems to have settled down SlimVirgin (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection: edit war. Please protect it until the RfC is closed. Faizan 13:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. I intended "full" Faizan 12:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. The reverting has stopped; please ask again if problems continue. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short-term vandalism. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, seems to have settled down. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full-protection: Persistent vandalism. IPs (probably MISA members) are removing content, adding unecessary things and changing what was right (without any proves, Bivolaru is convicted of child sexual abuse and human trafficking in Romania). --Proud-of-the-new-Romanian-justice ✉ 17:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by another admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Vandalizm. Content dispute/edit warring. Please return the article to the version before the war edits (6 june)--Lori-m (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Unsourced changes to album sales by several IPs. This has been happening since May 8 when the last protection expired. 0z (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Anon users (varying IPs) keep adding unrelated content to the article. uKER (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The material added (three times within the past 24h alone) is about other smartphones from other manufacturers, even though those other smartphones have their own articles. The most active IP leads to AT&T Corporate Internet Service (ATT Chief Security Office) and the others geolocate to Redmond, WA. Thomas.W (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected – 2 months. Edit warring by IPs who don't use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long time vandalized article. The worst part is the edits are not reverted in time. Right now, I made few minor change, actually I see, I have to revert back to November 2012 to get last good version. I do not know what to do. Last year, I cleaned up this article. But, it has again become a mess. Tito☸Dutta 22:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – Six months. Long-term problem. Article has few watchers. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC Persistent sockpuppetry. An user from Belgrade is constanly falsifying the charts' peak. Last time PC worked well. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – 2 months. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Until July 15, one day after the event. Either semi-protection or pending changes. Due to mass IP edits inserting false or unverified info. — Richard BB 19:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – 1 month. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Excessive IP vandalism after the actor portraying Tony Soprano, James Gandolfini, died. --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal) 02:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected – Two weeks. Use the talk page to get consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite move protection: This page got into somewhat of a mess because of an undiscussed move and another editor's botched but good faith attempt to revert that move. I have an outstanding WP:RM technical request to move the article (currently at Kane (Wrestler) - note capital "W") back to this title. I believe the title of this article has been discussed a few times now and move protection is warranted once the article gets moved back to its proper title. . —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected - One month due to move-warring. Page is at this title now due to a request at WP:RM/TR. You can see that move in the page history. There is no visible request to go from 'wrestler' to 'Wrestler'. If you still prefer that, see WP:RM for how to open a formal move discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. It has been long determined in many talk page discussions (e.g., Talk:Futurama_(season_6), Talk:List of Futurama episodes) that Futurama episodes are to be sorted by production order, and not US broadcast order, which is just a random and objectively-wrong order that Fox and Comedy Central made up (to the ire of the show's creators). All the DVD and Blu-Ray releases of Futurama have followed production order and the creators have noted that production order is the preferred and correct order to watch the show. The second half of season 7 has just begun to air, and it appears that at least the first four episodes of the season 7-B (=second half of season 7) are being aired out of order by Comedy Central. Many IPs editors have been ignoring the in-text warnings that broadcast order is wrong and converting the list to broadcast order. We need the page to be semiprotected for as long as possible (preferably until December when the DVD/BD volume 8 comes out). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected 2 months. Edit warring about episode order by IPs who don't participate on Talk. There is some discussion of the episode order in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurama (season 7). See also Talk:List of Futurama episodes. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – It's becoming a high-traffic page with lots of bad edits and addition of unsourced content. — Confession0791 talk 00:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ϫ 02:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP editors keep adding blatantly defamatory content about an individual who recently died. Andrew327 22:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected - 3 months. BLP vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continued vandalism since protection was lifted. . Blethering Scot 22:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ϫ 03:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Elizium23 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ϫ 03:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full-protection: Persistent vandalism. IPs are removing content, adding unecessary things and changing what was right. --Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 11:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I guess you meant semi-protection. Tolly4bolly 17:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected – 2 months. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Delljvc (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected - Three months. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Actor just died, already been a few cases of offensive vandalism. Somchai Sun (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with request, please expedite semi-protection, the rang of IPs are vandalizing faster than patrols can revert. :) John Cline (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this needs semi-protection. Onco p53 (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as soon as possible please. Teammm talk
email 00:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Please expedite. Taroaldo ✉ 00:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

asap! --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 00:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). -Ekabhishektalk 01:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – An anon IP editor is making repeated POV and derogatory edits to the Pat Forde article, and ignoring repeated vandalism warnings. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, because 107.10.163.232 is a static IP, and can be blocked if they continue. I agree their edits are disruptive and violate the biographies of living persons policy, but they haven't edited since your last warning. I'll try to watch the article, but feel free to ping me on my page if I should miss further disruption. Bishonen | talk 19:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The content was edited to damage the reputation of the company.

Not done Vandalism is the least of the issues. This article needs to be deleted as WP:SPAM. I can't see how it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

21 June 2013

Indefinite full protection: Please full-protect both this and User:AutomaticStrikeout/right side indefinitely. I am retired now and may not be checking my watchlist very regularly at all. These two pages are transcluded onto my user page, but would not be watched by any of my talk page watchers unless they manually put these two subpages on their watchlist. Due to the danger of these pages being vandalized and that vandalism not being caught, I would like both pages protected. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  15:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected both pages as requested. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism.....temporary for 2 weeks or so should sufffice. ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 13:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The article had recently come off a 1-week protection, whereupon vandalism resumed. After this one lifts, let's see whether a long-term protection, or maybe pending-changes protection, is warranted. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Sockpuppetry, target of LTA account. . SFK2 (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 23:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Rami R 08:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Semi-protection: Frequent and persistent vandalism and/or ignorant adding and removing of fighters from list. Some positive IP contributions but about half the total IP edits are at the very least inappropriate and at the most vandalism. Luchuslu (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Rami R 09:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Verify that there is no false information from new, unregistered users, and vandals. Ken Seh 19:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Rami R 09:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For at least six months, IP user 71.90.221.197 has consistently been making edits to this page, perpetuating a hoax that Portia Gibbons (a "Mighty B!" character) has a spin-off show. I don't know if this warrants permanent protection, but given the IP editor's six-month commitment to the hoax, I would like to request a longer term than usual. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Rami R 09:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Content dispute, politically motivated POV-pushing. The Banner talk 19:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No useful discussion about the edits, only a full blown cavalry charge. The Banner talk 19:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: - asked the editors on the article talk what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Repeatedly recreated as pure nonsense, vandalism or promo (8 times in 2013 alone). No foreseeable legitimate use since the image file does not require a Talk page IMHO. kashmiri TALK 17:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator NawlinWiki.. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long time vandalism (addition of frivolous systemic bias tag against consensus). A one month protection of the page recently expired, and the vandal is back (once more editing from his/her main location, IP 84.52.101.196, geolocating to St Petersburg, Russia, after having IP-hopped for a while). Thomas.W (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has now added the frivolous systemic bias tag three times within the past 18 hours, so he/she clearly shows that he/she has no intention of stopping what he/she is doing. Thomas.W (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JohnCD (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent additions by multiple IP editors of unsourced content. - Biruitorul Talk 00:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JohnCD (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – To protect against the sock/vandal/troll from yesterday. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 09:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by Fram for 1 week. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect for two weeks. Many unhelpful IP edits that need reverting due to a story about a move to Liverpool FC. JMHamo (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rami R 09:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – it's not clear why anons have decided to make this a target, but it's fairly consistent. Perhaps a three-week lock-down?. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rami R 09:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi- (or full-) protection: Persistent edit-warring in recent weeks by four or five IPs re: the outcome (strategic American, Pyrrhic American, indecisive North Vietnamese, I don't care...). Ignatzmice•talk 03:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rami R 08:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Multiple instances of unconstructive editing in the past few days. Greengreengreenred 03:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rami R 08:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: According to this diff on gl.wp, this user has passed away. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected. Rami R 08:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – They just won the Finals and IPs are vandalizing the page. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 04:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – This is one of those articles anon users love to edit w/ nonsense. Tyros1972 Talk 02:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)Are you serious there is only one edit in 13 days and that too by an IP editor. I will go on to oppose even a semi protection. The Legend of Zorro 02:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – same vandalism that happened on Seth MacFarlane's main article page is starting to happen again on his filmography. Lady Lotus (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

22 June 2013

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: Correct me if I am wrong, but this page is only intended for registered users to request access to the tool. Don't see why unregistered users would need to edit this. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 08:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe but very few IP editors request it and can easily be declined. tutterMouse (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Diannaa (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: I would like to request for page protection for The Voice of the Philippines (season 1) and The Voice of the Philippines. Unknown IPs are making small vandalism edits. I would like to request for page protection from unknown IPs for at least 3 months or until the end of September, the month where the show will end. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 11:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Harryboyles 17:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the temporary full protection as the one logging in with ip and deleting the content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naanmahan (talk • contribs) 13:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The material you are trying to add is copyright and is being removed for a very good reason. I have placed some information on your talk page. Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:PRISM (surveillance program) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary pending changes: disruptive IP editor with dancing IPs so article is semi 1 week, I'd prefer to keep the talk open with PC1, but if you feel semi is better than PC1 on talk so be it. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Multiple_IPs_.28same_user.29_reported_by_User:Nstrauss_.28Result:_Semi.29. Widefox; talk 16:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator EdJohnston. Harryboyles 17:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: vandalism after the recent naming of a "celebrity" baby. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Lots of IP vandalism that has been going on for months, also constant addition of unsourced information about his personal life/relationships/kids, and fan edits such as "Future is cool"/"I love Future". It has been temp semi-protected twice already for the above reasons, but vandalism keeps on going. 2Flows (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Inserting racist images and copyvio. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. by EdJohnston. Diannaa (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Too much trash by IP's. Pg 6475 TM 12:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks. The page has never been protected before, and we don't jump immediately to indefinite semiprotection. Diannaa (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Requesting auto-confirmed users only to prevent persistent vandalism. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: misrepresentation of sources by IPs regarding a murder investigation AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator EdJohnston. Harryboyles 17:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism in the past few days. ZappaOMati 03:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect: Persistent edit-warring by an IP editor, blocked three times this week for edit-warring, who has now returned with a new IP. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. De728631 (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page is continuosly vandalised or POV pushed by IPs with quite Exceptional claims. I am requesting temporary semi protection after the latest addition of quite libel information on the subject today. See page history. The Legend of Zorro 09:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. De728631 (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP editor persistently adding copyrighted images. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Protected by EdJohnston. De728631 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protection: Long-term endemic IP vandalism and recent edit-warring. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of three weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 07:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - This has been a favorite target of the IP-hopping LTA pest dubbed "The Voice Cast Vandal" for several years, but they have been escalating the fake credit vandalism quite a bit recently. Pending changes would also be acceptable... actually it might be better in the long run. Doc talk 23:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 07:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temp. PC BLP violations. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 07:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Several IP vandalise the page by adding large chunk of text lift from Godzilla Wiki, ignoring the discussion in talk page. This has go on for a while. L-Zwei (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 07:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Long-term IP-hopping vandal keeps changing networks on these three articles and templates even with sources in the text as to where they aired. Nate • (chatter) 03:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 07:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Not sure if this is sock puppetry or meat puppetry, but the last 4 IPs making similar edits are all from Zhenjiang . Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 5, the latest having been reverted once and then restoring their edit. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The user has been doing that on several other articles too (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/117.90.245.113). --Cold Season (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. As this has happened 3 more times since, I'll be bold and protect it myself. PC is better than just blocking IPs. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tragic death of journalist Michael Hastings has seen significant media attention, with a 51-fold increase in page visits over a one day period.[1] I'm sorry to say that Mr. Hastings died in a fiery single-car accident, colliding into a tree and dying at the scene. He was a war correspondent who aggressively challenged the Pentagon and some of it's top Generals and Officials. Reported by the New York Daily News,[2] his death has caught fire with many conspiracy theorists with claims of a CIA related assassination. These claims, along with an increase in article traffic, make for a bad mix of edit wars and misinformation.

So I plead to any Administrator, please apply a temporary semi-protection in respect of Mr. Hastings.

Thank you.

UnluckyJohnThomas (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 07:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Nigerian IP's blanking sections. Auric talk 06:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The sections being removed lack sources. How is removing them disruptive? Rami R 07:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on its talk page, I do not really see a need for protecting this template, the reason given was "very high-risk template" which I doubt – it is only used on 50 pages or so, and there has not been much vandalism, if any. Even if it needed protection, autoconfirmed protection would have been sufficient. I am also asking the admin who protected it, but since he appears to be inactive I am asking here at the same time. Thanks, SPQRobin (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Legoktm (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Requesting immediate archiving...

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Ongoing edit war. (Hohum @) 00:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. King Jakob C2 23:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. bibliomaniac15 23:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism. Lady Lotus (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. bibliomaniac15 23:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: This trial, like that of Jodi Arias in Arizona, has attracted much media attention, and, like the Arias trial, has caused much commentary. So that this page cannot be used as a potential base for a "Justice for Trayvon" or "Justice for George Zimmerman" campaign, temporary page protection is requested. I raise this concern since the page on the killing of Travis Alexander was vandalised considerably by a user who was subsequently blocked. It took much time and effort to revert the extensive vandalism. In order that such a situation might be avoided again, this page should be locked until, at the earliest, after the trial. I have also filed an RPP request on the "State of Florida v George Zimmerman" page for the same reasons set out here. The Historian (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. I don't see any evidence of a content dispute or disruption that would warrant full protection at the moment. The article is already semi-protected. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: This trial, like that of Jodi Arias in Arizona, has attracted much media attention, and, like the Arias trial, has caused much commentary. So that this page cannot be used as a potential base for a "Justice for Trayvon" or "Justice for George Zimmerman" campaign, temporary page protection is requested. I raise this concern since the page on the killing of Travis Alexander was vandalised considerably by a user who was subsequently blocked. It took much time and effort to revert the extensive vandalism. In order that such a situation might be avoided again, this page should be locked until, at the earliest, after the trial. I will also be filing an RPP on the "shooting of Trayvon Martin" page, for the same reasons as set out here. The Historian (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. See also section above. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Recently released film. Needs to have protection for a week or so to avoid vandalism from ip editing. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. The anonymous IP edits so far appear to be constructive. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: It is not because of content dispute. One of the editors has been just trolling. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic_behavior_by_user_Smarojit. IsaacsirupChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected. Looking at the history of the article as well as its talk page and the ANI case referenced, I find it odd that the article was protected as a result of the petitioner's actions. It looks to me like a content dispute that is not yet resolved on the talk page. Work it out. The protection expires in a few days. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

23 June 2013

Temporary semi-protection: constant unsourced changes of his club from Blackpool to Crystal Palace. No permanent move has been confirmed, so this is inappropriate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. Activity spiked for a few hours yesterday but has since quieted down. Re-list if situation worsens. AlexiusHoratius 17:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – ip nationalistic struggle, and removal of sources. WhiteWriterspeaks 14:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. AlexiusHoratius 17:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: A lot of edit warring recently from some seemingly random ip's. They almost all regard the band's early days, and it appears someone closely connected to the issue is behind it all, although i'm just making assumptions. I call the big one bitey (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. Activity did flare up at the time of this report but article has since quieted down a great deal. Re-list if situation worsens. AlexiusHoratius 17:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:I'llbeyourbabytonight (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – Don't seem to be a productive and civilized member of the community, according to unblock request and past edits. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • temporary move protection Dramatic RM that moved away from Deadmau5, which is preferred by fans. Threats on the talk page to move it back. There is an ongoing RM as we speak - the third in as many weeks. Let's protect this for 3 months, starting now, so that whatever is decided will remain stable for a little while.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move-protection I see no move-warring, I see edit-warring. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, this is more pre-emptive. There was a threat on the talk page to move it. As legions of fans find out about this move, one of them is sure to try to move it, in spite of several highly disputed RMs.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Pages are not protected pre-emptively.", even there is a "declined" tag with this rationale in the "New to RFPP? Read me!" template enlisted here. You respect WP:MOSTM then respect the WP:PP. If this "legion of fans"--read WP:CIVIL, does all of the opposers are fans? If not calm down--start to move the page then come back and request protection. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOVP, move protection can be applied to "Pages subject to a page-name dispute." Please AGF, I didn't know this was NEVER done pre-emptively. In any case, this is an epic dispute, spilling over onto various talk pages, policy pages, etc. Anyway, it's your decision, so I'll respect it. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, I cannot decline your request but I can oppose it. Also by "Pages subject to a page-name dispute" this refers to pages already under a page-name dispute like Injustice: Gods Among Us, not that pages that are likely to be moved without consensus or against it because it sill being pre-emptive. Also this is not bad faith, I am simply guiding you how the PP works. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the page was already recently moved once, out of process, after a first move request from Deadmau5 to Deadmaus, and then reverted. So there is a history here...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, three weeks ago, not yesterday. Really stop with this unless it is moved. It is clear you don't want it to be moved, but if it is moved against consensus it will have consequences to the person who move it and it can be moved back. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Seriously, can you please AGF AGF AGF?? I posted yesterday a long and deeply researched post on why it should be moved to Deadmau5 from it's current title of Deadmaus. So I WANT it to be moved - and yet, am asking for protection for the good of the wiki. Anyway, I've said enough here, an admin will judge. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You ask me to "AGF" when you said "As legions of fans find out about this move, one of them is sure to try to move it" and assume the page is in risk to be moved with no evidence (seriously it would have been moved all these days but it hasn't happened). Pages aren't moved pre-emptively and this, of course, shouldn't be an exception. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making this stuff up Tbhotch.
  1. The article was *already* moved once out of process, immediately after a formal RM, by someone invoking IAR
  2. Threats by users to move if the move doesn't go how they like: "Once this move request is over and if the article is not moved I will be taking the liberty of moving it back to it's stable title of Deadmau5 per WP:COMMONNAME, common sense and the obvious consensus to do so!"
  3. Determined fans with quotes like this "Stop fighting so hard for something, because I'm extremely determined to get this fixed and I won't stop fighting, I don't care how long it takes. I will appeal, appeal and appeal again until it gets fixed. This could go on for years."
Again, for me, a page-move-protect is not that big of a deal - it just means non-admins can't move the page around willy-nilly. Given the extreme drama around page renames, it's obvious to me that no-one should be moving the page without admin assistance. So putting a short-term cooler on page moves will help to diffuse the situation, no matter what result is decided at the ongoing RM.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined for now. I do agree somewhat with Obi-Wan, move protection isn't as 'serious' as other types, but there has only been one move several weeks ago. I'd need to see more disruption than that for a protection. Re-list if situation worsens. AlexiusHoratius 17:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The subject is controversial and the article has been moved several times. Some editors who are against the present title keep on inserting their preferred title and engage in edit wars using multiple IPs. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. Report was good at the time but there have been no edits in past few days. Re-list if situation worsens. AlexiusHoratius 17:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent socking disruption by several different ip adresses (one user) since the 18th (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/117.90.245.113). --Cold Season (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now - report was good at the time but there haven't been any edits in past few days. Re-list if situation worsens. AlexiusHoratius 17:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Huge Edit war is underway and talk page is marred with alligations & counters. Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can any Admin look into this request? There were few reverts today too.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 18:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined for now - only a couple of recent reverts. Re-list is situation worsens. AlexiusHoratius 16:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. — Abhishek  Talk 17:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of one day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 18:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – These Malaysia football articles are never left alone. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 16:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 18:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism, replacing content of deity article with information about namesake caste.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 18:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism and disruption by two ARBMAC-warned IPs. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 18:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Different IPs (but quite possibly the same person) reverting the same edit over and over. See [16]. Greengreengreenred 01:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 18:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: constant unsourced changes of his club from Celtic to Southampton. No permanent move has been confirmed, so this is inappropriate.

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 17:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: A lot of WP:BLP vandalism. STATic message me! 17:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 17:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Cncmaster/Archive 3 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: User request. No reason for new users to modify this archive. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 17:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. AlexiusHoratius 17:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-Protection The page is persistently being vandalized. Many different IPs and other very few users are editing. Its mainly IPs. Despite my warnings and saying not to add Rumors or blank sections they have. Both the New MEM section and the full Members section. A few weeks of semi-protection should be fine, when the full members are announced. BlackDragon 16:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 17:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Same here. Similar to many other K-pop articles. Massive IP sock and sock activity adding unsourced positions and birthdays. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 17:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Similar to many other K-pop articles. Massive IP sock and sock activity adding unsourced positions and birthdays. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 17:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from an IP hopper who has insisted for weeks on adding mountains of unsourced material to the article in violation of Wikipedia policy. Have a look at his edit summaries for his flawed reasoning. Thanks. AfricaTanz (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 17:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism.People are writing his as a Arsenal player when he has not joined.Also many vandal changes are also acting on the page. Deb (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 17:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Persistent unsourced speculation about Reyes moving to Porto. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected (one week for Reyes, one month for F.C. Porto, three months for Mexico national team) AlexiusHoratius 17:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Frequent vandalism since protection ended recently. STATic message me! 17:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 17:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Koala15 (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 17:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Recent spate of somewhat complex vandalism across multiple accounts and IPs that the bots aren't getting properly, resulting in some vandal edits getting retained unintentionally. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I just noticed that you had requested pending changes here. I think semiprotection is a better option because it's a fairly low-profile article and traffic is virtually non-existent (except for the vandalism). If you think pending changes would be better, let me know and I'll be happy to change it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP hopper causing a ruckus for the last several days. Dawnseeker2000 21:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Football player currently undergoing transfer speculation. Lots of IPs making unconstructive edits. Adam4267 (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 17:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – requesting temporary protection due to transfers period, people like to rumor names and not to add them after official announcements. (Argento1985) 13:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC) more entries of vandalism added recently, please do not ignore. (Argento1985) 23:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 17:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The Last of Us, a very succesful video game, has been out for a week or so know. As expected, it drew a lot of attention from nasty IP's. For the last couple of days, there have been a lot of section blanking and POV pushing edits. A temporary block, say a month, should do the trick. Soetermans. T / C 12:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 17:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and

Temporary semi-protection for both: I count at least four different IPs all locating to Semerang Indonesia trying to add info about a non existent video game to these two articles. Since previous protection expired the situation has gotten worse. MarnetteD | Talk 03:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Note that this is the first protection for both articles - the anon had added protection templates to the articles when they were messing with them, but neither was actually protected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Widr (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

24 June 2013

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – IPs changing height without providing/updating source. Tolly4bolly 18:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protection: Article is protected due to edit warring by IP and sockpuppets. Active SPI in progress. Talk page vandalism has been persistent, attempting to reopen a discussion that was closed by an admin. I know talk pages are rarely protected, but this might be one of those times to make the exception. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrators, this user Niteshift36 (talk) is a liar and posing a double standard accusing others as sockpuppets to try and justify blocking them from a Talk page discussion while he himself engages in meatpuppetry with his meatpuppet friends to try and keep their POV that SWAT is not a Special Operations unit on the SWAT article. He had previously requested that we initiate a vote or discussion on the Talk page instead of edit warring, so we had discontinued any edit warring and instead opened a a discussion for a Vote on the talk page as to whether or not SWAT was considered a Special Operations unit. If you read the discussion, we even tried to make a compromise with Niteshift on the issue of SWAT being a Special Forces unit but he was unwilling to compromise and continued to engage in meatpuppetry and a double hypocritical standard of accusing others of socks.

The user Niteshift36 even thanked us saying "As a side note, I do appreciate the attempt to discuss this time," for starting the discussion/vote on this issue, here is the proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT

And then as the discussion progresses, due to the fact that we provided numerous reputable sources from American Special Ops organization and Special Operations group as well as numerous police department sites that specifically say "Special Operations" in direct reference to SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics), proving that SWAT was considered a Special Operations unit by the Special Forces community Niteshift36 realizes that he cannot either backup or support his opinions with sourced references so he and his Meatpuppet friends engage in Meatpuppetry to try influence the the SWAT discussion from changing consensus. But when they realized that their meatpuppet tactics weren't working then they are now trying to use the so-called excuse that we are socks. The vote should be left to continue as there will be many other people who will want to make a vote on this issue of SWAT being a Special Operations unit so that a new consensus can be reached. You can check the records here to see that he was using a group of friends, Meatpuppets, to try and create a fake "consensus" that SWAT was not a Special Forces or Special Operations unit, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT/Archive_1#Special_force_or_not

The meatpuppets of Niteshift36 are:

1.) Anir1uph, you can see Niteshift36 calling over his meatpuppet friend here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anir1uph#Discussion_at_SWAT

2.) Dougweller

3.) Callanecc, you can see Niteshift36 calling his other meatpuppet friend here at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Callanecc#Discussion_at_SWAT_article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.90.242.104 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, when you were one person, I was glad to see you were willing to discuss. After you started trying to manipulate a sham vote, that goodwill and presumption of good faith disappeared.Niteshift36 16:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No, you were engaging in meatpuppetry from the very start by contacting your meatpuppet friends Anir1uph and Callanecc. We have tried to negotiate and compromise with you but all you have done is try to use the excuse of socks or sham to try and prevent us from even taking a vote on this issue of whether or not SWAT is a Special Operations unit. You were told many times to backup your personal opinions and everyone reading this Talk page can see that you instead of academically supporting your statements like we did with our sources, you just try to block others from editing with the lame sock excuse. The vote must continue as there will be other constructive members of Wikipedia who will want to take a vote on this important issue at the SWAT page, closing it amounts to nothing more than tyranny by the Niteshift36, Dougweller an administrator who is abusing his rights and privileges as an administrator by becoming the meatpuppet of Niteshift36. I told you many times before, let us come to a compromise on this issue of SWAT being a Special Operations unit and we can just leave this discussion at peace for now and forever! 117.90.242.104 (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refrain from a hypocritical double standard, anyone reading wikipedia and looking at the exact time and date when you called and notified your meatpuppet friends about the discussion at the SWAT talk page can see that all you were doing was telling them to come over the the talk page and put their vote or influence to sway the discussion in your bias. By definition, they were meatpuppets and there is no way for you to deny that. Again, out of a humane consideration, I want to be the bigger man and extend the hand of compromise so that we can, together hand in hand, come to a consensus on the SWAT article and end this unnecessary conflict, what do you say? 117.90.242.104 (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I was going to do this anyway before I saw the RPP. I have not been involved with this article, but I have added to the SPI concerning thse IPs. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dougweller (talk) is an administrator who is abusing his privileges as an administrator, he tries to block people from editing as part of the meatpuppet POV pushing campaign initiated by Niteshift36. Dougweller (talk) needs to have his administrator status revoked due to his abuse and unethical blocking of good faith editors who are trying to establish the worldwide accepted fact that SWAT is a Special Operations unit. Even now, he just blocked the SWAT Talk page in an effort to prevent the Vote from taking place, he doesn't want people to establish the consensus that SWAT is a Special Operations unit because he knows that any vote would result favorably in SWAT being a SpecOps unit.

You can check this sourced reference here which specifically states on their page

"Special Weapons and Tactics teams (SWAT) are special operations units in civilian law enforcement agencies such as County Police Departments, Sheriff Departments, US Marshall service, the FBI etc."

See the source here at:

http://www.americanspecialops.com/special-weapons-and-tactics/

117.90.242.104 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what you said in your edit summary, Wikipedia is NOT a democracy — Richard BB 17:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary my fine gentleman, where is the sourced and referenced information saying that "Wikipedia is NOT a democracy"???????

But nevertheless, all articles should be accurate in terms of the information presented in the articles and just because a small group of editors like Niteshift36 and his meatpuppet friends want to put their POV on the article should warrant a greater effort to maintain the academic accuracy of this online encyclopedia, go to the American Special Ops site and confirm for yourself that SWAT is indeed a Special Operations unit. 117.90.242.104 (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the link I provided, it will detail why Wikipedia is not a democracy. — Richard BB 17:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regardless of whether or not you believe Wikipedia is a democracy is aside from the issue at stake here, we are talking about maintain academic accuracy of the SWAT article and as the article currently stands it mentions absolutely nothing about SWAT being a Special Operations unit despite the overwhelming public consensus that SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) is a Special Operations unit. The American Special Ops site specifically states:

"Special Weapons and Tactics teams (SWAT) are special operations units in civilian law enforcement agencies such as County Police Departments, Sheriff Departments, US Marshall service, the FBI etc."

You can confirm the source at this link: http://www.americanspecialops.com/special-weapons-and-tactics/

117.90.242.104 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Odd, I know I added this an hour or so ago, probably an edit conflict I didn't notice and then I closed the tab. I haven't been involved with this article or talk page although I have been adding to the relevant SPI and dealing with other pages that were being hit by sock and meat puppets. I was planning to protect this before I saw the RPP. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not the place for this debate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Dougweller (talk) is abusing his privileges as an administrator, he tries to block people from editing as part of the meatpuppet POV pushing campaign initiated by Niteshift36. He is being dishonest about his involvement in the SWAT article dispute. The discussion at the SWAT page should be allowed to continue so we can establish a consensus on the issue of SWAT being a Special Operations unit, and Dougweller has no right to block the Talk page as he is doing it in an uncivilised effort to silence any opposing views and prevent a consensus from being established. He is violating Wikipedia policy on discussion pages. Ask yourself, how can a consensus come into being when the discussion Talk page is blocked by an abusive administrator Dougweller (talk) who is trying to prevent the discussion from even occurring in the first place?? He knows that all the evidence, all the public sources, references, all the public majority consensus, as well as consensus within the Special Operations Forces community all agree that SWAT is a Special Operations unit117.90.242.104 (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the meatpuppet master Niteshift36 coming to support his meatpuppet friends, everyone can see that you contacted meatpuppets to help you influence and sway articles in the direction of your POV bias! :) 117.90.242.104 (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niteshift36 (talk), you are the meatpuppet master who is creating the problem, we have tried to have discussions with you on the Talk page, but you first refused to give us any sourced references backing up your POV that SWAT is not a Special Operations unit despite us providing you with numerous reputable sources proving that it is. And second, when you realize you cannot justify your POV with real evidence you resort to ignoring our efforts at discussion and try repeatedly to have us blocked. Three, you then get your meatpuppet friends to block to SWAT Talk page to prevent a discussion from even occurring in the first place which means that you have done nothing except try to block others from establishing a consensus about SWAT being a SpecOps unit! Four, we have made repeated efforts to maintain the peace by offering to make a compromise with you on the first paragraph of the SWAT article and you have refused, preferring only to block and suppress us and other editors from our good faith edits! 117.90.242.104 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – long term history of vandalism, it's an educational institution so a likely target. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - except for 20 minutes yesterday the article hasn't seen that much vandalism. AlexiusHoratius 15:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – No point using PC, it's the same person vandalising the article over and over again. All edits this few days have been vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 16:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 16:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Resurgence in sock puppetry by banned User:HarveyCarter. RashersTierney (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 16:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 16:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short-term IP vandalism. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 15:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Page has been recreated multiple times, and deleted as a test page (WP:G2) both times. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected indef. AlexiusHoratius 15:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: I, the subject of the wikipage, have recently received harassing emails and facebook messages threatening internet vandalism if I do not pay preventative money. This matter has been reported to the police, and therefore I am requesting protection for changes to my page (the English version as well as the Czech and German versions). Thank you. Paulmauf (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm assuming the editor who requested protection meant Paul Mauffray, which is indefinitely semi-protected due to BLP violations. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected. (indefinite semi-protection) by another admin. You're going to have to request protection separately on the German and Czech Wikipedias. AlexiusHoratius 15:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Been getting IP vandalism, trying to remove some of the less flattering content from page. This follows similar efforts back in January by some SPAs, which resulted in temporary protection. Thanks. Adamiow (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, much appreciated. Adamiow (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: The article's subject is a notable, active recording artist who is involved in several ongoing controversies. BLP violations and vandalism were daily occurrences when the article was unprotected, and are still fairly common even now. The current temporary semi-protection is due to expire on July 7th, so I figured I'd ask in advance. 3hunna (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Steven Walling • talk 05:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism from a single user who is switching IPs. The359 (Talk) 05:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Steven Walling • talk 05:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – an Ip keeps added unsourced info about balloons and floats being introduced. Digifan23 (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Steven Walling • talk 05:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant long-term IP vandalism and BLP violations. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Steven Walling • talk 05:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Potential trade involving subject, much speculation. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. Steven Walling • talk 05:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Pretty much the only edits this obscure article gets are from a single vandal who sets up sleeper socks to add the same incoherent joke once they're autoconfirmed. Pending changes would stop these edits from ever appearing to other readers. McGeddon (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. (The article seems to get hit a couple of times per year - not really enough to justify long-term protection.) AlexiusHoratius 22:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Likely IP socks restoring edits of user being discussed at AN/I. SummerPhD (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 23:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP about marginally notable person associated with another sometimes controversial figure has become a magnet for "new" editors to coatrack in NNPOV negative content. Needs either semi-protection or possibly deletion. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 23:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 23:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. (All three.) AlexiusHoratius 22:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP vandalism adding unsourced additions resumed after 2 week block lifted. Request one month semi-protection. Msw1002 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. AlexiusHoratius 18:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

temporary Semi-protection - adding of strange content by IPs.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. Only a few recent edits - just revert them for now if they are wrong. Re-list if situation continues or worsens. AlexiusHoratius 18:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. WadeSimMiser (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. AlexiusHoratius 18:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:208.54.83.218 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – IP 208.54.86.194 is edit warring to keep defamatory vandalism in. Auric talk 00:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked.. I realize more than one IP was active here, but the page has been quiet for awhile - let's see if the block works. Re-list if situation worsens. AlexiusHoratius 18:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:12.71.77.121 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – IPs 64.134.31.138, 208.54.86.194 and others are continually edit warring to remove shared IP notice and warnings. Auric talk 23:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked.. I realize more than one IP was active here, but the page has been quiet for awhile - let's see if the block works. Re-list if situation worsens. AlexiusHoratius 18:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

25 June 2013

Pending changes: BLP policy violations. STATic message me! 05:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Vandalised by Gpcv77. Hong Kong is not a roadmap country because the two bills (H.R.1923 & S.703) are still pending to pass by the congress.112.119.71.234 (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined No. Odd how the supposedly offending editor has a blank talk page. Try talking (and possibly warning) first, but be careful with vandalism claims (see WP:VANDAL). Drmies (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent test edits by IPs. Farhikht (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Increasing amounts of unsourced additions.  [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Seems to have quietened down. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enigmamsg 20:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tolly4bolly 20:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  20:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Its a GA wannabe, so needs protection. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Declined for now: there is no evidence of recent vandalism--well, duh, semi-protection just ran out. Wait and see if it happens again. Also, GA wannabes (?) don't automatically get semi-protection. Please re-report if IP vandalism actually picks up again. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Edit warring by floating IP Jim1138 (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP hopper reverting sourced content back to very vague original research. Anon even reverted Drmies. As such, Drmies has warned the anon and reverted the original research. Since the anon is blindly reverting, I am requesting at least 24 hours semi-protection. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary block all non-admin users - edit warring Treidoiunu (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – The person trying to restore the article has been warned. Wait and see if they are listening to the advice. EdJohnston (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of unsourced edits by anon IP editors. At the least needs pending changes. STATic message me! 05:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism, unsourced or various unconstructive edits. STATic message me! 02:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: An IP is repeatedly edit warring rather than discussing the matter as is appropriate and expected of a Featured Article. . MisterShiney ✉ 21:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Has continued even after discussion started (and ignored by other users) at talk page. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Already done. Admins, please complete the paperwork to avoid clogging up this board. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm requesting full protection! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which you won't get, since I don't see a reason for it in the history. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You don't see edit warring caused by content disputes (and at least in part by autoconfirmed editors)? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Don't let the sheer volume of edits fool you - this page is vandalized several times a day. King Jakob C2 14:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – One month by User:Mark Arsten. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – high level of vandalism in the past 24 hours. — MusikAnimal talk 20:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, for the bot GedUK  11:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Widr (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Acroterion (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sneaky vandalism from multiple IPs (which I'm assuming is the same person) by reverting legit edits without reason. I requested a temporary template protection a few days back, following which the page was fully protected for a period of three days. However, past that period, the culprit(s) has restarted his disruptive behavior despite multiple warnings including a Level-3 notification. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – 2 months. Edit warring by IPs who don't use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of multiple IP vandalism. Revert to my edits from today and place temp lock. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – Unexplained removal of content by IPs who don't use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Sock or meatpuppets edit warring tags into the image, no ideas why just that they are socks and meatpuppets. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – One month due to probably sockpuppetry. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible 3RR vio by Djapa84 and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Djapa84. EdJohnston (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Google Doodle of the day. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Revert to yesterday status, there were multiple edit wars about the catalan/spanish issue. Please revert to the agreed description as agreed on the talk sometime ago onTalk:Antoni_Gaudí/Archive_1#Spanish_Catalan_2. We will continue this discussion on the talk tomorrow, when the doodle is gone. Gavanzo (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. EzPz (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Legoktm. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – This page has experienced disruptive edits and has possible sockpuppetry by IPs. A semi-protection would end this and would help stop these IP Vandals from doing more damage to it. 155blue (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't think indefinite protection is called for just yet, but it's getting there. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – It seems every other edit is vandalism. A semi protect could be considered here. ~NottNott (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The one user who was removing the section today has been blocked. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked.. Please make another request if the disruption resumes or intensifies. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 21:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There seem to be more good anon edits than bad (or good faith ones, at least). --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. 2nyte (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mike V • Talk 18:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

26 June 2013

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Might become notable. GedUK  20:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Could well be notable in the future. GedUK  20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Girls' Generation World Tour - Girls & Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent unconstructive edits. Sni56996 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  20:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Protection just expired, gonna become a hot topic for IPs again. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That will get us through the 4th of July weekend. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple anons are making changes to the results of this tournament. As you can see, this is a future event and only 5 of 32 teams have qualified for the tournament. Please lock down for anon and new editors for a few weeks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  20:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Resumption of silly vandalism due to YouTube video (see [17]) after protection expired. Begoon talk 10:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  19:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Much Important page. BenisonPBaby 14:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Already protected. by Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in June 2009. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Seeking temporary protection for edits to be approved by reviewers given rapidly changing event and frequent edits with misinformation. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Semi protection would be pointless because almost everyone editing that page is a confirmed user. I don't condier full protection wise on an article moving this quickly, but if you think that's necessary please relist and another admin can look at it. GedUK  11:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection: Users persistently naming him as Prime Minister, when he has yet to be commissioned as such. He is simply a new leader for his party. --Dorsal Axe 10:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Semi protection would be pointless because almost everyone editing that page is a confirmed user. I don't consider full protection wise on an article moving this quickly, but if you think that's necessary please relist and another admin can look at it. GedUK  11:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Persistent BLP violations by IP hopping vandal. Need to include Talk page as well. Federales (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Certainly the article doesn't need it; 2 pieces of simple vandalism in the four days since protection ended isn't enough. THe talk page is closer, but again volumes are low and need to be much high to protect a talk page. GedUK  11:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. - Freddie AppsHero (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. GedUK  11:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Continuos addition of unambiguously promotional material by IP editor [closely related to subject]. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constant addition of unrelated links and hidden references to a totally unrelated Indian railways website. All done by different IPs over a course of months. --Dmol (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC. The page is a constant target of edits like this. I don't know if the editors really know that changing the title won't update the reference but it is constant: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], etc. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I seem to have stumbled upon an ongoing edit war while RC Patrolling. From what I can see, the main disagreement is whether the authority has legitimate policing authority or not. It also looks like Anons are the main culprit in this for the past few days. Signalizing (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short-term vandalism. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – More vandalism than anything else, and a nuisance to keep up with. After reversions, article is precisely back where it was 38 days ago. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism due to current event. Bms4881 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done by Pharos. Materialscientist (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – due to sockpuppetry. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected. Legoktm (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Some guy in Texas is afraid of back braces...and everyone is having fun, and slandering him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Constant blanking/vandalism in wake of recent hockey game. ProtossPylon 00:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Legoktm (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Believes that soon after the temp protection was expired there had been many vandalism on the page changing the details. Misleading readers with wrong information.

Declined Factually untrue. There has been zero IP editing since June 13, 2013. Please send edit disputes, if any, to the talk page. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: EBusiness has been vandalising the GeForce 700 Series page and thinks he owns it. He keeps removing external links and good info that others have added to the page. What the hell is wrong with Wikipedia supporting vandals and preventing people that actually care about good info being added from editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.211.223 (talk • contribs)

Declined No. First of all, this is, at the moment, more a content dispute than anything: your patently false claims of vandalism are personal attacks and if you don't stop making them I will block you. Second, Ebusiness actually is correct in their edits--they remove blatantly promotional language and information, they add sources, they remove a plethora of external links. [I'm copying this note to the article talk page.] Drmies (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: it actually was protected yesterday already, probably because of you. (Admin didn't complete the paperwork.) Drmies (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2: it was semi-protected yesterday, just to clarify (since the request was for full protection). (non-admin user returning to his hole) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that don't matter. It's the IP edits that were problematic. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated addition of unsourced info & false numbers by multiple IPs. Lexein (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
100% of the last 5 edits by IPs within the last 5 days is enough per SOP, advice and calculations given by WP:ROUGH. --Lexein (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

27 June 2013

Temporary semi-protection: assorted IP vandalism over months. Span (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – This is a high-visibility mid-season association football signing. Editors are changing the player's status before the official transfer window opens on 1 July. At least semi-protect until that date with the article in the state it is presently or in the state of any other Football Project member's edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Edit warring by IPs. — Abhishek  Talk 02:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Removed section which was the cause of the edit warring, as it it subject to BLP issues. Harryboyles 20:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long time repeated vandalism/unconstructive edits by IP users who both remove properly sourced content and add promotional material. Thomas.W (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enigmamsg 19:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: or unprotection. page protected in 2010 to prevent spamming, I think that pending changes would do the job here. Crazynas t 08:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Reduced from semi protection, to see how it goes. Harryboyles 19:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations – Or unprotect? low traffic BLP protected in 2010. Crazynas t 08:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Reduced from semi protection, to see how it goes. Harryboyles 19:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Unexplained removal of content from various IP addresses. The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, On a list like that, there's always going to be disagreement over what's notable GedUK  12:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High levels of IP vandalism from biased wikipedians. Jingiby (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. That's just not vandalism, this is a clear content dispute. THe only protection valid in this case would be full protection, and hopefully that's not necessary yet. Try starting a discussion on the talk page rather than constantly reverting. GedUK  11:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection: heated arguments on what the title of the article should be, with filings at WP:RM for technical uncontroversial speedy renames [24], which are clearly not uncontroversial considering the statements on the talk page. Move protection would clearly indicate the page cannot be moved without actual discussions. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The article is already semi-move-protected for some reason, and the target page already exists so can't be moved to without an admin to delete it first. GedUK  11:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High levels of IP vandalism from inexperienced wikipedians. Vargmali (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by several IP addresses over the past three days. Areaseven (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full-protection: Vandalised by Gpcv77 and 14.200.40.139.219.79.44.101 (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. GedUK  11:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: An IP (actually one person using multiple IPs) is continuously adding unsourced material to the article, first stating that his dad is a reliable source for the material that he or she is repeatedly adding to it, and then stating that his dad and mom are reliable sources for that material. I explained to the IP on his or her talk page that the material should be reliably sourced; the IP reverted to his or her version for a fourth time. I also asked about this matter at the talk page of another editor who has reverted the IP. Like I stated there, I'm not sure what else to do about the IP, considering that reporting him or her at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism would likely be in vain because the IP doesn't seem to be trying to vandalize the article. Having brought the matter to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, I have a better chance of something being done about this IP. Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Why did this page go from indef to temp? It already endures a massive load of vandalism from semi-protection. Kevin12xd (contribs) 20:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected., Protection never changed. Someone changed the template, that's all. GedUK  11:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Long term issues involving addition of misinformation by IP users, article is not edited frequently. --Jtalledo (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Legoktm (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full move lock. Single user, without consensus, keeps moving article to another title.Student7 (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. I can only see one unilateral move, which was briskly reverted. The editor in question hasn't edited since 23 June. If they return to the article to to move it again or to continue edit warring, it'll probably be better dealt with by block than protection. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Gamaliel (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked: 92.237.66.236 (talk · contribs). Gamaliel (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the vandalism is a single IP address, which I've blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring over the current Prime Minister. Hopefully, 72hrs should be enough. AussieLegend (✉) 16:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, As I said with the releated requests earlier, semi protection would be pointless because almost everyone editing that page is a confirmed user. I don't consider full protection wise on an article moving this quickly, but if you think that's necessary please relist and another admin can look at it. GedUK  20:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism and BLP concerns since previous protection ended on June 22. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Ponyo.. GedUK  20:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:174.103.190.11 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – IP continuing to vandalize. . -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I've raised it on the other admin's page, but for this sake of this page, this is closed. GedUK  19:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. STATic message me! 17:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated vandalism by IP address. The credibility of the article is threatened - boxing champions need to be updated almost every week and there are numerous vandalisms every day destroying hard work of the users who take care of the article. --Novis-M (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I assume you mean List of current world boxing champions, in which case I don't think it's too bad,and I'm not certain it's vandalism either. Relist if it picks up or becomes more regular. GedUK  20:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated vandalism by IP address. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. GedUK  19:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Persistent edit warring. Second RPP since June 14 due to section blanking by User:Thereandnot. Federales (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user is refusing to discuss changes on talk page Thereandnot (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This appears to have died down now. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

28 June 2013

Semi-protection repeated attempts to force a POV edit in abou the neighborhoods status. Keeps changing to "community" from "neighborhood". Ongoing, has been going on at least three months. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – Move warring due to somebody ignoring consensus on the talkpage about a prior move . The Banner talk 19:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected - Two months due to move-warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs constantly reverting sourced, balanced NPOV criticism. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SP or PC Persistent BLP violations. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP address vandalism; moving and re-sizing a picture of a Nazi era decoration constantly without discussion. Appears to be someone who is unhappy a Nazi award is displayed on a Wikipedia page and is using several different ip addresses to log on and decrease the image size. -OberRanks (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The article is being vandalized consistently by anons from either side of the case removing content, references to make it one sided. Requesting temporary semi protection for 1 month. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism due to recent death Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 19:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected 3 days. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dynamic IP repeatedly inserting advertising/personal details over several months. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected 1 month. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Long term BLP violations and vandalism. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short term vandalism and BLP violations. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Unsourced speculation about a transfer. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for 3 days, let's say. A bit too much revert warring for my liking; there's talk discussion but apparently not enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected Piotrus, is there socking going on? Consider SPI if needs be. I'm not familiar with the players, but I will warn them for edit warring if that hasn't been done already. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ip national attack,protect this page finally,please!. WhiteWriterspeaks 10:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Anon IP vandalism and obscenity. Seems like the same user with a dynamic IP in a narrow range. A range block might work instead of protection. . andy (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected. The IP range is all over the place, and they have been adding the same disruptive material to the article for months. Hopefully pending changes will allow reviewers to separate the wheat from the chaff. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – The page was protected before due to edit-warring. The user responsible for unnecessary changes was blocked! Since then consensus has been reached, and now a "new user" (probably a sock) has begun reverting the edits again!. smarojit (buzz me) 07:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The subject is in the news regarding a reported trade, awaiting an official announcement. —Chris!c/t 03:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected.. The article is already semi-protected; the editors making the changes are autoconfirmed and therefore not affected by the protection. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Frequent unacceptable WP:BLP vandalism. STATic message me! 02:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Several good edits by IP, indicate protection would prevent these. The BLP issues mean we need some protection. Salix (talk): 18:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant IP vandalism through June. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 12 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The last protection for 6 months expired in April and the disruption started up again so I've extended the semi-protection accordingly. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jevansen (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Various IPs adding material and removing tags. Seems to be for and against editors. Have tried to intervene but to no real success. Apologies. . Murry1975 (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The subject is in the news regarding a reported trade, awaiting an official announcement. —Chris!c/t 03:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected.. The article is already semi-protected; the editors making the changes are autoconfirmed and therefore not affected by the protection.

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High profile page. Subject was just selected #1 overall in the NBA Draft. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 23:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – An IP insists on inserting unsourced negative information and WP:OR related to quotes misattributed to the events being detailed in the article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is an unusual situation in that, although IPs are adding unsourced and contentius material, it is also an IP who is doing the bulk of the work in cleaning it up. Both semi-protection and pending changes would impede that effort. There is a chance I've missed an angle or potential solution here, so I'll leave it open for a second admin to review. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected. Hi JP, sorry, I added semi-protection before I saw your post here. Someone was adding a lot of unsourced material, so I've taken it back to a stub and added two weeks' semi-protection. You're right that this prevents IPs from cleaning things up, but there was so much unsourced that it had to be removed. I'll keep an eye on the talk page to see whether the protection needs to stay. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and uncited POV pushing. Has been semi-protected twice earlier this year for a month but the vandalism persists. Gmcssb (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If the pending changes doesn't help mitigate the BLP issues, please ping me on my talk page and I will switch to semi-protection. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There seems to be persistent vandalism from a particular IP address recently which is consistently offensive and insulting. These edits are having to be consistently undone and deleted. Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 20:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant/persistent genre warring, also it appears an ip has made an account solely for the purpose of continuing the genre war. I call the big one bitey (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  11:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – A registered user and and IP both making similar edits to this article. Suspect that they are editing under both by logging in and out. Adding bogus destinations to Garuda Indonesia. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. GedUK  11:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Highly visible template – Subpage of a new variant of the welcome template that includes a paragraph asking users with non-latin character usernames to check out WP:Username_policy#Usernames_with_non-Latin_characters. At the bottom of the template I have included translations of the contents of the template in every non-Latin character language the google translate service currently provides. Request indefinite full protection as it is a highly visible template subpage that users will click onto. Feedthepope (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, As per other request, not high visibility yet. GedUK  11:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Highly visible template – A new variant of the welcome template that includes a paragraph asking users with non-latin character usernames to check out WP:Username_policy#Usernames_with_non-Latin_characters. At the bottom of the template I have included translations of the contents of the template in every non-Latin character language the google translate service currently provides. Request indefinite full protection as it is a highly visible template. . Feedthepope (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, It's not high visibility yet. MIght become so, but currently only one transclusion, and that's to your sandbox. GedUK  11:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full semi-protection: Too many IPs addressing posting vandalisim. I want this page to be limited to only registered users can edit to avoid warning IP users. ACMEWikiNet ACMEWikiNet (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, It's very hard to tell what should be there and what shouldn't. GedUK  11:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: The draft is in an hour, and draft pages are subject to vandalism quite frequently. Mpejkrm (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, The moment seems to have passed now GedUK  11:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Edit warring in 2010, open up?. Crazynas t 18:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected I am procedurally declining all of these. Some of them could probably be unprotected, while others may need to remain protected for reasons that aren't readily apparent. That's why it's always a good idea to ask the protecting admin first before making a request here, which as far as I can tell hasn't been done. If they are able to be unprotected, the protecting admins will usually be happy to do so themselves, which eliminates the need for guesswork by some other admin. If any of these admins aren't active, please re-request and I'll be happy to have a look. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: This looks like it was protected because of an edit-war in 2010, open up?. Crazynas t 18:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for BLP concerns... not sure what was up with that but I suspect it has died down by now, article is slow... unprotect?. Crazynas t 18:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected ('anon trolling') in 2009, slow now, open up?. Crazynas t 08:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected because of a sock who's last SPI report was over a year ago... open up?. Crazynas t 08:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected for vandalism in 2010, open up or try PC, page is very slow. Crazynas t 08:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected because of an edit-war in 2010 that appears to have staled out... open up?. Crazynas t 08:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page protected in 2010 for vandalism, very slow now... try opening up?. Crazynas t 08:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected for edit warring in 2010, slow since then, open up?. Crazynas t 08:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected, apparently (as far as I can tell) due to an annon edit war in 2010. Unprotect?. Crazynas t 08:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected in 2010 for vandalism. Very slow now, open up or try PC?. Crazynas t 08:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: The move history is so tangled, I can't find the original protection log. However, the page is slow, and I see no reason this can't be unprotected. Crazynas t 08:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: See below, dormant sock. Crazynas t 08:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: See below, dormant sock. Crazynas t 08:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: See below, dormant sock. Crazynas t 08:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: See below, dormant sock. Crazynas t 08:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Same sockmaster, I suspect, unprotect?. Crazynas t 08:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Not listed in the log but probably protected because of the same sockmaster as above that appears dormant, unprotect?. Crazynas t 08:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected because of sockmaster that appears dormant, unprotect?. Crazynas t 08:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected because of sockmaster that appears dormant, unprotect?. Crazynas t 08:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected because of sockmaster that appears dormant, unprotect?. Crazynas t 08:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected because of sockmaster that appears dormant, unprotect?. Crazynas t 08:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected because of sockmaster that appears dormant, unprotect?. Crazynas t 08:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected because of sockmaster that appears dormant, unprotect?. Crazynas t 08:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page protected in 2010, very slow, open up?. Crazynas t 08:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Article was indefinitely semi-protected almost two years ago, page is slow now, try unprotection?

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Article was indefinitely semi-protected a year and a half ago, page is slow now, try unprotection?

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Article was indefinitely semi-protected almost a year ago, page is slow now, try unprotection?

(Non-administrator comment) The editing is slow thanks to semi-protection which was one of the intentions along with stop vandalism. The page has traffic and I don't believe it is a good idea to unprotect it. Why don't contact the protecting admin(s) (for all the requests). Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Article was indefinitely semi-protected for first and only time over two and a half years ago, and page is slow now, try unprotection?

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Article was indefinitely semi-protected over a year ago, page is slow now, unprotect?

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protection set to expire in four years, page is slow now, how about lifting it early?

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected a year ago, page is slow now, unprotect?

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protection set to expire in four years, page is slow now, how about lifting it early?

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protection set to expire in two months, page is slow now, how about lifting protection early?

Not unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 00:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 00:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. JOJ Hutton 00:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection. Persistent vandalism. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Harryboyles 19:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – A slightly odd one, this. Somebody is anonymously posting comments on an image's talkpage which are mostly long incoherent attempts to contact the subject, but appear to include some BLP violations and, seemingly, threats & insults. For instance, search for "police". 78.26 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly blanked them but - if wiser folk thank me agree that these edits include BLP violations, threats &c then it may be appropriate to:

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page has had persistent vandalism over the course of several months. The vandalism happens sporadically, but there is at least one vandalism edit a week. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 19:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect, unhelpful IP vandalism after talking to them, but it still reverting . JMHamo (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: To prevent spamming and vulgar content posting. 41.182.212.94 (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Enigmamsg 19:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeatedly recreated. Recreated on Francine Shapiro page and then deleted by bot due to fixing double. Stuartyeates 22:33, 1 June 2013‎ (UTC)

Note that the above addition was not made by me, despite bearing my signature. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Nomination was in fact made by EMDRIntl, for the record. Harryboyles 19:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

29 June 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP editor inserting angry letter. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. That's a static IP. I've warned them. I'll protect if the same insertion starts coming from other IPs. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Update: supposedly static, and yet there seems to be more than one of it: 5.151.0.0, 5.151.0.9, and 5.151.0.181 so far, obviously the same person. I've semiprotected. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP and new user edit warring. I don't get them to talk! If you look further, you'll it's going on for months already. L.tak (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one month. I've also left a note on the talk page suggesting that someone look for secondary sources. It might be better to prod it or take it to AfD. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected in 2010 for vandalism. Very slow now, open up or try PC?. Crazynas t 08:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting administrator is no longer an administrator. Crazynas t 18:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Looks like this was quoted on a forum somewhere; one sentence was a bit of a double entendre, and IP edits have been changing it to a single entendre, and/or reverting attempts to simply copyedit it. McGeddon (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Exposure from recent news events could undermine the integrity of the page. This is commonplace protection if the article is in the attention of the media. 155blue (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Also, there is an IP user making significant improvements. Harryboyles 05:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and various unhelpful edits. Nearly all IP edits the last 3 to 4 weeks and had to be reverted. Edits mostly about rumored judges, or outright invention. Request protection for a month until there is official confirmation of new judges panel for the show. Hzh (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The edits are mainly in good faith, it just that they don't meet our policies, and some still stand[[26]. Communicating with the users or an edit notice might be a better way to tackle the problem. Salix (talk): 22:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the unsourced one are actually vandalism, mixing rumors with false information, for example here, here, and here, and some of IP editors are likely to be the same person who was already blocked for making the same edits here, so there is no point in communicating with them. They just won't stop. Hzh (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – User:Brexx, sock again . —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected 6 months, with a range block across the IPs range as well. You would think after over 250 blocks, Brexx would give up, but apparently not.—Kww(talk) 05:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Semi-protection, IP of banned user Brexx and their sock puppets are targeting it and adding content. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please expedite on this? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected 6 months, with a range block across the IPs range as well. You would think after over 250 blocks, Brexx would give up, but apparently not.—Kww(talk) 05:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. IPs especially want to sneakily manipulate (reduce) the numbers it seems. It feels coordinated. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Declined "Feels coordinated" isn't very tangible. I blocked the most recent installment of that IP; I don't as yet see the need for protection, esp. since there's so many editors constantly editing that 200k behemoth. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: An article with infrequent substantive edits that is subject to frequent vandalism, often by anonymous users. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Diannaa (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP-hopper who is determined to add that this individual is "charismatically versatile" and other nonsense puffery without any sources/regard to WP:NPOV. Has now moved to copying & pasting in a reference already used in the article which does not support the information in question. NiciVampireHeart 22:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Text box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism is abundant in the history of the article. ~NottNott (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined No it is not. Three vandal edits in the last seven months is nothing. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP editor repeatedly pushing a coatrack section into the article. . Binksternet (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done It's a single IP causing disruption and I see you have already warned them regarding their edit-warring. If after being warned they continue to edit-war, please ping me or report to WP:3RN and they will be blocked. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection Disruptive editing We have an IP who persistently keeps changing the birth-date into an unsupported one. IP's address changes every time he/she makes a change, so there is no way to leave a message for his/her disruption.--Harout72 (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection or Pending Changes: Article topic has a strong presence in the news, so there has been a relatively high level of IP vandalism. GoneIn60 (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 22:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Several vandal edits from different IP's over the course of the past few days. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pending changes already set by GedUK with expiry 16 September 2013. No recent changes suggest either escalation or de-escalation of current protection status.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Shirt is correct, the current level of protection seems to be adequate at present. Diannaa (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

30 June 2013

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short term vandalism from multiple IPs. Fort_esc (Talk) 19:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short term vandalism from multiple IPs. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Harryboyles 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP user engaging in edit-war and undoing my reverts to the previous good and cited version. Please semi-protect for a period of 1 month. --TBM10 (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Also there has been no attempt to discuss the issue with the IP.Salix (talk): 14:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Several editors caught in revert war over content in the last three days. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

permanent semi-protection: The page is being edit warred by users who (a) want to prematurely increase the count of member states; and (b) are failing to make the other requisite updates. Protection would be a perfect solution. Lawdroid (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism by multiple IPs. After my previous request this page was protected for a week from 26 May to 3 June but since its unprotection, it is yet again subject to repeated vandalism by multiple IPs - on average I would guess at least once a day, requiring regular editor reversion. A longer-term semi-protection would be really helpful. NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP edit warring/vandalism. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism has occurred on the page a lot in the past 48 hours. Defamatory language was added in these incidents. This shows the need for the semi-protection of this article. 155blue (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. bibliomaniac15 05:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For unsourced and/or nonsense edits. Digifan23 (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined bibliomaniac15 05:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected for edit warring in 2010, slow since then, open up?. Crazynas t 08:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting administrator is not currently active. Crazynas t 18:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected Salix (talk): 06:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: BLP protected for vandalism in 2010, open up or try PC, page is very slow. Crazynas t 08:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting administrator is not currently active. Crazynas t 18:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected Salix (talk): 06:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has been semi protected since September 2011. I am guessing that the vandals have graduated by now. :) Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Salix (talk): 06:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandals are at it again since the last protection expired. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 2 months. bibliomaniac15 05:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for a few days. There seems to be a recent campaign by IPs to change the consensus description as "satirical" to "real". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. Report was probably good when made, but only a couple edits in last few days and none for nearly a day. Re-list if situation worsens. AlexiusHoratius 00:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected in 2010 for BLP concerns... not sure what was up with that but I suspect it has died down by now, article is slow... unprotect?. Crazynas t 18:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting administrator has exercised their WP:RTV Crazynas t 18:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protection: IP keeps changing death toll to unsourced claims. An article of high interest with 10k daily hits. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. Most of the anon edits look like good faith edits; if there is vandalism or unexplained changing of numbers and stats just revert it. Pending changes on this wouldn't be very useful due to the high number of edits. AlexiusHoratius 00:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Main vandalism issues: hoax information and repeatedly submitted unsourced content. Requesting a longer term of page protection this time around, if warranted. Costa Rican IP vandal (probably Rodolfootoya) continues to disrupt. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. Only one anon has edited the article since protection was lifted three days ago (the Nat guy looks like he would have been autoconfirmed.) Re-list if situation worsens. AlexiusHoratius 00:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant IP vandalism. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. AlexiusHoratius 00:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Widr (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think temporary protection would be appropriate as there have been several BLP violations recently. Widr (talk)
Semi-protected until 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC) by User:Bearian. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Requesting immediate archiving...

Temporary semi- or full protection: A big WP:Edit war going on at that article between IP 24.212.195.135 and Bollfooot. Bollfooot is a new Wikipedia editor, and, like the IP, likely doesn't know about the WP:Edit war policy. The IP has reported Bollfooot at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I reverted the IP here and here, but won't anymore because I should not continue to revert unless it's vandalism. Not to mention...I don't know who is right on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Semi would be very inappropriate. I'm not sure who is correct, but I would bet the IP is more likely to be correct, based on the registered editor's history. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template correction: The padlock template does not show nor the expiry date. Can someone please correct that? PrivateMasterHD (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Despite what I stated above about the IP likely not knowing about the WP:Edit war policy, the IP's talk page shows differently. Flyer22 (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For unsourced and/or nonsense edits. Digifan23 (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Maybe you should stop stalking William and try talking to him. Toddst1 (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For unsourced and/or nonsense edits. Digifan23 (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Also, see WP:OWN. Toddst1 (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For unsourced and/or nonsense edits. Digifan23 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For unsourced and/or nonsense edits. Digifan23 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Also, see WP:OWN. Toddst1 (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For unsourced and/or nonsense edits. Digifan23 (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Also, see WP:OWN. Toddst1 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Bidgee (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 00:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Vandalism related to adding unsourced content and factual inaccuracies. STATic message me! 19:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 00:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations – Or just unprotect, page is slow enough for PC, protecting administrator has retired. Crazynas t 19:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indef. AlexiusHoratius 00:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: recent wave of sockpuppet IP vandalism. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 00:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP-hopper from Tasmania trying to restore repetitive, unsourced OR captions about store closures. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 01:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. King Jakob C2 15:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. 20 episodes of vandalism / unhelpful edits in the last 2 months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Widr (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the revert, I apparently clicked on a blank region of my watchlist as it very slowly loaded, and it coincided with a revert. Argh. Acroterion (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Page has been created and speedy deleted three times today for G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) and A7 (article about a company which does not indicate importance or significance). I do not believe the company Logufashion has notability per WP:COMPANY. Ahecht (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page has now be recreated a fourth time today. --Ahecht (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator INeverCry.. Legoktm (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A series of random anon IPs keep re-introducing content taken word for word from the product manufacturers blog, assorted media (magazine articles) as well as introducing material which contradicts content which is already in the article supported by references which meet WP:RS. Mr Pyles (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC). Mr Pyles (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple IPs adding unencyclopedic content to the article. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Unprotection: The move history is so tangled, I can't find the original protection log. However, the page is slow, and I see no reason this can't be unprotected. Crazynas t 08:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, I can't figure out who protected this in the first place, anyone that can, let me know! Crazynas t 18:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected - As far as I can tell, this page was never intended to be protected. The article was initially created by overwriting {{New page}}, an indefinitely protected template, then moving that to Moldovan Identity Card, which also moved the protection settings to the new title. The template was quickly fixed, but the indefinite semiprotection at the new article was a leftover. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Page protected in 2010, very slow, open up?. Crazynas t 08:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting administrator is no longer an administrator. Crazynas t 18:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Protected, apparently (as far as I can tell) due to an annon edit war in 2010. Unprotect?. Crazynas t 08:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting administrator is not currently active. Crazynas t 18:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Wikipedia article traffic statistics". stats.grok.se. June 21, 2013.
  2. ^ Beth Stebner (June 19, 2013). "Michael Hastings conspiracy theories: Web goes wild after NSA, CIA reporter killed in crash". nydailynews.com.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2013/06&oldid=1147961195"