Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2014/01

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2014

01 January 2014

semi protection- target of a lot of non constructive edits by IPs and new accounts. One more week's more distance from the release combined with the resumption of school would minimize the maintenance required.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuing vandalism including blanking of sections and also continuous aggressive insertion of non neutral arguments, . Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Semi-protection would not be effective in the current situation as the users currently disagreeing are all confirmed editors. Continue discussing with other editors to reach a consensus and if that doesn't work seek dispute resolution.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: repeated evasions of block by banned editor. [1] NE Ent 16:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This should be dealt with by reverting their edits (if the call to IAR is ignored). It isn't worth locking the page down and preventing other IPs from editing there as Mbz1's posts aren't that disruptive to the noticeboard at the present. If that changes then we can semi-prot it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Ip addressed keep on adding unsourced or poorly sourced information, and removing content. Finealt (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated spamming of promotional utterly non-notable trivia on biographies of porn stars

Phoenix Marie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ash Hollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brandy Aniston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chanel Preston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bonnie Rotten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ashley Fires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bobbi Starr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alektra Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP-hopper repeatedly adding promotional trivia (utterly non-notable awards, and "hall of fame" inductions, only intended to draw attention to the companies sponsoring it) to multiple biographies of porn stars. One IP was blocked by Malik Shabazz earlier today, and he also semi-protected three such BLPs, but but several more BLPs have been repeatedly targeted by multiple other IPs. Thomas.W talk to me 19:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., except for Alektra Blue, which is Already protected by administrator Malik Shabazz. for two days. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of IP vandalism due to rumour in the media about his return to England. JMHamo (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: An anon has been removing material added for balance and has been IP hopping. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent long-term vandalism; lots of IPs upping Knowles' sales. —JennKR | ☎ 18:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected For a month. Acalamari 18:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Wikiuser13 (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistant socking, but some of the socks are autoconfirmed. They keep removing the AfD tag from the article. Side note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ode203 has been filed as well. Ishdarian 08:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Berean Hunter.. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page is being vandalised every few minutes. Nick Levine (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have ground to a halt for now, so maybe protection no longer required? Nick Levine (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This page appears to already be protected. Please confirm.—cyberbot I NotifyOnline 13:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator Mattythewhite. (1 month) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Harassment by sockpuppets of blocked editor. Ruby Murray 11:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Acalamari 11:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator Only. (7 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:North View Secondary School (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by new throw-away accounts. 4 different accounts vandalising it in the last 9 days. Article is semi-protected and talk page has been semi-protected before. The Banner talk 05:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Quite honestly, I don't think there's enough recent disruptive activity (yet) to justify protection (especially in the case of a talk page). Armbrust The Homunculus 05:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are dealing with this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lamrongpeng5. A serial sockpuppeteers vandalisng the article and talkpage. I have lost count how many are already blocked, but the SPI-case already lists 22 accounts. How many were blocked afterwards I don't know, but many. The Banner talk 06:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Maybe the accounts should also be reported at WP:SPI? Armbrust The Homunculus 06:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The two newest socks are now blocked. Is there anything other to do? Armbrust The Homunculus 08:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. only (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection Right off a month of SP an IP once again tried to self-declare that the block was canceled without any proof, also a suspicion that 'program is terrible' edits will return with the lifting. Nate • (chatter) 04:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Steven Walling • talk 07:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism and addition of unsourced content. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 05:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Two reverts in two days? Steven Walling • talk 07:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Ongoing vandalism. WWGB (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Acalamari applied PC a couple days ago, have you asked him to consider upgrading his protection? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected Thanks for bringing this page back, WWGB; it looks as though pending changes wasn't effective on this occasion. Just so you know, Mark Arsten, I would have been okay with you changing the protection without consulting me, but thank you for pinging me; it is appreciated. :) Acalamari 10:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Ruby Murray 18:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism has resumed after recent lifting of protection. Again. Areaseven (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection and Indefinite semi-protection: Potential target of content disputes. Theparties (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, there's a little less edit warring than I like to see before full protecting. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There have been a number of instances where IP users have attempted to change dates at this article without any explanation or provision of a reliable source. Requesting protection for a week to stop the disruption. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection. Some sort of personal dispute I guess. Probably counts as personal attacks as well. Rmhermen (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, it's only one user causing problems so I suggest reporting him to WP:AN3 if he continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – several sockpuppets repeatedly adding unreferenced content. Ruby Murray 02:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Berean Hunter.. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism and addition of unsourced content. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 00:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism to due high-profiled exits and fancruft wishes concerning casting. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continual addition of unsourced material. Requesting protection for one week, where new episode of Raw airs. . — Richard BB 21:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Sick of reverting this guys constant vandalism to my page and no admin seems to be available to block him. . Nightenbelle (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: The subject of constant jokes & vandalisms, from various IP: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

Without protection it is impossible to supervise content. --WTM (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Placing pending changes on this article will help avoid the anon edit wars that have started where the editor attempts to change "Linux" to "GNU/Linux" against several consensus opinions on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

02 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Addition and modification of information by non-autoconfirmed users resulting the article in heavy promotional tone, which is not as per WP guidelines. If protected autoconfirmed users can get the article in good shape. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 17:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Addition and modification of information by non-autoconfirmed users resulting the article in heavy promotional tone, which is not as per WP guidelines. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Speculation about his future at Fulham leading to a lot of unhelpful edits that are not true. JMHamo (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. — Bill william comptonTalk 15:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring over external links. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring over a fact that seems to be able to be checked. I'm a third party and am not familiar with the points that each editor seems to want to make. . Dismas|(talk) 14:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Needs more protection time; there are still recent reverts. George Ho (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Several different IP users ads creatures that comes from comic books, not myths. Jacce (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 06:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring between Soundwaweserb and ip's if he is "generally considered" or "some consider" to be/him to be one of the greatest tennis players of all time. Stryn (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dubious unsourced additions by anon IP editors. STATic message me! 19:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Nearly at an edit war. Paris1127 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Requesting a short 24-hour full page protection due to constant edit warring over the past month. The conflict has not been solved yet on the article's talk page. Attempts will be made with the individual user(s) to rectify the situation. Bailmoney27 talk 17:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous disruptive editing; has become a daily issue. – Recollected • 17:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP violations by IPs. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – My own talkpage some IP find funny to edit. QED237 (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – sockpuppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stiarts erid. Ruby Murray 16:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – sockpuppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stiarts erid. Ruby Murray 16:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – sockpuppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stiarts erid. Ruby Murray 16:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – sockpuppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stiarts erid. Ruby Murray 16:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Ruby Murray 16:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A short period is needed. IP based POV pushers often attempt to sanitise the article by making it say what they wish, not what the references state. Fiddle Faddle 15:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Gilliam.. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gävle goat (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

semi protection a very dynamic IP sock of blocked religious bigot troll 37.205.9.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) keeps disrupting the talk page.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Several editors repeatedly adding a list of high school student names which fail WP:BIO, also privacy concerns. Drm310 (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – Template:Diff is fully protected and this template is based on {{Diff}} with an intended use of the same faction. Do to the fact that this template is intended to create an undo link that would actually change a page rather than just display a certain revisions contents, I would think it to be at a higher risk than its counterpart. I'm requesting a maximum of TE protection at this time to allow me time to do some more thorough sandbox and testcases testing. Upon completion of that testing, I will request full protection to match that of {{Diff}} or I will request {{Diff}} be lowered to TE (which may be more appropriate). Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not really a good reason to request protection for a template, which has only 1 transclusion yet. ({{Diff}} is protected because it has more than 9,000). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by requestor Technical 13 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Regrettably the previous short-term protection templates have not been able to eradicate persistent vandalism on the article. Whenever a protection template is lifted, it's only a matter of time before the vandalism starts again. The most recent protection template was lifted on 28 December 2013. Within just a few days, the vandalism started again on 1 January 2014. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dubious unsourced additions, mostly to the label's roster list, by anon IP editors and new users. STATic message me! 23:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An unregistered user has been reverting page's contents back to previous states and undoing all edits and references. Big Dre (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Long term IP vandalism. It appears that the vandalism is mainly from people who come to the article and want to improve the standing of their country. It's been going on for a long time so I decided to bring it here. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – I'm getting rather annoyed with having to fix this page what feels like once or twice a week (although I'm sure it's a little less). Can we at least put pending changes on it please. Thanks, . Technical 13 (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. There is currently only 1 IP involved. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Tyau123 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – User hoaxed a sig of the blocking admin, reverted a removal of said sig. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, he seems to have stopped now. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. by Only (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 03:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be un-semi-protected because I do not like semi-protected articles. BaddiesGetBlockedIDon't (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined That's not really a good reason to unprotect the page. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent unsourced edits from IP users.LM2000 (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Every recent IP/new user edit is vandalism. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. — Rhododendrites talk |  04:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon episodes

List of Pokémon: Black & White: Adventures in Unova and Beyond episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Pokémon: XY episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. —Ryulong (琉竜) 10:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: I think the page is stifled in its current state, and the editors I've seen collaborating are not at battlefield odds. The edit warring that preceded the protection of the article appeared minimal to me; hardly sufficient to warrant the action. . —John Cline (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Unprotected 48 hours protection might have been enough, let's see how it goes now. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Constant disruptive improper image linking and additions of copyrighted images by anon IPs and new users. STATic message me! 23:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: Page has not been protected.—cyberbot I NotifyOnline 00:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: You template protected the page. Was that intentional? Armbrust The Homunculus 01:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing it out. No it wasn't intentional - probably a slip of a mouse. Corrected now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent IP vandalism. LittleMountain5 22:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dick Dale/Archive 1 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite full protection: Closed archive, likely to be tampered with. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I might be missing something here, but I don't see why this is likely to be vandalized. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: All sorts of IP edits that constitute vandalism, nonsense, and unsourced edits. Difficult to revert this without also reverting constructive edits. M.M.M. 01:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism. K6ka (talk | contrib) 21:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Edit warring and article instability. Request Pending Changes protection; article is semi-protected. . Ethically (Yours) 15:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pending changes protection should not be used on pages with a high edit rate. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: I requested semi-protection a couple of days ago and it was declined, but could that decision please be re-evaluated? We are dealing with a persistent, ideologically motivated, monomaniacal IP, the kind who will not be stopped, no matter how many arguments and appeals to policy are deployed, unless he finds himself unable to edit the article. - Biruitorul Talk 15:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent addition of promotional and copyrights violating content. SMS Talk 03:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

03 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – 212.240.133.1 is creating socks to blank this page. buffbills7701 15:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Several IP removals of an important image (.svg map of the highways). gogo3o 11:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalized by six different IPs in last month. Requesting first semi-protect. Ggpur (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Temporary full protection is desirable: this is a contentious BLP with an RfC underway. I'd do it myself but I have given my opinion somewhere in that huge morass that is the talk page, and the current version is the one that I, pending the outcome of the RfC, agree with. In short, inserting political qualifications in the lead of this BLP is undesirable at this moment. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of ten days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism due to a rumor that he will join FC Barcelona. --Jaellee (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: BLP recently unprotected and subject to persistent IP vandalism. The subject is and always will be a popular target for vandals. HelenOnline 18:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect, unsourced anon info being added that may not be true. JMHamo (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It's also just one IP yet, so if they continue, than report it to WP:AIV. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article is facing BLP attacks for last one and a half year. For last one year it has been protected several times. The protection was auto-lifted very recently and the attack is back. . Tito☸Dutta 23:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Obvious article for Pending Changes protection. Leaky Caldron 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Stephenjh (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Drunk in Paris (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continued vandalism from multiple IPs over a duration of time. Every other edit is vandalism. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 16:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article about deceased Filipino celebrity that is regularly vandalised, with hoax edits that attempt to make it look as if the subject of the article is still alive and active. A number of other similar articles that have also been regularly vandalised in the same way (both by serial vandal Christian2941 and his multiple socks and by an IP-hopper in the Cebu City area of the Philippines; who might be the same individual...), have been semi-protected lately in order to stop the vandalism. Thomas.W talk to me 15:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Twice in 4 years is hardly repeatedly. only (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Faux News is already salted, so this should be too. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Hasn't been created in 3.5 years. only (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection. User is attempting to 'Copy-Paste Move', and has engaged in an edit war. Moosehadley 04:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (24 hours) Armbrust The Homunculus 04:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The last re-creation was more than two years ago. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT WAR. After User:Drmargi failed to answer my reasons for adding a new field for Episode Titles on the talk page for many months, I proceeded with my changes which were reverted unbeknownst to me as I was editing that night. Now I discover how this editor apparently gets into revert wars with the other editors via the talk page. I feel I am correct because the editbox field says Title and that is different from restaurant name. AFAIK, there is no restaurant named Holiday Impossible. All of the information I added is verifiable at foodnetwork.com and amazon.com. I borrowed the setup for the new field from Bar Rescue, Mystery Diners, Restaurant Stakeout, etc., articles. Apparently, Drmargi believes those articles should conform to her format. Anyway, if I had known the information was being reverted as I was writing, Drmargi would have been forced to decide whether to violate WP:3RR. Mark my words, this person will revert my update immediately yet again, and the table is hard enough to set up. She cites WP:BRD, but reverts should not be this disruptive. Please lock down the article with my changes so that the other editors may see it and tell me where to go to hash this out peacefully. MMetro (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The last non-vandalism revert was more than two weeks ago. If the edit-warring continues (hopefully not), than report the user to WP:ANEW. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – The same person is still using different IPs to re-add same poorly written and sourced content. George Ho (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There is only 1 problematic edit in the last two months. Feel free to re-report if the disruption continues. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 18:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was last recreated in 2006, wasn't it? So there's no ongoing problem and no need for page protection. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Agree with Psychonaut; no disruption in years. Acalamari 19:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect due to a high amount of speculation being added that's not true. JMHamo (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

04 January 2014

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. --Jakob (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tempotary full-protection: - edit dispute again. for discussion to reach consensus with Kiruning please full protect.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I only see one edit in the past month. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Addition of unsourced material and blatant vandalism from one new account and multiple IPs continues after this page was previously semi-protected for one month. Ivanvector (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I don't see quite enough disruption to reprotect, but feel free to report again if disruption continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was protected because one editor edit warred to remove massive amounts of content, against the objections of four other editors. There is a clear consensus (except for the original edit waring editor) on the talk page to restore the content that was removed. Page protection is not necessary when there is only a single editor acting against consensus.

On the talk page discussion, there seem to be three camps: one editor who believes the material and the article should be deleted; two editors who want the article deleted, but have not explicitly commented on the appropriateness of the 28,430 bytes of removed content; and ten editors who have asserted that the content should remain and that it conforms to our policies.

I have followed process by asking the original page protecting admin. They responded "if a consensus does emerge that the page should be unprotected/reverted, please ping an admin to do that and point them towards this posting as a reason that I can't do so."

Thank you.- MrX 15:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I don't think there is a clear consensus to remove the protection early and I can't see that it's doing any damage. We'll see what happens in the mean time, but I'd rather wait until it expires. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. --16:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)1flyguyrob (talk)

User(s) blocked.. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator Callanecc. (2 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 18:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and incorrect information. Danny markle (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Addition of biased text and blatant POV from one new account. Jingiby (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. only (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Attracted lots of bad edits past 2 weeks. Jamesx12345 17:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP vandalism due to transfer rumors. --Jaellee (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruption and attacks on editors by an IP hopping editor. Epipelagic (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why I disagree to his edits on the talk pages. My edits were supported by reliable sources. These pages have COI OWN and NPOV problems, I try to add balance to it. I have brought the issues to the related notice boards124.168.8.38 (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done It looks like they've given up, so let's see what happens. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template editor Want to edit. Debresser (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vaginal opening - english description.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: The vast majority of edits to this file have been IP and non-autoconfirmed vandalism or tests, or reverts of the same. Since the image is hosted on Commons and the restricted images tag has already been applied, there is very little reason to edit the file description page further, much less for unregistered or newly-registered users. SuperMarioMan 15:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Persisent change of verified and referenced data by multiple IP users. FonEengIneeR7 talk 12:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Please warn the IP address and if they continue report them to WP:AIV. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

full protection: Repeated adding of badly sourced information and re-editing by Anthony Weights(see talk). Oxford24 (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – user warned for edit warring, if they continue please report to WP:ANEW. It's semi protection will expire soon so if the disruption from IPs and new accounts continues please re-request semi protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – way too many edits from unregistered users (ips) all of them have input fake data without any reference. Argento1985 21:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – Template to be used in articles relating to Czechoslovakia, will have high visibility per similar templates. C679 11:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – This template is not used widely enough to be considered a high-risk template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/VPSwebhost (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Dark Sun (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The page was created by only one user, who has been warned since than. Report it to WP:AIV if he continues. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs, some same person, falsifying dates and other details. . Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked: 101.173.127.249 (talk · contribs). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – Used as a block reason when blocking offending user. Dreth 21:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism. IPs adding nickname to infobox; contents removal has been discussed on talk page, though IP vandalism persists. --2nyte (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 12 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Given that the IP is changing the stable version which has also been discussed I'm opting for semi protection. Given there are also constructive edits it's short. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Long-term issue with IPs removing sourced negative content. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AmericanTruthSeeker targets

Bend, Not Break (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ping Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent sockpuppetry. I'm sick to fucking death of having to request semi-protection on this, WP:AGF is long since past. Time for this to be locked down - and for good. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was just one sock (SelfEvidentTruth) since the protection expired and they are already blocked now (courtesy of Barek). Hopefully that's enough for now, but even if not going from a 10-day protection to indef would be an overkill. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Armbrust, I really don't think you're familiar with the history of the article. There have been well over 10 socks, possibly as high as 20; most of the others are listed under a different master. Indefinite semi-protection on a frequently vandalized BLP is not overkill, and it needs to happen - this defamation HAS to stop. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right, but IMO a 6-month semi should be tried before going indef (and even that is a very big jump). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I think 2 months is a bit of a stretch but hopefully it'll convince them to leave it alone. If it doesn't work we can look at 6-12 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expand duration of pending changes protection

Sanadhya Brahmin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saryupareen Brahmins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Extra protection time is needed; there are still reverts. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the protecting admin, @Ged UK: to consider extending protection? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's probably on vacation also because he hasn't edited since Dec 19. Also, asking that administrator would be not necessary because it's not a request to reduce protection. --George Ho (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Sanadhya Brahmin declined, let's see if it continues first. Saryupareen Brahmins semi protected for 1 week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dubious unsourced additions and vandalism by anon IP editors and new users. STATic message me! 08:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Medlive Marketing Pvt Ltd (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinate full-protection Spaming even after indef block.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only one problematic edit thus far. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Txtrooper (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes (or semi-protection): IP disruption and BLP violation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. There is only one IP causing disruption (for now). Armbrust The Homunculus 07:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dwpaul Talk 05:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP vandalism. Station number, Exits, Station layout and Station Location. His historical ips are 49.218.120.104 and 101.8.140.164, will be changed everyday.--Bhenry1990 (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There are only 1-2 problematic edits in the last 2 months. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Inclusive Democracy (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Semiprotection: Personal attacks and probable sock puppetry by the single-purpose IP user 86.161.205.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which I am told is a dynamic IP address, which means blocking that IP would be ineffective in stopping the attacks.Spylab (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. by TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jack Bauer7 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Create protection. Foura (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. That page was never created. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: The same person keeps adding same content. I don't see how pending changes is enough. George Ho (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the protecting admin, @Callanecc: to consider changing the protection? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't while he is on vacation right now. Also, this ain't the request to reduce protection, so asking that administration is unnecessary. --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring/persistent vandalism - Anonymous IPs persistently adding the same 3,000+ characters of unsourced and unproofed content to a list after multiple reversions. Universaladdress (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anon ill advisedly trying to rearrange the page and add links to findagrave.com despite advice to the contrary that this isn't a good idea. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, it's only one IP, so I think asking for a block at WP:AN3 would be a better option. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

temporary semi-protection: Until deleted and salted. Nonsense title, autobiographical experimentation. JNW (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, already deleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I request to protect the article against attempt to provoke an edit wars caused ideological positions of user. For example, user replaced the "soviet partisans" to "provocateurs NKVD". In particular, the user returns the number of tendentious assertions added anonymous in several projects. For this reason, in the Ukrainian Wikipedia is already a sharp conflict, where the requirements of the parties have already reach the open denial of the fact of the massacre. P.S I apologize in advance if I do not write back, so as to Russian Wikipedia different order reference to administrators Mistery Spectre (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, There's a little less than I like to see when full protecting an article here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – One editor removes material w/ ref with edit summary that says "unsourced". Another restores w/ edit summary that says vandalism. One has opened BRD, other has not responded. . – S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, There's a little less than I like to see when full protecting an article here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

temporary full-protection: - Until talk page consensus. pov pushing user and I are in discussion about the article but would be for the best with a temporary full protection since the user keeps changing the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, There's a little less than I like to see when full protecting an article here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: This page was reprotected after the pending changes trial in 2010 but the original protection had been set to expire in a year. It appears slow enough that unprotecting would be ok. I asked the protecting admin and haven't received a reply so I'm bringing it here. Crazynas t 21:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected I spaced this off on my talk page. I've unprotected: the controversial material was split off into a sub-article, so the semiprotection is relatively moot anyway.—Kww(talk) 01:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated removal of afd tag. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Transfer season started (is the entire January) and this player is rumoured to change club so IPs make disruptive edits placing him in clubs. . QED237 (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism. Cloudchased (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Was previously semi'd for a month, however pretty much every new/IP edit is vandalism or unsourced content. Consider long-term protection. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 22:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Highly visible page. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been viewed 1162 times in the last 30 days. See stats. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator's noticeboard has been viewed 118706 times in the last 30 days and is still not protected. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it has different purpose. It's like a talk, not a regular article. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05 January 2014

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an official protection request in the WP:RFPP archives, and it's important for the normal operation of the reference desks that IP users are allowed to post. There doesn't seem to be any major vandalism currently taking place. The protecting admin has been notified. Tevildo (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected Have another look at the page history, there is definitely some sockpuppetry and vandalism making semi-protection unfortunately necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The protecting admin stated: (Changed protection level of Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: Persistent vandalism ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite))).

This is absolutely not true. So far as I can see there was a content dispute which I guess has long since been resolved, but the article is now permanently unavailable to non-registered users. There was no vandalism. Can it please be unprotected. Thanks. 86.29.59.246 (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The IP is confused here, that is the most recent log entry, but it was actually the restoration of indefinite semi-protection after the expiry of temporary full protection on the article. It has been semi-protected since November 2010 in response to sock attacks, which is why there's no recent vandalism in the history. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However, 3 to 4 years protection on this type of article is unwarranted, so I suggest it is unprotected and see what happens. 86.29.59.246 (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please ask the original protecting admin: Courcelles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I asked him. 86.29.59.246 (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask that this remain semi-protected to prevent BLP violations. The McCanns have been under attack on social media for years, and it's likely to spill over into the article if it's left unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations are just as likely to come from registered users. It could be unprotected as a trial. 86.29.59.246 (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask Courcelles and SlimVirgin if they would consider pending changes level 1. However I'm inclined to agree with them that the BLP vios would likely return. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a possibility. I'll maybe pick it up again tomorrow. However, I would point out that SlimVirgin is a regular editor on the article, so he should not make a decision, though obviously his opinion counts as much as anyone else's. 86.29.59.246 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's an ongoing libel trial in Lisbon that is drawing to a close. It's a case that the McCanns brought against someone who accused them of involvement, with closing arguments due to begin on Tuesday, I believe. This would therefore be an even worse time than usual to lift the protection, because if the case goes against them it will trigger another wave of anti-McCann sentiment on social media (not that it ever really stops). SlimVirgin (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright given that, Declined for now. Feel free to re-request in 3-6 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Protection recently ended and constant unsourced inflation of sales figures continues by anon IP editors. STATic message me! 06:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Frequent blanking. Quest for Truth (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Koala15 (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Europefan

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I've re-enabled the edit filter which would do the job. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first and last were Semi-protected for 3 months by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 05:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Pending changes protection is used to battle vandalism and BLP violations. Someone said sockpuppetry, so upgrade protection. George Ho (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extra pending changes time on following articles

Sofía Vergara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kanadukathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Peyton List (actress born 1998) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love & Hip Hop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Needs extra protection time; there have been reverts lately. --George Ho (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Let's wait and see what happens when the protection expires or ask the protecting admins. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Looks like blocked user Progotiweb is working in tandem with a series of IPs to sabotage an AfD or any improvements. AfD-templates removed twice, maintenance templates removed five times. Already earlier protected. The Banner talk 04:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: It seems as though this is the only speedy template that isn't already semi protected, and I think this should change as it is just as high visibility as the other ones. Jinkinson talk to me 04:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Roving IP changing episode numbering sequence. Incorrect info, no discussion or consensus. Edit warring using multiple IPs. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Continuous falsification of statistics[37], after last block expired. Oleola (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – This got speed delete twice. The current delete was after a discussion. We have three deletes. And consensus he is non notable. So yeah, lock. Beerest 2 talk 02:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – Since Template:Clickable button 2 is also protected and this is the template from which that template originates, it makes sense that this template should also be protected. APerson (talk!) 02:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – A reasonably long temporary period, please. Loads of IP editors, some making immature references to his homosexuality, others naming a putative partner. Fiddle Faddle 00:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. SMS Talk 22:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP hopping anonymous editor edit-warring. This is the same editor who has been editing disruptively since October 2013, when protection was last requested. . AussieLegend (✉) 19:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP edit warring. Frietjes (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dubious unsourced additions by anon IP editors. STATic message me! 19:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Recent spate of vandalism. NeilN talk to me 18:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Reverted edit (x2): "Sweet Water is also the home of Alabama Crimson Tide fan Michelle Pritchett, an Alabama Fan that started a brawl at the 2014 All-State Sugar Bowl with a Oklahoma Sooners fan that was recorded and went viral on the internet January 3, 2014. The Crimson Tide lost to the Sooners 45 -31.". Dwpaul Talk 17:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Hasn't been too much yet...if it continues in the next day or two, we'll see. only (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06 January 2014

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – User request for indefinite semi-protection. No reason anyone should ever need to make edits to my root level user page, and the only edits made since late November have been retaliation vandalism from unconfirmed users. Thanks. — MusikAnimal talk 17:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Nyttend (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced content and WP:OR by an IP. I propose a couple of days protection. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I fail to see an original research in the IPs edits, and your preferred version of the article is also unsourced (although generally sources would not be needed for the narrative of a video like this, per When to cite). Discuss with the other editor, please. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There is no reason for this page to be edited, so you might even want to consider indefinite full protection, as is already in place on redirects like Obama and Hitler. Jinkinson talk to me 05:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Which does surprise me a little. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page was semi'd in 2008... Crazynas t 11:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Fuck (disambiguation) was but not this redirect. tutterMouse (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Many IP editors dont like this player after a gesture to the crowd. QED237 (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Rather slow-moving edit war by various IPs to remove well-sourced information from the article. Removals are sometimes made without any reason being given like [38] or are based on original research with no or inappropriate sourcing: [39] [40]. Likewise, there have been attempts by IPs to add poorly-sourced information the article. There are many BLPs on this list and it's being affected by slow-moving but persistent IPs, so hoping to get a few months of semi to try to break the cycle. Zad68 14:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unregistered users continue to put the upcoming but not in production yet film Superman 2 even when cautioned not to. Request protection be at least until film has begun principle photography. Lady Lotus • talk 13:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP hopping vandals entering grave violations of BLP policy. Suggest protection for a day or two. Sjö (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalised by three socks today. I propose a couple of days protection. Sjö (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. let's see what happens next now that the IP address is blocked. If it continues we can protect the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full-protection. Looks like we have an edit war to blank/rd the article because there are evidently some historical inaccuracies in it. Since 3RR does not apply to vandalism, and repeatedly blanking a page with bizarre edit summaries such as "Multiple violations Wiki:Sockpuppet User:Ferminmx/User:Kwamikagami Wiki:vandalism Wiki:3reverts User:Bock to Wiki:Consensus" is pretty close to vandalism, I'm going to continue to restore the article, but someone please protect – the article, not the redirect. — kwami (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full-protection. Edit war between IPs and (redlinked, thus probably rather new) registered editors over the status of the site and possibly its new URL. Has been going on since Jan 1 at least, with daily reverts which don't exceed 3RR. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - I've warned the three of them for edit warring, if it continues please report to WP:ANEW. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Pending Changes protection is not working as vandalism is still persistent. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask the protection admin KTC first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Pending Changes is working as intended, to prevent vandalism from appearing to non-logged in users while allowing any non-confrimed user and IP editors to contribute contents. Edit rates are not high enough to justify losing that to semi-protection. KTC (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, such as showing their opinion. 96.255.45.109 (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: I'm not so much requesting unprotection of methamphetamine as I am requesting unprotection/creation of its feedback page:[41] Unfortunately, twinkle doesn't have an option for that. . Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: This article has been protected for six years. Some IPs made good requests recently, some IPs made bad. The protecting admin is retired. Before protection from vandalism, it was frequently edited in 2008. The subject is retired from profession, so I believe that editing won't be as frequent as before. George Ho (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected. If it goes well, let me know in a month and I'll unprotect. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated IP nonsense and BLP violation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – Additions of contentious material repeatedly reverted. George Ho (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Way to much activity for pending changes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Anthony Weights and multiple new users (176.27.228.253 is the latest) have been making the same edits repeatedly in the Broadcast and Reception section of this article. He has been warned already about edit warring on this page on January 4 and has not contributed in the talk section. As soon as semi-protection expired today, 176.27.228.253 made the same edits he’s been making over and over. Request to freeze the page while I escalate this to the edit warring notice board.Oxford24 (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Frequently used and substituted. George Ho (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected and move=template editor & admins. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant short-term vandalism. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. for 1 week by Gilliam. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked.
Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: edit-warring/content dispute [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] —rybec 02:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dubious unsourced additions and WP:OR by anon IP editors. STATic message me! 00:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, and an argument on what should be on it or not. 96.255.45.109 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unregistered users doing repetitive and unsourced data on page. 𝕁𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕒𝕟𝕂𝕪𝕤𝕖𝕣𝟚𝟚 𝕋𝕒𝕝𝕜 𝕥𝕠 𝕞𝕖 / 𝕊𝕖𝕖 𝕙𝕠𝕨 𝕀 𝕒𝕞 𝕕𝕠𝕚𝕟𝕘 / 𝕄𝕪 𝕠𝕨𝕟 𝕦𝕤𝕖𝕣𝕓𝕠𝕩𝕖𝕤 20:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, edit warring seems to have died down over the past few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection (temporary or full-time): Occasional disruptive edits by unregistered users.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, edit warring seems to have died down over the past few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

temporary full-protection: - ongoing edit-dispute/war.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I think reporting Kiruning to WP:AN3 if he keeps reverting would be a better idea than full protecting the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:174.1.28.248 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – For a day or two, just to dissuade the one user from his repeated additions of abusive language?. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, blocked user User:JaimeB64 seems to have an indefinite association to this IP address as he did at the time of this sockpuppet investigation so maybe page protection for the duration of the IP block is warranted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: - Recent spate of IPs and new accounts changing the sourced profession of his father. Maybe a day or two of semi-protection will get the novelty of this to wear off. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 00:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 00:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring and Vandalism by SPA. The page was Fully protected before, but it hasn't helped at all. OccultZone (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined It hasn't helped because you started edit warring when protection expired. I suggest you discuss the matter instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring by unregistered IP. Keeps making same untrue change to this and several related pages. SonOfThornhill (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I only see three reverts in the past week, which is a little less than I like to see when protecting. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring by unregistered IP. Keeps making same untrue change to this and several related pages. SonOfThornhill (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I only see three reverts in the past week, which is a little less than I like to see when protecting. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring by unregistered IP. Keeps making same untrue change to this and several related pages. SonOfThornhill (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I only see three reverts in the past week, which is a little less than I like to see when protecting. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IPs and New users repeatedly adding non notable names and lists over the last week.--. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: There is a high level of IP vandalism, and and reverting. Many untrue and insulting content. 96.255.45.109 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Due to high level of IP vandalism, due to high-profiled exit of actor from The Young and the Restless. Gossip rag claiming actor sexually harassed a former co-star, and many trusting in unreliable source(s) for potential libelous claims against actor. livelikemusic my talk page! 15:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2013 Metro Manila Film Festival (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated disruptive edits by IPs. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – POV driven edits from multiple IPs. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Edit warring from I.Ps and new editor. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I myself have no active involvement in the content of the page, but there is contention regarding one of the facts in the article. A discussion is taking place on the talk page but at least 1 new account and IP are modifying content without sourcing their changes. CaptRik (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection: Google (via Google Doodle) is honoring this woman today; therefore, due to the increased traffic, lots of vandalism going on at her Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – After closure, was changed in August 2013 and again in December 2013. —rybec 08:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done edits were not vandalism and two per year is not too much of a problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not vandalism and not too much of a problem? Please look carefully: [50] [51]. It has been more than a year, but there is seldom a good reason to edit closed Articles for deletion discussions such as this one. —rybec 13:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Spamming began as soon as article was unprotected. Can we get longer term protection?. NeilN talk to me 16:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Continous unjustified and unreferenced change of verified data by multiple IP users. FonEengIneeR7 talk 15:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated recreation by an IP of a list article that has been redirected as the result of an AfD. Blocking the IP is, based on previous experiences, not going to solve the problem since a new IP will then show up to continue the disruption. Thomas.W talk to me 15:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/About (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected Yes! Give me a chance! GedUK  12:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple instances of vandalism-only edits in the past month. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Very high level of vandalism by anon IP editors. STATic message me! 05:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Winning QB of BCS title college football team. Target of constant vandalism after win. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 05:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Violations of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV along with dubious unsourced additions. STATic message me! 05:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: This article attracts constant vandalism for some reason. A quick look at the history shows that many of the anonymous edits are vandalism; most of such edits are from IPs that just show up to mess up the article and then leave, having little to no other edit history. Abstractematics (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Easy Rider (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Varying IPs fighting ideological WP:BATTLEGROUND. Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depeche Mode songs

Temporary semi-protection: Category:Depeche Mode songs articles currently experiencing high level of unref, unexplained and repeated tampering of music genres from different IPs e.g. [52] [53] Dl2000 (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, most of these had a fairly low level of disruption so I didn't protect with a couple exceptions. Also, I blocked the IP that was causing most of the trouble. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Golden: Shoot to Kill, the Arturo Porcuna Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent addition of unsourced content by I.P's. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent article vandalism – Criticism and PSA Airlines section repeatedly Blanked by IP editors.

Criticisms Section [54] [55] [56]

PSA Airlines Section [57]

--50.128.155.168 (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Anonymous IP users continually vandalize the page and change {{Yes}} cells into {{No}} cells and vice versa.

List of diffs where I've had to undo vandalism

Semi-protection is needed to stop the repeated misinformation by these IP vandals Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Due to vandalism. blastertalk! see 21:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: This page hasn't been recreated for six months. Is there a particular reason to protect it now? Mike V • Talk 23:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, I don't see a need for protection here. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: repeated violations of the WP:BLP policy over a period of more than two weeks by multiple new/unregistered editors. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Group of new users adding fake member list. —Teles «Talk to me˱M @ C S˲» 03:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection Continual IP's and SPA 'anti-show' accounts continuing to assert television block has been canceled using self-sourcing and inappropriate sources like ask.fm questions to cast members. Nate • (chatter) 03:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Maybe extend this to a few months? —JennKR | ☎ 01:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Materialscientist. (one week) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection, persistent blanking edits by IPs. This is a closed AFD from 2010, there's no reason for anyone to be editing it. Hairhorn (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jinkinson talk to me 01:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent addition of unsourced content by I.P editors. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent additions of unsourced content by I.P's. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – No reason for this page to exist. Jinkinson talk to me 00:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Fairly high-profile kids TV article gets vandalized regularly with unsourced future airdates and other hoax information. Previous temp block ended Jan 5, and vandalism began on Jan 6 again. Requesting long-term protection, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Downgrade from full to template protection: Let template editors edit this fully- and permanently-protected template. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Courcelles 00:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect due to the high amount of unsourced IP edits. JMHamo (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of recent vandalism and disruptive editing from multiple IPs. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection When the sixth AFD (currently underway) was filed, I promptly informed the filing party (AFD comment #1) that AFD was unlikely after five prior failed attempts. Filing party then commenced edit warring to strip article of content as a Plan B. Although I !voted "keep" in the AFD, I would not be heart broken to see proper process AFD the article to oblivion. But edit warring instead of working thru the issues is not the way to go. Requesting full protection of this pre edit war version until AFD concludes. I will leave a tickle of this request on article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 00:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08 January 2014

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – 3 different IPs attack this page, might be socks. . buffbills7701 21:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator IronGargoyle. (one week) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring, 10 of the most recent edits by five separate editors (all autoconfirmed accounts, myself included) have been over the placement of an article-wide tag, recommend some days of full protection until the issue is discussed. Zad68 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with protection here, but am too involved to throw the switch. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Reaves thanks... I see you didn't use the "small=yes" parameter which yields a large box at the top of the article. Was that intentional? My usual preference is to use the small=yes parameter to yield just the small lock icon. If leaving that off was intentional, OK. Zad68 20:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With full protection, I always use the full template as it draws potential third opinions to the talk page as well as explains why the article isn't editable to those that may not be familiar with our processes (especially this process as it is somewhat extraordinary). I'm certainly not dead-set on anything if other users feel it is problematic as well. -- John Reaves 20:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, thanks... Based on this reasoning I think I'll probably be doing the same when I full-protect in the future. Zad68 20:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- John Reaves 20:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – Requesting the protection level be lowered so that I can process the current edit request. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined There is an admin prepared to implement the request if necessary. -- John Reaves 16:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Disruption by a dynamic-IP editor. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. -- John Reaves 19:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP and SPA vandalism since 21 Dec. Ruby Murray 13:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, but only one IP editor was blocked for edit-warring, and that still leaves Special:Contributions/Valiaris, Special:Contributions/88.170.59.107 and Special:Contributions/92.26.77.67. Since it's been going on since 21 Dec and more heavily for the last 2 days, it's likely to continue from various IPs. Ruby Murray 16:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevlar

Unprotected By another admin. -- John Reaves 19:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent IP vandalism. Hack (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Soccer player being vandalized during transfer season. QED237 (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Mattythewhite.. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated, nost recently by A Crush on Kate McAuliffe (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), blocked as a sock-puppet of Willy on Wheels. —rybec 11:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before the most recent the last was in 2006 so Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – Allegations have been added and removed cyclically over time. George Ho (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: as election is in a few months and the from the history thaere is an insidious number of IP edits that are unfruitful.Lihaas (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but can we semi it as there are many that ritually come there.Lihaas (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: WP:Personal attacks, WP:POV pushing from IP. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pov came only from your side, you removed sources and neutral content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.239.0.37 (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Users warned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of unsourced anon edits that need verification as player is in today's media for announcing he's gay. JMHamo (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: A revert war seems to be going on, mostly by IP users. A request for discussion template has been put in place in the relevant section and I've started the discussion on the talk page. I'd like the page to be semi-protected for a while to stop the constant warring at least while the discussion is going on. DarkPhoenix (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Another spate of IP vandalism. This is a particularly difficult page to monitor and it is very easy for subtle vandalism (like the most recent assigning an airline to the wrong alliance) to go unnoticed. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. --Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – Allegations were added and removed cyclically in 2013. George Ho (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Marian Dawkins‎ (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

temp Semi please. Anon IP trolling with WP:COI insinuations that appear to be unfounded and therefore WP:BLP problems, and wandering massively off-topic. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – A report out of Mexico, and a Tweet by the subject, have linked the player to a Mexican club. His team has stated that they are not releasing him from his contract. The former has caused multiple edits. Either semi-protect or pending changes for a few weeks please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: An unregistered user is repeatedly making the same edits, from various IP addresses. --Alexbook (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: There are numerous IP edits on the List of National Animals, changing North Korea's national animal to "scarecrow" "human" and a couple others. I'd like a month temporary semi protection, at least until the Redditors forget about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elryacko (talk • contribs) 09:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Trayvon Martin (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – repeated inclusion of BLP violating material on TALK page by anon IP. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ip-hopping vandalism. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: An IP editor continues to re-add info that has been removed because it has never appeared on the show. -- Ice (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – There were 70 edits to this page over the past twelve months. 53 of those were made by sockpuppets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent and continued addition of unsourced or possibly fanfictional cruft on the characters sheet. I played both games before and as far as what I can recall I never heard of Norman dying in a plane crash nor did there was any statement about Francesca's death. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: The page was recently given temporary semi-protection after an IP editor started removing content from the calendar section without explanation. That protection was lifted, and the editor in question has returned, removing the same content without explanation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I think you requested the wrong article here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations. Martin451 00:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant addition of unsourced/speculative information . Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Anon IPs continue to go to the first section under "Personal life" and make it either ungrammatical or in violation of WP:DATED and (with use of conversational first name rather than last name) MOS. Here are three difs from two different anon IPs: [58] [59] [60], With The Bachelor just having premiered, a lot of unschooled lookie-loo anon IPs are sure to descend. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jinkinson talk to me 01:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection - Vandalism started again after previous protection ended. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – Listing living persons for such allegations is under discussion in talk page and WP:BLPN. While there may be no vandalism or reverts, this article is under scrutiny, as I'm afraid. George Ho (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, not an appropriate candidate for pending changes, although full protection may be needed in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Recurring IP edits that change information that's cited and verifiable by a reliable source, performed as soon as the previous temporary protection expired. IsaacAA (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I only see two reverts in the past week Mark Arsten (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – view history. JimRenge (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple instances of removal of unsourced content w/o explanation, at least 3 instances of IPs using misleading edit summaries to make these removals, [61], [62], & [63]. Roberticus (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Anon IP deleting material, adding contested material and messing up with refs/sources format since IP is literally copy/pasting from other sources. I think it's been 4 times that IP has been reverted and reason explained on talkpage to no avail. . Λuα (Operibus anteire) 21:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this but can't action it myself as involved. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Coretheapple (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one year. Tiptoety talk 20:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Blanked twice by very persistent sock. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - For starters, this is not a content dispute but simple vandalism. Secondly, I only see one instance of recent blanking in the page's history. If further disruption takes place, please feel free to re-request protection. Tiptoety talk 18:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism that is either complimentary, or untrue. High level of rethinking of edits.

Declined, I only see one revert in the past week. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09 January 2014

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs and new user accounts repeatedly adding copyrighted images to the article. Thomas.W talk to me 18:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jinkinson talk to me 17:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute. Current events with Penn State coaching offer that have not been confirmed. Gehrc (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Updated: Persistent content disputes, page has been modified over 100 times today Gehrc (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry, most recently from IPs, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawline JohnInDC (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long semi-protection: Long-term problem with IPs edit-warring over BLP/NPOV related content (immediately resumed after last prot expired). DMacks (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism from IP. Drunk in Paris (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: The dubious unsourced additions by anon IP editors continues after end of recent protection period. . STATic message me! 15:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Looking at the last 50 edits to this article there is hardly 1 single addition of a bluelinked name made by an IP editor, with regulars having to remove NNs on a weekly basis. Sam Sailor Sing 15:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism as she is today's UK Google Doodle. Span (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Amitrc7th (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The pages is already protected and I don't see a reason to unprotect. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple articles with PC2 protection

I'm not sure what the best place to ask for this is, so I'm asking here
  • Please go through all pages in Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 2) and 1) verify that they are indeed at "Pending changes (level 2)" and if not, change the erroneous protection-template on the page so they can be removed from this category, and 2) since "pending changes (level 2)" is not yet approved for use on the English Wikipedia, either change the protection level to something appropriate - probably semi- or full-protection - but first check the talk page to see if PC2 was placed there after a discussion and consensus (in which case IMHO WP:IAR applies and the PC2 setting should stay). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried similar request in WP:AN, but no consensus on downgrading protection. --George Ho (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When was that? Also, part of my request is to verify that the protection-templates match the actual protection-level. It wouldn't surprise me if at least one of the pages was mis-templated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
October 2013. George Ho (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, people are proposing to reuse the PC2. George Ho (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Please discuss with protecting admins. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism of the 'release date' section of the article by IPs --Whitehornmatt (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent edit-warring from IP(s). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – page is underattack by ip users, the last 3 days has been vandalized 5-6 times. Argento1985 10:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Information is being added without source by the same person with multiple IP. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Dynamic IP repeatedly adding promo/spam links. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page appears to be under attack. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection: In the few hours that protection has been removed, a wave of IP vandalism and disruptive edits have ensued.LM2000 (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jimmy Santos (actor) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by block evading I.P editors. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – Please lower the protection level on this template so I may make some changes to mirror the changes currently in the sandbox and other edits I intend to work on in my proposal (WP:VPR#Adding editnotices to date format and language templates). Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected indefinitely. Technical 13 Please let me know when you're done and I'll restore the cascading protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc, it is still claiming to be cascade protected when I go to edit it. Must be used in one of the other templates on the page and cascading through that template to this one. Technical 13 (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's transcluded on around 6000 pages any of which could be doing it, so unless there is an easy way to find out which one. You might need to do it the old fashioned way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While it might not be the only one, I'm guessing Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. Technical 13 (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at this there are quite a few. It's going to be better to make a protected edit request cos I'm not going to remove some (most) of them from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Requested yesterday too. The IPs are back...Lihaas (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It's probably going to end up being protected until after the election, but we'll try this this time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous, now daily, disruptive edits from IPs. – Recollected • 04:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: This page was indefinitely protected after the PC trial in 2010. However the previous semi-protection (before the trial) was set to expire in November of 2010. I suspect that the page has more than enough eyes on it to try unprotecting it to see how it goes. Crazynas t 21:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long-term vandalism by IPs. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection: Constant IP/SPA account vandalism and addition of unsourced information on television program list; no reason IP's need to do any major changes of this list at all. Nate • (chatter) 22:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. "No reason IP's need to do any major changes of this list at all" is not a reason to protect anything on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. However given the amount of vandalism I've protected it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – LanguageXpert IP socks edit warring. SMS Talk 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: This page was indefinitely semi-protected in 2008 due to page move vandalism. I suspect this page is well watched enough, can we try removing the edit protection and see how it goes?. Crazynas t 21:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Given the thousands of views each day I'm not going to unprotect completely. If there is much vandalism I'll re-semi protect it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Semi-protection Continued dispute on same subject (directness of flights by Chinese airlines beyond hubs). 68.119.73.36 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent anonymous vandalism over the past few weeks by someone who keeps adding an unsourced "plagiarism" complaint. 71.75.62.110 (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An anonymous user keeps inserting Tropical Storm Anita in the article even though its not relevant to the article since it did not form in the NATL. Unfortunately his IP is a transferable one. Jason Rees (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by multiple IPs and non-autoconfirmed users. RA0808 talkcontribs 21:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This album is incredibly famous and well known. As it stands, the article is nearing FA quality but such a nomination would be impossible with the current stability. I am currently copyediting the page to clean it up since its previous FAC. Thank you :). CrowzRSA 20:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Averaging one set of IP edits per month for the past many months; only one in past few weeks was a self-and-bot-reverted one several days ago. DMacks (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Adding unsourced speculative information. GSK ✉ ✓ 19:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Very little recent editing. Disruptive IP blocked. -- John Reaves 19:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruption. SMS Talk 18:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Most of the disruption in the past month has been from one user. -- John Reaves 19:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – This article is discussed at talk page, WP:BLPN, and User talk:Jimbo Wales. People tend to remove and re-add content about living people. George Ho (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Not needed yet. -- John Reaves 19:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Not enough activity. -- John Reaves 19:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10 January 2014

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I rarely request an Indefinite page protection but I think the sheer amount of ongoing and persistent vandalism that this article receives necessitates at least *someone* at RPP taking a look at the problem. Every day IPs come to this article and usually end up getting blocked for their vandalism. Could we just cut all the nonsense off before it has a chance to start?. Shearonink (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- John Reaves 18:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arussom (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There are only four problematic edits in the last seven months. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: The operator of this account is deceased (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Pelican Shit). Therefore, the page should be fully protected as per the Deceased Wikipedians Guidelines, which, I think, apply to both constructive users and vandals. Jinkinson talk to me 21:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than protecting, as you suggest, the other option I see is deleting per WP:DENY and protecting against recreation. -- John Reaves 01:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This person wasn't a wikipedian and was a notable enough vandal to get a LTA page. Delete it per WP:DENY because this person died over a year ago now and we don't make memorials to vandals. tutterMouse (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, deleted per comments here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recently released film of an actor with a large fan base as well as a large number of haters. Hence, they are back and forth vandalising the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Page is already protected. Are you actually asking for reduction in protection, in which case that doesn't seem wise at this point. GedUK  13:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recently released film of an actor with a large fan base as well as a large number of haters. Hence, they are back and forth vandalising the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Most of the IPs are fine GedUK  13:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: "not needed" isn't a very good reason to create protect a template. Please unprotect (and and create as a #REDIRECT Template:WikiProject Baseball if you wouldn't mind). Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the protecting admin, Wizardman to consider unprotecting? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, For the bot. Start with the protecting admin, come back here if necessary afterwards. GedUK  13:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – Template has 11,703 transclusions. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Armbrust The Homunculus 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite feedback protection: Feedback is continually re-enabled even though almost all of the feedback received on this page is nonconstructive. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Someone keeps vandalizing the page and they're doing it with multiple IP addresses, so perhaps it ought to be semi-protected. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. --Jakob (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary PC1: Persistent IP vandalism on article with a low edit rate. Since December the 7th the article has had 24 edits and not changed at all due to vandalism and reversion. Yaris678 (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. GedUK  13:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks. I was thinking a month would be about right but I thought I should see what admins thoughts. Yaris678 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent addition of "joke" text by dynamic IP(s). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. persistent? I can see it twice this year so far. That's not at protection levels. GedUK  12:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection, addition of non-free images by an IP hopper. 117Avenue (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: Page has not been protected.—cyberbot I NotifyOnline 13:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ged UK: Armbrust The Homunculus 16:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Mojomuning (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only one batch of unsourced IP edits since the last protection, certainly nowhere near the levels needed to restore. GedUK  12:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Users with multiple accounts and Ips only charge of reverse edits and create edit wars, just to vandalize the article.. Pichu How can I help? 15:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: This log confuses me. The page seems to be protected, but I can't find the rationale in the log, and in fact, the last protection was set to be temporary back in 2008. In any case, if the page is in fact still protected, it doesn't seem like it needs it anymore (not much recent activity and ~500 pageviews per day). . Crazynas t 08:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected The protection carried over from what is now the redirect St. John's University (New York). That seemed to be for IP edit warring, which doesn't seem to have happened on this page. GedUK  13:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Article has had a long history of vandalism every now and then. Now would probably be a good time to experiment with PC (not semi-protection, as the level of protection isn't high enough to justify it.). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected GedUK  13:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection, addition of non-free images by an IP hopper. 117Avenue (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection, addition of non-free images by an IP hopper. 117Avenue (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection, addition of non-free images by an IP hopper. 117Avenue (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection, addition of non-free images by an IP hopper. 117Avenue (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection, addition of non-free images by an IP hopper. 117Avenue (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection, addition of non-free images by an IP hopper. 117Avenue (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP-hopper constantly removing maintenance-templates and introducing an excessive amount of links to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 11:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection temporarily. IP and new users adding blatant promotional links and grossly unreliable blogs and wikia kind of urls to the page, following the release of the film. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either semi-protection or pending changes is fine. Still needs extra protection time. Protecting admin is semi-retired. --George Ho (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected.. Pending changes is already on, has been for quite a while. Seems to be working, and levels aren't high enough for semi. GedUK  12:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Additions of original research, vandalism and unsourced content shortly following the end of the recent protection period. STATic message me! 05:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. GedUK  12:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Perhaps, to also prevent newcomers without a certain number of edits from editing. Lots of vandalism for sake of politics. Nkansahrexford (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Materialscientist.. GedUK  12:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Preemptive, due to controversy. JamesBCrazy (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. -- John Reaves 04:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: - Following an extensive time frame for semi-protection, anonymous I.P. vandals immediately jumped back on the article. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 00:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- John Reaves 04:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – IPs are adding unsourced rumors about Sanders' job status. I think at least 24-hours of protection would be a good idea until the situation is clarified. I am One of Many (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 06:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism rising in Jan 2014. — Maile (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- John Reaves 04:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Since page creation, constant vandalism. Recently there has been a spike in vandalism. Ross HillTalk to me! 21:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- John Reaves 04:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. SMS Talk 15:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- John Reaves 04:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There seems to be an edit war going on about the airport's name. XXX antiuser eh? 03:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Seems to a problem with anonymous/new users. -- John Reaves 03:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Disruptive editing by IPs who have been adding and removing stuff without explanation. Jinkinson talk to me 01:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- John Reaves 03:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – IPs editing from the Los Angeles area just like the master sockpuppet account described at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2#Herschelkrustofsky_sockpuppets. Herschelkrustofsky is not allowed to edit anonymously. Binksternet (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- John Reaves 03:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Inbound IP attacks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Acalamari 23:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent IP edits that change information that's cited and verifiable by a reliable source. Article was temporarily semi-protected twice, would appreciate long-term or permanent semi-protection. IsaacAA (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I only see two reverts in the past week. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Ongoing addition of unsourced content/edit warring by I.Ps and non auto-cofirmed edtors. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism re year of birth. Thanks. Quis separabit? 21:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A dynamic IP has been disrupting the article by adding a non-neutral disclaimer on the theatrical poster. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection Some unhelpful POV editing by IPs going on at present. PatGallacher (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For some reason, the major contributors to this page have been IPs with misinformation or uncited material. All of which needs reverting. Seems to be taking too much time for too small a purpose. If IPs have a legitimate addition to suggest, perhaps they can make it on the discussion page. Right now, verifying poorly cited information is excessively time-consuming for registered watchers. Student7 (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Continual IP vandalism identical to a number of WP:RVAN reports listed in an SPI I made several months back. Antoshi ☏ ★ 15:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Excessive copyright infringement by IPs. Too much info is added to Devyani section without citations beyond the scope of the article. --Numancia (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) This template doesn't exist, perhaps you meant to request semi-protection of another one? Jinkinson talk to me 14:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Numancia probably meant the article.  Fixed Armbrust The Homunculus 15:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Excessive recent sockpuppetry; this page is related to Louis Joseph Posner, VoterMarch and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VoterMarch, which, two days ago, were semi-protected for a month for this same reason, see prior request here and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawline. JohnInDC (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – IPs and new users have been adding a considerable amount of unsourced content to this article recently. Also, this article was previously semi-protected for a month, so perhaps longer-term protection is warranted here. Jinkinson talk to me 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – Template has 44,926 transclusions. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – Template has 40,094 transclusions. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: SPAs are constantly using this page to arguably promote their own altcoins instead of making constructive edits to this article. Requesting PC protection to keep the SPAs at bay. Citation Needed | Talk 15:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent edit warring by dynamic IPs. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – IP-hopping editor is repeatedly adding insufficiently-sourced content, refuses to discuss on talk, and has repeatedly made personal attacks against editors who disagree with and revert him. The Old JacobiteThe '45 04:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Requesting immediate archiving... Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Requesting immediate archiving... Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High traffic article attracting a new fan base who are inclined to add POV, including BLP vio stuff as well as not following generally accepted layout defaults and frequently violating WP:3RR. A couple of weeks at most if possible, please. Leaky Caldron 11:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unconfirmed rumour about a transfer away from his current club is causing a lot of anon edits, which need reverting. JMHamo (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Repeated insertion of promo content counter to consensus at RSN by sock/meat IPs and non autoconfirmed editors. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism. BiH (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Similar content was added and removed. George Ho (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jinkinson talk to me 21:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection: Persistent edit-warring by multiple IPs (68.48.122.203, 38.104.30.230, 162.227.66.38) since at least as far back as October 2013. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The edit rate of this page is very low, and therefore pending change level 1 would better for the article (if protection needed at all). Armbrust The Homunculus 23:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with PC1. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs 169.199.121.17 and 50.131.100.128 continue to submit unsourced and unexplained date changes against consensus. IP has been active for about a month, editing every few days. Requesting 2 week protection, since an NN-hour block won't dissuade a user who edits every few days. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recently released film of popular actor with large fanbase, who vandalise the article persistently. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Problematic IP address edits. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: A single editor, using multiable Telstra IPs, is adding POV content (also has a COI), also unsourced. Bidgee (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This probably isn't the best place to post such a comment but I'd keep an on this editor (IP). He's edited other Australian ISP articles, removing sourced and accurate statements that portray them in a positive light. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long semi-protection: persistent spam. --Elbakcats (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Content dispute – Hi, requesting 24 hour semi-protection. Some users seem upset that the article contains spoilers, so various IPs and users are removing the plot summary. Here's a relevant post at the Help Desk. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I'm not sure if this is a "content dispute" or "vandalism", or a mix of the both, but it's disruptive, and the removal of spoilers goes against consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – 17 edits in 4 hours all vandalism and reverts. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dawnseeker2000 16:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of ten days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Due to a contentious referring decision made in a match today the article has been subject to vandalism, a week’s protection should be sufficient. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five further incidents of vandalism since request was made. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of ten days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Repeated genre changes without any sources or discussion from two different IPs users (presumably the same person). It has been going on since November. They tend to take a break for several days before resuming again. So this page should be semi-protected for a while. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There are only 5 problematic edits in the last month. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There is a long and tedious discussion going regarding the table of teams and drivers which has now led to a bitter edit war between two users. I suggest the page is put under temporary full protection. Tvx1 (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: A small group of editors is refusing to accept a consensus and have resorted to aggressive tactics, including threatening admin intervention, attempting to characterise edits they disagree with as vandalism, and edit-warring in a bid to force through their preferred edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This page appears to already be protected. Please confirm.—cyberbot I NotifyOnline 15:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator Bbb23. (7 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 17:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protection: This is a redirect to {{Anchor}} and needs to be categorized correctly. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 06:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say make an edit request. There is no need to reduce the protection of this page, as it doesn't need frequent editing. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done There's no reason for this redirect to be fully protected, though. Courcelles 16:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Courcelles! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a bother, but this redirect is also listed at WP:CASC and cannot be template edited until it is removed from the cascade protection. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see {{Anchor}} is also cascade protected. Both pages are on Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Ridiculous IP vandalism over the last few days full of BLP violations; I'm not exactly sure which version of the article to revert to. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 06:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been going on for a month and a half, and needs some suppression of both text and edit summaries as well as semi-protection. That's why I originally posted at ANI rather than here. This is the version that should be protected [64]; the last version before the vandalism spree began. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. STATic message me! 04:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism; same user using different IPs to introduce same unsourced genre revision ([65], [66], [67], [68]) Dan56 (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: same pattern that led to page protection previously: IP blanking of maintenance tags, spammy edits. Hairhorn (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Request 3 months of page protection; page has been repeatedly vandalised over the past several months. LT910001 (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Semi-protection Persistent vandalism – Vandalism come back. Farhan (talk) 2:53 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent spats of vandalism. DPH1110 (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 48 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.; enough time to get past the Panthers game. Courcelles 06:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Just as it seemed we were rid of the IP-user edit warring, it's back yet again. Same person, but different IP address. Would like this page semi-protected indefinitely to prevent more IP users from coming to do the same thing again. Bailmoney27 talk 23:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – Please lower the protection level on this so that I can complete the edit request. It should also have a ~~<noinclude>~~ in the template as well so that people that copy and paste will put their signature in (if they don't know they should, which is the basis for this template in the first place, to help new users) Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Courcelles 06:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: User request within own user space. (t) Josve05a (c) 04:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Courcelles 06:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High-visibility page about a very popular meme. Jinkinson talk to me 02:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Give me a minute, bot. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bongwarrior: I only see two instances of vandalism since the protection expired --Guerillero | My Talk 02:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might be a good time to IAR about the no preemptive protection rule, given the high amount of doge vandalism we've had so far. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't preemptive at all. The page had been protected twice already; in the 12 hours after the most recent protection expired, the article was vandalized four times by three different users. It's not hard to see how this movie ends. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was vandalized four times, I guess you're right. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Template used in highly visible pages. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 00:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The template is transcluded on only 76 article pages. Typically, templates that qualify for such protection are used on hundreds or thousands of article pages. Mike V • Talk 01:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Intense edit-warring between IPs and newly created user accounts over the reception of a Bollywood movie that was released yesterday... Thomas.W talk to me 20:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism due to recent announcement of lawsuit by ICP due to the FBI labeling Juggalos a gang. STATic message me! 18:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Biography of deceased Philippine celebrity that is repeatedly being vandalised by an IP-hopper, changing to article to make it look as if the subject of it is still alive and active. Thomas.W talk to me 18:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP article being targeted with all sorts of vandalism. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 23:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Seems like a lot of vandalism... also, is listed at WP:Most vandalized articles. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 23:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Unsourced changes to person that recently died. . STATic message me! 19:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13 January 2014

Semi-protection: IP hopping vandal won't go away.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done for 1 month. Snowolf How can I help? 18:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Massive edit war between IPs and new account. RolandR (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected by John Reaves (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 3 days. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – POV-pushing IP. The Banner talk 00:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: the page is constantly being bombarded with vandalism after the Malaysian Prime Minister political speech about the price of the vegetable (Water spinach). --Egard89 (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Manager that got fired earlier tooday and now some IP being disruptive. QED237 (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of IP vandalism, IP users changes team for football player rumoured to change club. QED237 (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Saving it from a IP SOCK users which I'm already reporting it but didn't get any good response. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 09:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranking Update: Can you give us some more information about the IP sock? Who is it a sock of, and where did you report them? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's linked in his request, it's at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omdo/Archive. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Whoops, not sure how I missed that - thanks Armbrust. Ranking Update, If the sockpuppetry continues after the month is up, please file a new request and we can consider longer-term protection. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Frequent IP vandalism.LM2000 (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Football player rumopured to change club. Recently protected but now unprotected and IP-disruptive editing has resumed. . QED237 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: I previously requested pending changes protection on this page, in the hopes it would stop the overwhelming number of vandalism attacks on this page. Unfortunately since pending protection was put in place 114 attempts of vandalism have still be made, several of which have been accepted by other users as the vandalism appears innocent to the casual observer (user(s) keep adding films to the list that were not released until several years after the awards ceremony was held). Having pending changes protection on this page has actual made it more difficult for me to fend off the overwhelming number of vandalism attacks as I now have to also check all accepted changes. Please change to indefinite semi-protection. This page has been regularly vandalised since 1 month after I created it and has now been vandalised over 300 times. Freikorp (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Normally we don't use semi-protection when vandalism is this infrequent, but I'm making an exception here as there haven't been any useful edits from any of the IPs. If this continues when the 3 months are up we can consider a longer period of protection. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Redirect to Kim Rodriguez, which is now a valid article. –HTD 09:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Many IPs ask asinine questions about similar situations and may not fully grasp the concept of the article. George Ho (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Nowhere near ( this is exceedingly little, actually) the level of disruption to protect a talk page. Courcelles 02:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent modifications not supported by references provided. Jetstreamer Talk 23:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Long-term problem with IPs replacing sourced content with unsourced promotion of Gerson's unproven and potentially-dangerous 'therapy' AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – with intermediate additions of unsourced content due an alleged bid being covered by 24 hour news media. IPs are jumping the gun saying he has transfer to a new club. I know the page has not been protected in the past but I don't think 24/48hrs would be sufficient. . ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Page is a frequent target of sock operator and community banned user KuhnstylePro. He has demonstrated no interest in stopping his campaign, which he has been at since at least October 2012. If you browse the edit history, you will find a litany of his socks: Crocigator, BonheadsFreak, TiggerChewer, Tom&JerryNo1, Rovio Never, to name a few. It's currently a redirect, not an article with content in need of regular updating, so I'm requesting long-term protection to dissuade the sockjobber. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – This was the stable versions for the last couple years. Recent regions of the lead, and addition of uncited opinions, need consensus on the talk page before being included. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Mostly not accepting Mykki is transsexual and is on stage female. As I don't have sysop here I can't do it myself, I do have sysop on nl.wiki. Dqfn13 (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jinkinson talk to me 20:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 01:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike V: WP:PC policy explicitly disallows use in the WP namespace. Courcelles 02:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: edit warring over inclusion of Palestinian views among reactions to Sharon's death. Downwoody (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, edit warring seems to have calmed down today Mark Arsten (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - an IP user has been reverting all edits, undoing all sources and replacing sourced material with false information. Big Dre (talk)

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – People are vandalizing this page with "Bottom Tile" I assume in reference to some sort of joke. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Excessive ip vandalism. BOVINEBOY2008 19:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Unsourced additions and disruptive editing by anon IP editors. STATic message me! 17:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Commons-based file whose local description page has been created three times so far for testing and/or vandalistic purposes. As the lead section image of a popular article, this is a highly-visible file. SuperMarioMan 17:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A sock user which has been blocked before keep adding nonsense information using a various IPs. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 17:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

semiprotection multiple IPs and new accounts feel the need to promote an upcoming release. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: In the last few days this article has been subject to malicious unsourced additions by 2 Ip users and 2 new Wiki accounts created just for this purpose. This is no big surprise and is obviously an extension of the much publicised online bullying and abuse received by Ms Bailey, see eg [69] [70]. If Semi is just applied for a short time I think it highly likely an extension will be needed soon afterwards as there is a small but hardcore band of Bailey bashers who may not give up trying to bash her for a long time. It is especially pertinent, being a BLP.--Penbat (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Well, seems to be the target of some beautiful socks of Surjendranil. Should be salted because it's recreated continuously and also a recently (apparently) deleted BLP. Ankit Maity «T § C»«Review Me» 12:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP edits have returned that caused protection before. Murry1975 (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: This article always being a target of vandalism with some users keeping adding a nonsense information. Perhaps a little long semi-protection can save it. Plus saving it from a IP SOCK users which I'm already reporting it but didn't get any good response. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 08:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: If you look through the history, most IP edits are reverted. The article already has a woeful lack of sources and a lot of unsourced info and based on the history IP's are not doing anything to help as most of their edits get removed even if it isn't blatant vandalism because they don't understand WP:STYLE. To ensure article stability and eventual improvement it is best if this article is indefinitely protected from unhelpful IP edits. Cadiomals (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you did not actually look at the article history, @Mark Arsten:. Within the past month, virtually all IP edits have been reverted. What is your definition of recent? Look how many reverts there are within just the past 50 edits: 12. It is clear IPs are not being helpful and it's better to just protect the article than constantly reverting their edits. Please reconsider, otherwise I am going to re-add this once it disappears. Cadiomals (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last 50 edits were made in a timespan of three months. 12 reverts in 3 months is certainly not enough. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to ask for a second opinion from another admin if you like, but I agree with Armbrust. Looking at the history, I only see three reverts in the past two weeks, which is less than I like to see when semi-protecting. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking would be the rate of reverts over the frequency of reverts is more substantial. If you expand the history to the last 500 edits, I counted 92 reverts. Although they were spread out over a year and a half, there basically hasn't been an IP edit that wasn't reverted, because they do not understand WP:STYLE, sourcing, or appropriate content. Instead of continuing to do this, protecting the article would end the problem altogether and allow confirmed editors to pursue a higher-quality article without worrying about IP's ruining it. But very well, I guess I'll just have to keep it on my watchlist. Cadiomals (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protection: This is a redirect to {{Anchor}} and needs to be categorized correctly. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 06:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say make an edit request. There is no need to reduce the protection of this page, as it doesn't need frequent editing. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done There's no reason for this redirect to be fully protected, though. Courcelles 16:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Courcelles! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a bother, but this redirect is also listed at WP:CASC and cannot be template edited until it is removed from the cascade protection. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see {{Anchor}} is also cascade protected. Both pages are on Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a search for "anchor" on the source screen yields the line:
<tr><td>{{Anchor}}</td><td>{{tl|Anchor}}</td><td>{{Anchors}} ({{tl|Anchors}})</td><td></td></tr>
...so I am asking that to be modified to:
<tr><td>{{Anchor}}</td><td>{{tl|Anchor}}</td><td></td></tr>
...in order for the redirect's protection level to actually be lowered to template protected. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and BLP violation by IPs – 10 days should be fine. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 21:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous addition of false sales and certifications. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: It would be inappropriate for me to protect this page, as I have made several edits to it; however, I would agree with semi-protection, as there have been a lot of unsourced changes to it these past few days. Acalamari 16:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. UBStalk 13:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by Malaysian IP hopper. Areaseven (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring, the IPs have ignored warnings in their talk page and continued with their disruptive behavior. Coltsfan (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:206.82.20.126 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Semi-protected for a month. Usually I'd re-block with talk page access disabled, but this IP has a two year block and I'd rather not cut that access off for two years in case someone productive does post (although I admit that this is unlikely). Acalamari 18:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection:: Unilateral rollbacks of cited information by both IP editors and the PR representative for the program. BlueSalix (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It doesn't seem worth fully-protecting the page - thereby stopping everyone but admins from editing it - at this time; a discussion on the article's talk page or a note on the talk pages of the other users seems more appropriate for now. Feel free to re-request if it becomes a revert war. Acalamari 16:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP and newly registred Users vandalism. Jingiby (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Note that this page was semi-protected for a month, which ended on January 4th. Since then there has been a lot of vandalism from new and unregistered users, including 2 edits that had to be rev-deleted. How does 3 months sound?. Jinkinson talk to me 18:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism, addition of unsourced content, and disruptive editing by IPs and new accounts. Jinkinson talk to me 17:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Vandalism by various IP users. Jacce (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The page is being vandalised by insertion of apparent deliberate factual errors by new editors (suspected socks). Request for temporary page protection for 2 week. Amartyabag TALK2ME 11:38, 14 January 2014 (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.—cyberbot I NotifyOnline 11:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: @Amartyabag: This was declined yesterday with a comment that it should go to WP:3RRN for edit warring. This doesn't seem to have happened. I can't decline this because I've edited that page fairly recently, so am leaving for another admin. GedUK  12:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. for 72 hours by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 13:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from a hopping IP that adds nonsense about eggs. Span (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Who keeps adding contentious materials?. George Ho (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this is move-protected; I do not notice any disputes or warring and there's no notice of why the page should be move-protected. Red Slash 03:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the similar request on Lilith Sternin long ago, but they said that grounds on uselessness is not a valid reason for unprotection. George Ho (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Unless there's a reason for a change to be made here, I'm going to decline to change it. Note that this page was the subject of page-move vandalism by Grawp in the past, which is why it's now protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Multiple edit/revisions lately. Would be less disruptive to PC protect this page for a bit. Technical 13 (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The most recent IP has already been blocked. GedUK  12:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There is a war going on between the fans of Attarintiki Daredi and 1 Nenokkadine! See the page history... ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 08:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – LTTE article is controversial and has been through mediation in the past.The article has several issues. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Returning IP-hopping vandal. --EEMIV (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Mark Arsten (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Oy vey (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I know it is unusual to protect a talk page, but I don't know any other way to eliminate the defamatory trolling by tag-team or IP-hopping vandals that is taking place. Article itself has had to be protected for increasingly long periods, so now they are attacking the talk page instead. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: BLP policy violations. STATic message me! 04:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: edit warring with an editor who obviously have not had a chance to learn our comminity's policies. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – There have been attempts by IP editors (claiming to be the subject of the article) and by one logged-in editor to add an uncited statement. I looked for sources for the statement and found only a social media page to support it. I posted on the talk page of the article, and on the talk page of one of the IP editors. Then there was another attempt to reinsert the material, coming from a different IP address. —rybec 20:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ip's adding unsourced content since november. Thy keep dding back material after it has been reverted. So sources have been adding for any revision. . WP Editor 2012 (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Block evading sock using multiple IPs + accounts, including Wi-Fi hotspots. Nymf (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian TV Articles

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Forbesy 777 (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected/ Declined per differences in activity. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. SMS Talk 21:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both User(s) blocked. for 24 hours by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 01:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Tvx1 (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. The article needs cleaning up as too much of it is written clearly by a child. Please also protect any linked articles. Emirates123 (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected./ Not done on articles it's linked to, please list the ones you want done here. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Occasional vandalism, but seems like a good idea to protect given how important and controversial the article subject is and that it is an obvious target for vandalism. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Students Organization of India MSO. Any other alternative titles should be salted as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done/ Not done I salted the one that had been created before, but didn't touch the ones that hadn't been created yet. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – The article is constantly vandalised (including introducting factual errors) mostly by sockpuppets. The article needs semi-protection for atleast 1 month. Amartyabag TALK2ME 12:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Consider the Edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by a user. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

Requesting sysop review. Yoshi24517 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A random IP address was vandalizing this article, and did it like 20-25 times in a row. Please do this. Yoshi24517 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed pointer to the actual article rather than the redirect, which is not getting vandalized. I'm uncertain that a semi-protection is warranted, I don't see that much vandalism in proportion to the importance of the article. I'd say it's more editing tests and misguided edits than real vandalism, and I'd say that they're pretty manageable for now. Snowolf How can I help? 18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, (for the bot) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism. Span (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Block evading sock using multiple IPs + accounts, including Wi-Fi hotspots. Nymf (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Block evading sock using multiple IPs + accounts, including Wi-Fi hotspots. Nymf (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Article was redirected per this AfD discussion . IPs have recently begun returning redirects to articles for a number of related articles (albums in the So Fresh series) regardless of sourcing and notability concerns. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring resumed as soon as previous protection expired. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of unsourced anon edits that need reverting due to rumour about his future with the club. JMHamo (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of unsourced anon edits that need reverting due to rumour about the player's future. JMHamo (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent POV violations by IPs. Yobol (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit war between several IPs and new account. RolandR (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect to prevent unsourced anon edits. JMHamo (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Apparent socking or meatpuppetry problem today. All adding insults and off-topic remarks to the talk page. From 200.198.252.200, 86.21.101.169, Hskian, Suigens, Silentultraray. Temporary 2-day semi protection should encourage them to move on.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Protected by Elockid. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This is a notorious weapon and a high-traffic page. In the last 3 days alone there have been 5 cases of vandalism and a quick look at the last 50 edits reviews that about 75% of edits are reverted for vandalism. Zackmann08 (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Most edits in recent weeks have been either vandalism by IP-address users or reverting of vandalism. ObiWanKenobi11 (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent non-constructive edits by IP. Alex discussion ★ 18:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined the edits come from a single IP. If deemed necessary, blocks should be issued rather than protections, as protections negatively affect many users and are not preferred to blocks. Snowolf How can I help? 18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection (for a day) because of a lot of anonimous vandalism. Dmitry89 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Nick. (3 days) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – It is my userpage, ad i want nobody to edit it, please keep as is, thanks so much, I appreciate your work. Padraig Singal | ✉ 14:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see persistent vandalism on your userpage, just today, and please remember that other users are allowed to constructively edit your user page and you should embrace the wikiness of this place :) Regardless, it is customary to grant such requests and as such I'm about to semi-protect your userpage. Snowolf How can I help? 18:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator Snowolf. (indef) tutterMouse (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection - Current news story, persistent editing without citations. Nothing has been confirmed yet. --Tommie91•Talk•Contribs 16:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Now there is vandalism as well. --Tommie91•Talk•Contribs 18:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Continual addition of unsourced claims and POV puffery by a string of IPs, very likely the subject or a fan. RolandR (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The last problematic edits were more than a week ago. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

semi protection - IPs edit warring to change financial information making it impossible to maintain a verified article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A spate of Dr Who "Timey Wimey" vandalism. John of Reading (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for a period of 3 months The subject of constant jokes & vandalisms, from various IP. Recently (after the last protection has expired): [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]. Could you stop it, please? --WTM (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yes thanks Cyberbot. GedUK  13:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP vandalism from a number of IPs reverting the same change consistently in the past few days. DavidMichaelScott– talk 12:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: persistent issues with unsourced speculation of a BLP recently in the news . Yobol (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jinkinson talk to me 22:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: kind of a vandal magnet, if you know what i mean. User:SmartyPantsKid 21:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Obvious and relatively frequent vandalism target. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection--This article has been semi-protected for almost six years now, by an admin who has since been blocked for sockpuppetry for more than four years. As someone who remembers when these toys were actually popular, and thus the article about them a likely vandalism target, I think we should unprotect this page (not that it affects me, of course, since I am autoconfirmed). Jinkinson talk to me 22:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Massive back-and-forth reverts pursuant to an attempted spin-out of a section to a new article. Roccodrift (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. — feel free to re-report if it gets worse. --slakr\ talk / 21:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Disruptive edits by one IP. SlightSmile 19:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. — it's fairly obvious consensus is against the user and given the vandalism edit, it made it that much easier. --slakr\ talk / 21:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – Inappropriate use of talk page whilst blocked. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined — not quite to the tipping point where I'd personally feel comfortable revoking talk page access, but if he keeps posting rants and stuff (instead of another {{unblock}} request), feel free to re-report. --slakr\ talk / 20:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Materialscientist. (1 month) Armbrust The Homunculus 00:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Appears to be a non-notable Neopets-like website. Jinkinson talk to me 17:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Declined Prior to today, the last time the article was created was over four years ago. This doesn't seem that disruptive to me, although if it's created again soon, please re-request. Acalamari 18:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jinkinson talk to me 17:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16 January 2014

Pending changes: Long-running problem with vandalism from a dynamic IP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – long term it seems. This might be a similar situation to List of highest-grossing films where indefinite was needed. « Ryūkotsusei » 19:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of IP vandalism that needs reverting. JMHamo (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Continuing IP vandalism almost immediately after previous temporary semi-protection had expired. Antoshi ☏ ★ 18:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Toddst1.. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continued unacceptable WP:personal attacks and persistent edits that violate basic tenets of WP:NPOV ("pro-Saudi" March 14 Movement) and WP:RS (lubpak.com) from IPs. . Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Highly visible template (to match Module:Protected edit request, which uses it). Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Jinkinson talk to me 16:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll just take over Cyberbot's job for a second and say: "Page has not been protected." Jinkinson talk to me 16:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-oh. It seems the SPA who created this page originally has done it again, so an admin reading this should probably delete the page (for the same reason it was previously deleted) and then salt it against recreation. Jinkinson talk to me 17:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, sorry about that. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – Talk page access still being abused, with frivolous unblock requests and generally inappropriate behaviour. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: BLP policy violations – Rumors on this person were added and removed cyclically. George Ho (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I can't see anything wrong with that source really. The blog would be unreliable, but there's plenty of other news sources that cite it that would be considered reliable, ABC included. In the 5 years since that blog, I can't find anything refuting it. I'm not declining this because now I've reverted you I'm probably involved, so I'll leave another admin to review. GedUK  13:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Just off page protection. Future election in a big English speaking country for WP English, see edit history.Lihaas (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I see no reason to protect it at this stage. vast majority of IPs seem to be editing constructively. GedUK  13:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism is the past month, especially today. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High level of unsourced additions by IP users. Hack (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection: Persistent Change in page contents not allowed as it is organization page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.114.47 (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2014‎

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The organization doesn't owns this Wikipedia page. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Constant addition by IPs (which typically do not make any other edits) of non-notable red-linked items. RolandR (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It's pretty infrequent, so I think that pending might work better. First protection, so indef is innappropriate. GedUK  13:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP-hopping disruption from Philippines-based computers. Uncommunicative, no talk pages or edit summaries. Elizium23 (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – Attempts to add recent events were reverted, and one user was blocked for "vandalism". Nevertheless, just one safer addition shouldn't hurt. George Ho (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism as a current event, see edit history.Lihaas (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – 18 non-constructive edits in last 24 hours. Dwpaul Talk 02:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: The day after protection ended, IPs back to adding one episode jokes, despite a note telling them not to. CTF83! 01:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent level vandalism from multiple IPs re the National Football League playoffs and upcoming Super Bowl. Request semi-protection for period of one week, related to the conclusion of the AFC and NFC conference playoff games. Examples: [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected until the day after the Super Bowl. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of unsourced edits by anons that need reverting. JMHamo (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate but very temporary semi-protection - it's her birthday today (would have been) and Google's main page feature is about her and links to a search (for which this article is the first result). Has, as a result, been the focus of some silly vandalism today. Should be over by tomorrow. Stalwart111 23:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: The article was put under full protection following a long-running dispute between editors. All involved have agreed to a proposal aimed at opening the article up to editing and restoring good faith. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the protecting admin, user:Bbb23, to consider unprotecting early? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another user did, Mark, but they did not point me to the proposal. I can see that the proposal has a consensus, although one editor's comments are equivocal. I'm going to try unprotecting the page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism following the expiry of previous protection from 8 April 2009. The same editor is making the same vandalism repeats which led to the protection. Illxchild (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:74.104.131.200 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Abuse of talk page while blocked. Werieth (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect for two weeks. IP persistently adding material to a BLP based on an unverified Youtube video posted by an unreliable source. Article has been a consistent magnet for fans of the subject to add material to defend him. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I only see 6 IP edits in the last 6 months. If the IP continues than warn it, and report to WP:AIV as needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Just out of curiosity, Armbrust, I often see you here declining requests, even though you're not an administrator. Aren't only admins supposed to decline or accept requests? Jinkinson talk to me 16:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically yes under the notion that if you can't protect a thing you don't actually have declining authority either as a result but as that's less a established unwritten rule and more an ethical choice it's not against anything and nobody has disciplined against him which is fine, doesn't require an admin to make an easy, non-tool requiring decision like NACs. I don't decline simply because it's more trouble than it's worth to be told you're wrong. There was a minor discussion over on the talk page a while back about that but it was more "give Armbrust the bit" than actual ramifications of smaller cogs like me doing it. tutterMouse (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, as a full-fledged admin, I endorse this decline. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Article has been being vandalized by ip, see: [84]. and page history. --Pichu How can I help? 23:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Relatively high visibility, and many/most of the edits seem to be IP vandalism. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Following the expiry of previous protection, the same editor is repeating the identical BLP violations which led to the protection. . RolandR (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Six accounts are blocked as one person's sockpuppets. I fear that there will be more sockpuppets. George Ho (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Ponyo.. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Same problem, different IP. SlightSmile 16:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent IP users (IPs that all geolocate to Northern California, one of which recently received a 2 year block for vandalism) are edit-warring over the series end date. A discussion was started by another user on the talk page, but IP editor doesn't seem interested in participating. Requesting temporary protection from IPs until consensus is properly established. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The page for some reason has been the target of a lot of minor vandalism the past two/three weeks. Semi-protection for a little while will hopefully help out. Gloss • talk 17:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Widr (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. കാർത്തുമ്പി (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recommend one week semi-protection. Also consider blocking these blatant, vandal-only socks User:Wikieditqaz User:Wikieditpol and possibly User:Calebisboss. — MusikAnimal talk 16:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Vandalism has resurfaced.--Jionpedia ✉ 15:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi: Page has been protected before. As soon as it comes off, IP edit-warring restarts. — kwami (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite move protection: Consensus move has been processed, a user has unilaterally undone all of them, these are high vis articles, it cannot be this easy for a single user to cause massive article renaming without discussion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Only one move GedUK  12:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagged the redirect with {{R from alternative name}}. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite move protection: Consensus move has been processed, a user has unilaterally undone all of them, these are high vis articles, it cannot be this easy for a single user to cause massive article renaming without discussion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Only one move GedUK  12:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagged the redirect with {{R from alternative name}}. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Template redirects are routine and there's no reason for this to be edit-protected. E.g. see {{WPBaseball}}. (Edit: Evidently, that was deleted. Cf.{{album}} or {{WPWALES}} etc, etc.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Please ask Wizardman (talk · contribs). GedUK  12:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This file description page has been the target of vandalism/non-sense edits. As it is a file description page few people watch it and vandalism may go un-noticed. Werieth (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. DOn't think I've ever protected a file before. Been a long time if I have. GedUK  13:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Same edit-war between IPs and SPA started again immediately following end of previous temporary protection. RolandR (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Same edit-war between IPs and SPA started again immediately following end of previous temporary protection. RolandR (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Same edit-war between IPs and SPA started again immediately following end of previous temporary protection. RolandR (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Same edit-war between IPs and SPA started again immediately following end of previous temporary protection. RolandR (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Same edit-war between IPs and SPA started again immediately following end of previous temporary protection. RolandR (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Same edit-war between IPs and SPA started immediately following end of temporary protection. RolandR (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High profile BLP subject to persistent and repeated vandalism, re-introduction of identical errors,etc by rolling IP addresses. Tvoz/talk 08:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. STATic message me! 07:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Repeated addition of WP:GAMECRUFT content by anons and newly-registered users. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: There has been some off and on IP vandalism to the article and to various Alexander related articles where an IP address has been blanking sections for various reasons, none of which have any merit. I have a feeling that the IPs might be the same person. In an AfD for the page Alexander said someone was trying to troll him and now I honestly have to say that I think there is some merit to this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected.. GedUK  13:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Disruptive editing and dubious unsourced additions to a WP:BLP by anon IP editors. STATic message me! 00:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A recent request for PP was turned down. I ask again. IP vandalism is out of control on this page. Please protect this page. — Maile (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: A EW is going on there. The page was protected on two different wikis because of the same IP and for the same reason (spam). Coltsfan (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator DangerousPanda.. GedUK  13:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism – WP:BLP violations as WP:IDHT. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High level of IP vandalism, as with most United States government-related pages. Jinkinson talk to me 22:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The user block is irrelevant in this case, was a self-requested short block. GedUK  12:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection due to recurrent IP vandalism re categories (see [85]). Previously protected on 2 October 2013 for similar reasons. Thanks. Quis separabit? 22:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Resumed sockpuppetry (copyvios and promotional language) by User:Beleiutz. Psychonaut (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Since this is a long-term problem, and the sockpuppeteer has not been deterred by time-limited blocks, I have (reluctantly) given this indefinite semi-protection. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many

restored from archive - I feel bot archived prematurely - Begoon talk 15:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1-month+ Semi-protection: Persistent IP socking, but the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omdo/Archive recommended Page Protection. CMD (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined:, but feel free to request again later. All but one didn't have any IP edits in the previous two weeks, and one only had one edit in that time. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just chipping in - PC might be an option here - Mr Omdo is quite a long-term persistent nuisance on these articles, and I can see why a block on those IPs at the SPI could be too wide-ranging, but there's not always someone familiar around to revert the socking, and the articles have little editing traffic (except the socking) which would be affected. Just a thought... Begoon talk 01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and adding, I just reverted 5 more on 4 articles: [86], [87], [88], [89]. It's all rather painful, and this is a very persistent sock... Begoon talk 07:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Begoon and Chipmunk, all these articles should be "semi-protected" for a long time. We already tired to revert all the sock user edits. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 08:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Arsten: Do you want to have another look at this, or do youo want another admin? GedUK  12:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't plan to take further action here, no. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. except for Independence of Singapore which is a redirect, and the target seems unnaffected. GedUK  12:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Some vandalism from IP users resulting from Kate Gosselin's appearance on the Today Show. Manic0892 (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Previously protected for a month, but vandalism started up again after that lapsed. --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 02:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I would have liked to try pending changes instead because there were some good anon edits mixed in there, but I think the article is a bit too active for PC to be effective. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent deletion of sourced material and unacceptable WP:POV edits from an IP. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, it's just one IP so I suggest reporting him to WP:AN3. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite move protection: Page was moved per consensus, a user just moved it back because he "preferred" the previous title . Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The protecting admin. is busy at this moment. Extra protection time is needed; there have been reverts, although not too much. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indef. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extra protection time is needed. The protecting admin. is semi-active, so contacting him is not possible. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indef. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18 January 2014

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. STATic message me! 19:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The day is coming. Wikiuser13 (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Due to discussions on the talk page and IP users edit for now. →Enock4seth (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, it has only been vandalized once since protection expired. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Blocked user reverting changes, using threatening edit summary. Auric talk 17:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Shockingly, lots of new and unregistered users mistake this page for a place to test their ability to edit Wikipedia. Jinkinson talk to me 16:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Puffin Let's talk! 14:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IPs continuing to add unsourced information regarding "Fleetic", suspected at WP:HD#Help with Jack Dorsey BLP to be spam. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Can I pls have temporary PP on my talk page from IP Editors who aren't auto confirmed, I'm tired of posts from meat puppets of User:Roy Maloy posting nonsense. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. STATic message me! 00:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Consistent editing from IPs that violates consensus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full-protection: persistent blanking vandalism by user:Trident13. User:Trident13 persistently trying to remove significant, referenced information and important verifiable references with no valid reason. Josephgallos (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Anonymus IP keeps making non-English vandalism. Leoesb1032 (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The last problematic edit was more than a month ago. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 9#Category:Nine Old Men. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does create protection on a category really accomplish anything? Pages can be added to red categories, even if they're salted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what @BrownHairedGirl:'s rationale was for salting the cat if it's meaningless to do it. Even if it had an effect, it's not something that seems to suffer from enough abuse to justify it. tutterMouse (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Salting a category is not meaningless. It prevents recreation of the category page, which means that any attempt to repopulate the category will produce red-links. Those red-links will be listed by the bots at Wikipedia:Database reports/Deleted red-linked categories, and can also be seen and corrected by editors whose attention will be drawn to the red-linked categories.
Anyway, having a substantive discussion here is inappropriate; Armbrust's request should be treated as a technical issue. The CFD discussion was closed as salt, and I will now finish implementing that closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Creation protected by BrownHairedGirl. (for the bot) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: The university does no longer exist and any further change could be inappropriate. Thus I am suggesting protection of this article from further editing by public members. . Mehedi (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. No edits since October 2013. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The obvious reasons, but also because this appears to be a long-term thing amongst IP addresses, and I am amazed that this hasn't been protected before. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Also this is the WP:TFA. Materialscientist (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infrequent but repetitive deletion of large areas of referenced material (disruptive deletions/vandalism) by an IP user and sock puppet. Been happening intermittently since about October. User has been previously warned about such disruptive deletions on other pages. - Rushton2010 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Issue is at AN/I. Resolve it there. -- John Reaves 06:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect: Persistent IP adding unsourced material. At least 3 separate editors have removed the material and warned the IP. Maybe 1 month would persuade him to go elsewhere. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. -- John Reaves 06:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Low-intensity revert war going on over insertion of a link to a website which one party asserts is a copyright violation. See ticket:2013121810017983. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only see one IP. I think it be better to block it, instead of protecting the page. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. I blocked the IP, though I don't see much communication from either side and may unblock if requested. -- John Reaves 05:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistant vandalism by several IPs. I am One of Many (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Connormah. Materialscientist (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Closely related to the current featured article. Getting some vandalism. Maybe protect until the next featured article pops up?. ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Low-intensity revert war in progress over weeks, with attempts to insert misleading statement in lead. The IP editor has multiple IPs, who is neither participating on talk page, nor accepting consensus reached there. RLoutfy (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I do not see a clear consensus on the talk page. I do see a suggestion that IP's edits maybe useful but, simply, poorly worded. -- John Reaves 05:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Page is currently using template protection, which should not be used in article space. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Was this intentional? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected Intentional or not (most likely not), template protection shouldn't be used here. -- John Reaves 06:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Contact us - Readers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite feedback protection: Feedback keeps being re-enabled here, and no feedback left is helpful. It's all misplaced. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback protected -- John Reaves 06:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Non-confirmed users and IPs vandalizing user page of inactive user. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected -- John Reaves 06:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Pending changes doesn't seem to be working an IP keeps putting false information in the fighters record and it's still being accepted by reviewers. Drunk in Paris (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- John Reaves 05:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Edit-warring by IP and new editor adding unsourced positions and youtube videos in the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: User-request on users own space. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Most of the edits to this page are negative and from IPs. This isn't a short term issue. Nick Levine (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Puffin Let's talk! 22:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent vandalism while featured article, should die down in a day. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, unfortunately, we try to avoid protecting TFA, unless consensus on the matter has changed since I last checked. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Repeated insertion of copyright violating content by a user on dynamic IP. SMS Talk 02:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation of what? I can't find where it's copied from. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined I cannot find any copyright violations as well. Mike V • Talk 16:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are basically news items that are partially copied from each of these: [90], [91], [92] and supposedly from some other sites. Some of it is close paraphrasing. Let me know if you want each text mentioned along with its source. -- SMS Talk 17:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous addition of false certification and sales amounts by IP users. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by Malaysian IP hopper. Areaseven (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: External links in their original formats are often copied and pasted to the bodies of the article. Unregistered contributors failed to acknowledge that "all external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions."

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jinkinson talk to me 23:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by Malaysian IP hopper. Areaseven (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by Malaysian IP hopper. Areaseven (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – One week, user continues to add large numbers of redlinks without consensus and against policy. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Muhammad images (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

Please change {{ESp|q}} to {{subst:ESp|q}}, as all uses of this template have now been subst'd except this one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mark Arsten (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – this is a repeat of some IP vandal/sock that enjoys taking talk pages of redirects to the parade and filling them with crap. Werieth (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By 1 IP, who was reported to WP:AIV by GSK. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP editor & newly created account trying to force change of article spelling from "unobtainium" to "unobtanium". Either ignoring invites to discuss and provide sources for change, or making unhelpful comments ("Lol"). Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, the editor in question is autoconfirmed, so I don't think semi-protection will be much help here. WP:AN3 perhaps? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Continued edits over her ancestry make this article unstable, as information and POV viewpoints on it are constantly changing. Without a forced discussion on it, this article is in danger of becoming unencylopedic. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 20:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, no reverts for over 24 hours, but feel free to re-report if they pick up again. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: The PC isn't prevent any further edits by IPs and unconfirmed users, which were reverted. George Ho (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP vandalism --Jaellee (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The page was locked to anon & new editors and there were no issues with the article. Since PP was removed, it has seen a sudden influx of unconstructive edits either listing their favourite player or themselves as recipients of the award. If not indefinite, perhaps a lock of several weeks or months. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lot of disruptive edits and reverts, not a single constructive IP edit. Request upgrade to semi protection over pending changes. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Ugly Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Cabin Fever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Third Wheel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Hard Luck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Permanent semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism over a long period of time, almost constantly since the article's creation. It's become far more prevalent since the main pages for DoaWK were protected. I'm actually going to request that all of the DoaWK articles be protected since this will only spill over into the other articles once this is semi-protected to prevent IP vandalism. Others aren't as bad as some of the more vandalized pages, but I can guarantee you that if this isn't semi'd now then the vandalism will only spread onto the non-protected pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're an admin. Why not protect yourself? -- John Reaves 10:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly because of involvement. tutterMouse (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done/ Not done I did a few but didn't find enough disruption on the others. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – As today is MLK day, a few IPs have been replacing Dr. King's photograph with one of Hitler. Probably best if we protect it for 24 hours or so. Already started seeing vandalism reports in OTRS. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Two IPs in the last twelve hours repeatedly removing sourced material. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 08:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, there's no set number, but most admins would prefer to see at least four - sometimes more - different IPs/accounts vandalizing the page in a short space of time; at present, there have only been two IPs and they were reverted fairly quickly. If the problem does exacerbate, do feel free to re-request. Acalamari 13:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Acalamari, OK will keep an eye on it. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Happy to help. :) Acalamari 13:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent blanking from various IPs. Span (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing vandalism of BLP. Span (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected. I've semi-protected for a week. As it's the same information that keeps being removed, it would be a good idea to double-check that it's accurate, and perhaps ask the anon to explain on the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism + excessive BLP violations within the past week, by multiple users. ——MelbourneStar☆talk 10:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Dear Admin, since yesterday this page has been vandalised several times. Vandals using different IPs, have been blocked but resurface again. Vandals are also abusive and have left filthy messages on editor's talk page. May I request a temporary page protection? Many thanks,. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection. Several anons/IP editors are determined to announce the date of Seth Meyers' departure from the cast, even though neither NBC, Meyers, SNL, nor anyone else who actually knows has done so. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection - Apparent sockpuppetry on the article by sock-/meatpuppets of User:Petesmith2013, who's been trying to turn the page into a puff piece for the subject. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 04:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Current uptick in IP-hopping junk-texting [93] [94] [95] Dl2000 (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Discospinster. Dl2000 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Legoktm.. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Large amounts of vandalism from different IPs, many/most of the edits seem to be vandalism reverts, and page is listed at the list of most vandalised pages. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Re-inputting nonsense article which is digital broadcast-related since this article is about an analog telecast. And also the user must be block as I've suspected that this user, this IP address, and this user had a connection since this will also be consider as sockpuppeting, and contributing into 1 article only. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 00:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Always substituted for DYK promotions and rejections. George Ho (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism by anon IP editors and new accounts, which is expected on the article of a film that was just released. STATic message me! 23:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism to a WP:BLP by anon IP editors and new users. STATic message me! 23:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Short-term abuse by a long-term vandal. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sockpuppet has simply continued disruption on the talk page and also at Talk:Scott Bacon, please semi protect those as well. Valenciano (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected each for two weeks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Long-term pattern of problematic editing; not very fast-moving but edits by IPs over the last year have generally been either vandalism or test edits (or, rarely, copyvio, spam &c). Semiprotection would allow other editors to concentrate on improving the article rather than just reverting the steady stream of edits like this, this &c. bobrayner (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 31 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by requestor Hopefully, now that the tournament is over, this won't be needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Interminable IP vandalism of the obvious form. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Addition of unsourced content, IP vandalism as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Request 3 months of page protection due to persistent vandalism from IP vandals. LT910001 (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., and blocked the most recently problematic IP Courcelles 18:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guide Post (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Obvious sockpuppetry and usage of IP#s to repeatedly add unsourced! poorly written material to this article. —This lousy T-shirt (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

semi or pending - IP fans inserting unsourced advertisements about awards and upcoming projects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – IP hopper adding very poor source. NeilN talk to me 15:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – IF possible, Template used by Automated Bot, Protect to prevent vandalism. User:ReferenceBot/inform/middle, User:ReferenceBot/inform/bottom, should be protected as well. Used by bot. Dreth 14:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Template protection can't be used in userspace, unfortunately. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Dispute over d.o.bs, various sources maybe using wiki as a reference, constent IP reverts without tp discussion, all IPs reverting are geolocating too south-east UK. Murry1975 (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by Malaysian IP hopper. Areaseven (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Football player with lot of IP disruptive/vandalism. QED237 (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Basically all IP edits within the past month alone have been reverted due to the constant edition of inaccurate, unsourced information by IP's. This page has been protected numerous times in the past and its best for it to stay indefinite at this point. Cadiomals (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we'll just end up having to ask for more. I have been a part of this article for over two years and it has been protected numerous times due to an inability of IP's and non-autoconfirmed users to make constructive changes. I don't see why it can't be indefinitely protected already. It is a fairly visible article. Cadiomals (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chia Pet (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Longterm abuse by IPs. As soon as the previous protection expired another IP started the trolling vandalism. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Now the IP leaves PAs on my talk and insults on the edit summaries on Chia pet, now revdeled. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was also indefinitely Semi-protected by Mark Arsten. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article was protected from Jan 10-Jan 18. Protection ended today and article vandalism resumed. (Blanking, numerical vandalism, etc.) Article subject is high-profile, as it is a very successful and recently released Indian film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator DMacks.. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection: Continued addition of unreferenced info about series finale. A semi-protect for about a week should be enough to find some well-referenced info about this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent unconstruictive editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long term history of vandalism. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. I dream of horses (T) @ 18:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --slakr\ talk / 19:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi until deleted. Advert pasted from [96]. — kwami (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. --slakr\ talk / 18:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – More racism here. George Ho (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. --slakr\ talk / 18:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Also suffers from anti-Arab editing. George Ho (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. --slakr\ talk / 18:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – More anti-Arab edits. George Ho (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. --slakr\ talk / 18:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – anti-Arab disruption. George Ho (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. --slakr\ talk / 18:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Anti-Arab edits committed. George Ho (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. --slakr\ talk / 18:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Anti-Arab edits reverted cyclically. George Ho (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. --slakr\ talk / 18:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – In the entire month of January the only edits to this page have been IP vandalism and reversions by various editors. Cluebot helps, but some of it is quite horrible and has lasted in mainspace for too long. Maybe a month off would calm down the various IPs?. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This might experience vandalism . Andrew Eugene 10:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. "This might experience vandalism" is not a reason to protect pages, every page might experience vandalism. The page had reverts in December 2013, and in March 2013, so nothing urgent or frequent. Fram (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Zackmann08 (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out that it has been vandalized, twice more. --Zackmann08 (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Although not persistent, there have been reverts sparingly, but the last good edit was probably summer 2013. George Ho (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:74.62.92.20 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – I also suggest extending the block for continuing personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism from an educational institution. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Seems like a significant portion of edits are IP vandalism reverts, and an obvious vandal target. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Full Protection: There is an ongoing edit war between an IP starting with 2601:d:9400:3cd and Crashsnake. We need full protection instead of semi-protection, because semi-protection would only stop 2601:d:9400:3cd and allow Crashsnake to have his way. The protection would also hopefully be two weeks or more, because Crashsnake has a history of not bothering to respond on talk pages, his or articles'. Spidey104 13:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I think WP:AN3 might be a better venue for this. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Text messaging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – All recent IP edits are vandalism. Jinkinson talk to me 03:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Multiple users repeatedly turning it into an advertisement. This has recurred since my last request for protection was rejected. Mean as custard (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Edit-warring over the past week. Areaseven (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I think WP:AN3 would be a better venue since it's just two users. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: It needs protection; somehow, some IP created a biased, longer lede for self-serve. At least it was remedied, but there have been reverts, so protection is still needed. Pending changes instead, alternatively?. George Ho (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IPs who continually revert redirects of this and other articles for albums in this So Fresh series without any attempt to improve the articles, which at this time fail to assert their independent notability to have standalone articles. One IP gets blocked and another one comes along. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I suggest taking this to WP:AFD instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: More reverts since unprotection. Same for List of 20th Century Fox films (1915–2000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). George Ho (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected./ Declined Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Consistent vandalism by IP user or users. Users like to add a win/loss record for games that are months in the future. —Ute in DC (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – POV-pushers at work closing in to an edit war. The Banner talk 21:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, Request withdrawn. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: 390+ transclusions. George Ho (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, kind of on the low side for protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Disruptive edit from IPs, usually original research or copyright violations despite their being an editors note. – Recollected • 04:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing by IP editors since the last protection expired. SMS Talk 19:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Unregistered user comes back every week to vandalize the page, particularly by changing the list of personnel and adding unreferenced information such as worldwide sales.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dubious unsourced additions and vandalism by anon IP editors to a WP:BLP. STATic message me! 19:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP-hopping vandal pushing falsified claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Toddst1.. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

semi protection - a bunch of IPs seem to think its necessary to reblog his posts about his medical condition. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism by anon IP editors and new users. STATic message me! 20:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – Because this template employs intricate features of template syntax, this template should 'always' be substituted, and it is designed/intended to go on the talk pages of new users that are likely inexperienced with advanced template coding, it would be wise to prevent accidental edits that could be very disruptive very quickly. These welcome templates would be a prime target for a vandal... Technical 13 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism of unsourced controversy section. Constant undoing of the removal of uncited "Controversy" section from different IPs, possibly an IP jumper. Lots of unnecessary edits also. This article has also gotten some popularity from Tumblr due to a screenshot going around. Earisu ♥|Talk 16:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Discospinster.. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Steady stream of additions of unsourced material (mainly birthdate and birthplace) to a WP:BLP with not many watchers.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Disruptive editing by multiple IP users in the past three days. FonEengIneeR7 talk 12:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Sockpuppetry and trolling!. —This lousy T-shirt (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent vandalism and spam by IPs. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pending-changes protected for two weeks. I don't think it needs semi-protection just yet, but if the problem exacerbates despite pending changes, feel free to re-request to upgrade to semi-protection; feel free to link to this diff, too, so another admin doesn't ask you to talk to me first. Acalamari 10:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last user changed his username, and is continuing to vandalize the page. I think a higher degree of protection may be necessary.--Frontiersanders (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Toddst1. (semi) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Disruptive IP hopper and other additions of unsourced content and vandalism. STATic message me! 05:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – PC isn't handling a lot of vandalism at this time. George Ho (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Used for DYK nominations; same for its redirect Template:DYKC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). George Ho (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jim1138 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – No less than three IPs have edited this page and attacked them today, and it is likely that more will appear in the near future unless something is done to prevent them from harassing the user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Highly used. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotection: Was protect on December 8, 2009‎ by PMDrive1061. Think it is worth unprotecting this talk page to allow edit requests. Technical 13 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already unprotected by administrator Gadget850.. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to unprotect Template:Actinium. I do a lot of work editing templates and am kind of baffled as to why this one is blocked (Aluminum, carbon dioxide, gadolinium, etc. aren't). It has 9 transclusions. I noticed redundant code and considered making an edit request but simply don't see a reason as to why it should be blocked in the first place. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To me it looks like, it has no transclusions at all. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you asked User:NuclearWarfare why he protected it? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would he? He is not very active since January 10. George Ho (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he hasn't edited in a few days, there's still a good chance he will respond to a talk page message. Many people browse Wikipedia while logged in, and thus see when they have talk page messages. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OP: Messaging him now. Let's see if he responds. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was a mistake? I can't imagine this template getting used a huge deal; it's not as if actinium is included in tons of well-known compounds. I won't do it because you already contacted NuclearWarfare (it would be confusing to ask his opinion and then do something before he responded), but otherwise I would have reduced protection to "template-editor protection" without checking with the admin: we've had a project consensus that fully-protected templates should generally have their protection reduced to template-editor, so we really wouldn't need to check with the admin in question. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sounds good, I've done so. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Also BLP issues, given that most if not all of the band members are still alive. Jinkinson talk to me 02:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Still Pending Changes, yet there have been not yet a good edit by IP. George Ho (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – BLP article is being ambushed by IP vandals. DPH1110 (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of ten days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. IP-hopping vandal resumed a campaign of replacing the legitimate content with an attack page directed at a different person with a similar name. Suppression of the changes since protection was lifted yesterday is also called for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Multiple IP vandal (more about him), constantly falsifies statistics from club Popovići in this biography since years and he doesn't want to stop.--Oleola (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Request protection for atleast two weeks. Unknown IPs frequently add information with no proper references or supporting citations. All are bluffs and rumors. Include protection with the Pinoy Big Brother (season 5). Both are vandalized by same IPs. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 06:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Most (but not all) recent IP edits are vandalism. Jinkinson talk to me 18:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Although many IP edits have been vandalism, not enough activity to justify protection. Barely ten edits in ten days, only a few of which were vandalism. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – IP-hopper is back to add factual errors. Elizium23 (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pending-changes protected for two weeks. I don't think it needs semi-protection just yet, but if the problem exacerbates despite pending changes, feel free to re-request to upgrade to semi-protection; feel free to link to this diff, too, so another admin doesn't ask you to talk to me first. Acalamari 10:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – 19 reverts in last 20 days. This article has seen vandalism over months in 2013. An IP hopping editor inserting unreferenced claims about Nastaliq that are false and wrong. Additional vandalism includes misrepresenting peer reviewed publication from the United Nations; false attributions; etc. Recent reverts to the additions by IP hopping editor have been by wiki editors other than me. Thank you, Veronica Dryer (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, it seems to have stopped for now, but please ask again if it resumes. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22 January 2014

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Sock attacks by WP:LTA Vgleer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vgleer‎. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. One edit isn't persistent socking. GedUK  13:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the bigger picture, yes it is. This the most recent multi-sock attack by Vgleer. In addition, many socks of Vgleer have been frequently targeting my articles since June 2013. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vgleer‎ and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vgleer/Archive. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Sock attacks by WP:LTA Vgleer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vgleer‎. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. One edit isn't persistent socking. GedUK  13:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment above. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – That previous version was NOT good faith. IPadPerson (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Seriously? You've been reverted only once, you think it's bad faith? Add we should avoid using the word 'current', because it goes out of date almost instantly. There's absolutely no reason to protect this article at the moment. You'd be better off starting a discussion on the article talk page rather than trying to get the page protected. GedUK  13:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP editor disruption. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, It's the same IP. Report them to AIV or 3RNN GedUK  13:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. The Banner talk 00:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I'm not sure there's a dispute, and there certainly doesn't appear to be an edit war that needs stopping. User added teh dispute tag after being reverted. They didn't revert repeatedly. GedUK  12:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism - religion statistics and % keep being changed different than the given source - see edit history - multiple times (after being reversed again by others) since over at least a month or more. I will not be visiting the page again soon so if it is vandalised again the false statistics may stand, and it may not be corrected for many weeks or months. Thank you for your action. 78.150.8.25 (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, Semi protection won't achieve what you want because it'll stop IPs like you editing, but not users. At this point I don't see enough to warrant full protection GedUK  12:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – This article has a history of edit waring between Muslims and Sikhs. I'm trying to preserve a referenced version and trying to edit the current version by removed contentious content, however, one editor in particular doesn't seem to want to engage. Possible WP:Competence issues. SH 08:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. GedUK  12:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article became main target of vandalism from different IPs. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 12:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It's pretty low level. Article hasn't been protected in over a year, so there's no way we could go indef at this point anyway. GedUK  13:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Recent death..many IPs trying to change many parts out of which many edits are not necessary.PC for some days would be fine. ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 09:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support this for the same reason mentioned (and came here to nom it too)Lihaas (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Edit count is too high for PC. GedUK  13:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Disruptive editing. Please temporarily semi-protect or apply pending changes protection. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Consistent vandalism and viewer count manipulation F1lover22 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism. One year, possibly to be extended if the TV show gets extended. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jinkinson talk to me 18:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – I am not sure what to call this, it is not vandalism despite the edit-summary accusations flying, it may indeed be sock puppetry, and it is definitely edit warring. Please protect for a while to encourage these IPs to use the talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Non-responding IP-hopper keeps adding a long, rather spammy, list of channels that are relayed by OSN (no own channels). . The Banner talk 11:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Needs extra protection; should not affect PC. George Ho (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: BLP policy violations – Although no vandalism or anything, this person's "death" wasn't well-verified, so that info is removed. George Ho (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Edit rate is too high for PC protection. Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, it's averaging about 2 edits per day, which is ok as far as PC goes in my opinion. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Controversial topic. Theparties (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Theparties (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – As soon as the previous protection expired, the vandalism started up again. . Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. Currently it's just the same IP vandalizing the article, which can be resolved with a block. If it becomes more widespread, then we can protect it. Mike V • Talk 02:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Disruptive editing from IP hopping editor (most recently 67.21.0.2 and 71.198.0.102, geolocating to the same place). There is a consensus on the talk page that the "gay" material is in, but this editor disagrees without arguing the point on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Was protected first for about 2 weeks, then 3 months, then 6 months; the last semi-protection expired about a month ago. Since then nearly every edit has been either vandalism by a new/unregistered user or a revert of such an edit. Jinkinson talk to me 03:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – The warring still continues, even with discussion. George Ho (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs extended protection time; last revert was January 10, and last IP edit was January 10. --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indef. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – See request for Haniwa, identical set of editors here, identical disruption. Possible sockpuppetry and definite edit warring. Elizium23 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. RA0808 talkcontribs 20:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dubious unsourced additions by anon IP editors. STATic message me! 19:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Refer articles history, lots of vandalism by IP users; 1 IP user already blocked. IP users try to focus how great their religion is/was & they never defeated infact were victorious. Page protection of a week is appreciable. Thanks. Ninney (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Persistent vandalism - Large distortion by IP Users, Non confirmed Users. Abusive behaviour is also observed by IP Users. requesting protection, non-editable below Auto-Confirmed level users. KLS 10:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Kuldeep Singh (talk)

Comment The Bharatiya Janata Party is one of the most controversial political movements/parties in the modern world, as there is a large change that they will win the Indian election despite a controversial history under their leadership (Source: [[97]]). (There, that was said neutrally, right?) As the Indian elections approach, this article will be more and more prominent. I would perhaps be more in favor of pending changes protection, though, but that's just me.
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – PC isn't holding out much longer. George Ho (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indef. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Disruptive undiscussed or unsourced changes. STATic message me! 00:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Most recent edits are either IP vandalism or reverts thereof. Jinkinson talk to me 23:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Consistent attempts from various IPs and user accounts to post the same slanted material that breaks from BLP policy. Two different established editors on the page concur with the inappropriateness of the attempted edits. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I registered an account specifically to edit this page, because it was severely lacking - as is evidenced by the discussion on the Talk page, and comparing the versions before and after my edits. All the information I added was sourced - to the book published by the person Ms Lindhout was held in captivity with, and a respected New York Post journalists. This is a clear case of censorship. Neither of the "established editors" have offered any specific justification as to why they object to my edits. "Midnightexpress" has simply clicked "undo" repeatedly. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected Also, note that biographies cannot be sourced to tabloids like the New York Post. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistant IP vandalism the past few weeks. Gloss • talk 17:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --slakr\ talk / 19:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Full-protection: or blocks. Callanecc protected it a month ago and left this message on the talk page. The protection expired yesterday and immediately the page was changed by H2ppyme and another edit war resumed. I would hand out the blocks Callanecc mentioned but I am somewhat involved. So we need either another protection or blocks. -DJSasso (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked: Tokyo2001 (talk · contribs).. It seems like most of the people on that page were against his edits, so feel free to re-report if there's actually a need for the full protect despite the block. --slakr\ talk / 18:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be preferable if both were blocked. As technically it was Tokyo that was putting back the version that was closest to consensus (although obviously in a less than good manner). The others are mostly a group of POV pushers. But I will come back if it continues. -DJSasso (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection: Most likely pending changes protection. This page currently has semi-protection due to link-spam problems; however, it gets ~500 views per day and has a pretty quiet editing history recently. . Crazynas t 09:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done / went with pending changes, as I remember protecting that long ago. It was more than just spam; it's a magnet for malware distribution, too. --slakr\ talk / 20:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

23 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – With the Super Bowl approaching, article is being pelted with IP vandalism. Two-week protection recommended until after the Super Bowl hype cools off. DPH1110 (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protection: To get editor beginning an edit war to stop and realize that he is removing additional catagories instead of adding them. And to learn that he must have sources for edits as he is not paying much attention to edit summaries nor talk page. Spshu (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – This is another template that would be best served as a TE protected instead of fully protected template. Technical 13 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected (I assume requesting that the talk page be protected was a mistake?) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Vandalism type edits by multiple anonymous editors. Have requested that discussion take place on the talk page but to no avail. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That's a content dispute really. Start the discussion on the article talk page as their IP keeps changing. GedUK  13:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – I can't see any reason for this template to be protected from our template editors and I would like to modify it to all up to five or ten people to be mentioned without pining them. I suppose I could add the feature to Template:Pinggroup, but that seems counter intuitive. Thanks!. Technical 13 (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chia Pet (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

“unprotect chia pet talk page” — Preceding text originally posted here by 218.188.39.81 (talk⋅contribs) 02:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed as by 218.188.39.81 (talk • contribs) actually added by Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) [reply]

I'd rather we not, given the persistent trolling that's occurred on the page, for some reason. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not trolling, Mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.80.58 (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, I am unopinionated about this; I just re-posted it so a sysop would see it. Go 'head and close it if (on the off-chance) you're waiting for me. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, GedUK  13:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Player rumoured to change team so he is vandalized. QED237 (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Jetstreamer Talk 12:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Vandalism by various IP users. Jacce (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Content dispute edit war over Anti-Catholicism category. Elizium23 (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - persistent deletion of entire sections of the page by anon IP editors targeting the 'Controversy' section. No justifications given for the deletions.--Discott (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent dubious unsourced additions by anon IP editors. STATic message me! 22:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of poorly cited material. – Persistent addition of unreliably sourced material by a series of IP users who refuse to discuss in any detail or find additional more reliable/substantial sources for their additions despite repeated warnings. . MisterShiney ✉ 20:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting POV pushing on article, consensus is 5 to 2 to keep cast salaries. User MisterShiney is pushing POV and refusing to consensus the article.--62.73.9.4 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you and other IP's have been told. That that information belongs in the production section along with other financial information and it has to be backed by reliable sources. You are of course welcome to come and discuss this further on the talk page. Please also note that Wikipedia does not work on "voting". MisterShiney ✉ 21:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That's a content dispute. GedUK  13:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Hi, requesting 24 hour IP block at this article. IP editor has ignored ClueBot's vandalism reversion, and two explained reversions from me, as well as a talk page contact. IP is adamant to secure certain unsourced copy/pasta speculation regarding the main characters. I also ask that the admin please also consider reverting this edit since I'm almost at the 3RR. Thanks!. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, it's only one IP right now, so reporting him to WP:AN3 might be the best bet. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - one recreation in two years doesn't really seem worthy of salting. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Wais barakzai (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – To match its subject page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP subject to thematically related vandalism by multiple IPs. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: PC-Protected until 2015, but there have been many reverts. George Ho (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – continuous vandalism. Digifan23 (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Broadband stick IP socks of comm-banned TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continuing to remove line about FCC required educational programming per their usual MO, three months should work. Nate • (chatter) 04:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – 20+ vandalistic edits within last 24 hours - BLP. Dwpaul Talk 03:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Gilliam.. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Featured Article is prone to IP vandals. Protected for one-month Nov-Dec 2013. When protection expired, vandals came back. . — Maile (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: BLP policy violations – Persistent addition of unreferenced bio info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ... discospinster talk 02:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template-editor level. Currently administrator-only. Protecting admin, User:David Kernow, has been on WikiBreak since May 2007. (I do intend to edit this template afterwards, by the way, if only in a minor way). Last request for the day, no rush. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Disruptive IP hopper. STATic message me! 01:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article is seeing an unusually high level of vandalism and disruptive edits lately, mostly by IP editors. First page of 'view history' (100 edits) shows at least 25 cases vandalism / disruptive edits. Wolbo (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Repeated vandalism/blpvio this month from ip-hopper (59.180.*.*). Dl2000 (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Last good IP edit was January 10, and there have been some good IPs beforehand. George Ho (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – There's been a lot of vandalism by ips recently. Transcendence (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Created by User:TheDanaM and one of her probable socks. Jinkinson talk to me 20:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit war is on here for more than two days. Newly created users, may be sockpuppets, seem to be involved. Hitro talk 18:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator NawlinWiki.. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: As soon as previous protection expired, vandalism started up again. Let's add PC protection just to make sure that none of those sneaky vandals sneak through the ranks of Recent Changes Patrollers. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Like most of the articles in the category tree, these are being targeted by a POV-pushing user. Let's protect them now before we have to go through the edit-warring he has inflicted on the other ones. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: persistent POV pushing by IP against multiple editors . Yobol (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of protection, perhaps sanctioning the one disruptive IP editor would be a better course of action. Safiel (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator Admrboltz.. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of persistent IP vandalism. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – In light of his indictment, getting blp violations here the last couple of days. Safiel (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Full-protection: and blocks. Callanecc protected it a month ago and left this message on the talk page. The protection expired the day before yesterday and immediately the page was changed by H2ppyme and another edit war resumed. Then yesterday I requested protection or a set of blocks and one of the two people warring was blocked and I was told if it continued to come back and request protection again. So I am back because H2ppyme has continued edit warring. I would carry out the blocks myself but because I reverted to a previous consensus version earlier on this page I am probably somewhat involved. Unfortunately there is a group of POV pushers that have been regularly trying to push their preferred version on these pages and in this particular case the only person who has been blocked this time around is the guy who was undoing their changes back to a discussed compromise from earlier this year. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. I've blocked H2ppyme. Since the two primary combatants are blocked, hopefully we can avoid protection. DJSasso, if you don't agree, just ping me and we'll discuss it. Laser brain (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. If others continue the edit warring then I will seek further action. Hopefully this stops it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: There appears to be an coordinated off-wiki campaign to insert the same WP:OR phrase into the article, as several different IPs have dropped by recently to do so. Laser brain (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template-editor level protection Template:Nitro appears to be fully protected by NuclearWarfare. A few days ago I asked for Template:Actinium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to be unprotected; the result was template editor-level protection per project guidelines. Still no word back on his talk page so I didn't bother going to him about this one.

Anyway, downgrade on this one, please? meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – huge flood of questionable edits, was a poor quality article to begin with so it's hard to be sure all of it's vandalism. suspect locally very important somewhere in india and has a lot of indian editors very worked up. Jonathanfu (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Admrboltz. Laser brain (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Laser brain (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Gloss • talk 04:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, (for the bot) Mark Arsten (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: @Mark Arsten: This request being denied really surprises me. Have you two looked at this page's history? You're right, there are a decent amount of productive IP edits but a large amount of edits to the page have been vandalism, section blanking, unconstructive changes, etc. I'm not saying fully lock it or semi-protect it forever, but a week or two of semi-protection should send away some of the vandal IP's.. Gloss • talk 05:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for Drmies to comment, but I have no objection towards protection here. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Arsten: I don't think they plan on commenting, as they've edited since I've pinged them. Gloss • talk 18:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24 January 2014

Indefinite full protection: No evidence this actor is notable on his own, despite many attempts to turn this redirect into an article. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done SlimVirgin (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, removing information not favourable to article's subject. SPACKlick (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. for 60 hours by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with this request. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-Protection: Persistent vandalism where 2 Random IPs vandalized this article. I don't remember when this happened. Yoshi24517 17:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, protection level reduced. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protection: High level of repeated unsourced edits and peacock edits on a WP:BLP. SPACKlick (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent school type vandalism - maybe this is a set book somewhere ?.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please review: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald The Goose (talk • contribs) 10:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined No reason to unprotect, this is a vandalism magnet. Only this week someone tried to citizen's arrest the man. GedUK  13:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request protection. Vandalism.LionSunne (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See here for cause: https://www.facebook.com/empiremagazine/posts/10152133758227708:0?stream_ref=1 Narom (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request protection. Persistent addition of unsourced editor OR/SYNTH, and blow-by-blow trivia.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Repeated reinsertion of a large amount of copyright-violating text (as reported on the talk page) from 3 different IP addresses in one day. Dendrite1 (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. yes yes. GedUK  12:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous BLP violations the moment protection expires, I believe its time to make it Indefinite. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. One last try, but I suspect you're right. GedUK  12:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Continuous changing the song template to single template by IP users with speculations. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Much higher number of IP edits than usual that typically are having to be reverted. Obviously the page is getting a lot more attention with his recent game and his speech thereafter. A week protection would be nice until the sensationalism of this dies down. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The last several edits are all reverts. Editors are adding information without providing a reliable source. Mysteryman557 (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: An Italian IP has been targeted the article for months, always inserting bizarre claims that Italian is spoken throughout the world, including claiming Italian as a language of Japan, Bulgaria etc. This goes on both on English and Italian Wikipedia. In both versions, several registered users have removed the nonsense, but the IP just continues. Temporary semi-protection doesn't cut it, the IP just waits them out. This has been going on for months now. 'Italian language' is a relatively important article, and a single IP is holding it hostage.Jeppiz (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Shortly after the previous protection (for a week) expired, vandalism by IPs resumed. Jinkinson talk to me 20:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long term or indefinite semi protection For whatever reason, this BLP is a target of long term attacking vandalism by IPs (the current IP is somewhat persistent but there was another on the 18th) and SPAs most of which look like they aren't confirmed. [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] (also some deleted). While these attacks are more of the silly kind (I actually wonder if they are being done by friends or similar) and aren't that frequent, it is a BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Shirt58.. GedUK  12:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. gsk 08:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism (and original research) in the day generated by 3 IPs. Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 19:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Consistent vandalism by multiple IP addresses and registered editors including sexual images [[103]] IW4U (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism by anon IP editors. STATic message me! 23:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Looks like the vandalism is still coming on strong. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Article is being ceaselessly vandalised by anonymous IPs, who constantly remove coverage of controversial incidents from the article. Blocks have been issued, the page has been protected before but the vandalism continues unabated. Tiller54 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – repeated edits by sockpuppeteer on this and several other film articles (see IP's contribution history or I can provide). DonIago (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. I'm not sure protection is needed since it has only been one IP causing problems. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Historically it's been multiple editors, as discussed here. DonIago (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

25 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. This football player is heavily rumoured to be changing clubs. Robincard (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lot of disruptive edits as players are rumoured to change clubs. QED237 (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect fully until the transfer to Manchester United is officially confirmed. . JMHamo (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator GiantSnowman.. Also, I don't think good-faith edit requests are justification for protecting a talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – None of IP edits are good; they were reverted. George Ho (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long-term vandalism magnet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indef semi. Low-level but chronic reverting to the same rejected population figures has been going on for a year. — kwami (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a year. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: Page has not been protected.—cyberbot I NotifyOnline 07:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Adjwilley:, you fully protected the page. Was that intended, or a mistake? Armbrust The Homunculus 12:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing protection padlocks

Please add protection padlocks for:

I'm requesting this per my comments on the multiple, disruptive, edit protected requests on each of the talk pages by davidwr. I've closed all of those requests with a note back to here. Technical 13 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that they're disruptive? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redrose: He politely explained why here and on the other talk pages where it happened. I was unaware that this type of mass-request was better handled by a single message here. I've thanked him on his talk page for enlightening me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by davidwr (talk • contribs)
Rose, david is correct, and I actually explained it on all of the pages. :) I've also ticked all of the ones in the list that now have a protection padlock and it seems like a couple were missed. :o are using a banner instead of a padlock... Technical 13 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the both of you for handling this so quickly. And again, Technical 13, thank you for the education. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done (for the bot) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Requesting immediate archiving... Armbrust The Homunculus 12:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Request 3 months of checked changes due to persisting vandalism. LT910001 (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I don't see enough IP vandalism to justify 3 months of protection. The edits seem to be weeks apart, and the most recent ones don't seem to be outright vandalism. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – Yet more personal attacks, a continuation of the same thing that got the user blocked on two occasions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 02:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-blocked the user and revoked talk page access. Full protection isn't necessary.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. (for the bot) Mark Arsten (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP spammings. One or more IP users keep putting this link on the article of 2006 comedy film Accepted. Needs to be protected indefinitely. NeoBatfreak (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Faizan/Editnotice (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: To prevent vandalism. Faizan 08:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Indeffed Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: To prevent further vandalising. I am a vandal fighter and there have been attacks on my userpage. Faizan 08:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Indeffed Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: For preventing vandals. Faizan 08:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Indeffed Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Berean Hunter.. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of unhelpful IP edits that are unsourced. JMHamo (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – Please lower the protection level on this page to  Template editor so that I can make minor changes as are outlined in this change to the sandbox or alternatively make the change for me. testcases are available. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of sockpuppet vandalism. Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 1 month. No comment on the content dispute. This will at least force the master to use their single auto-confirmed account when their block expires next week. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection - Many users, mostly anonymous, have been editing this page to say he has joined AC Milan, but this has not been confirmed by either Milan or Chelsea (his current club). He is in Milan and a transfer is very close, but it has not yet been confirmed. – PeeJay 22:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. SPACKlick (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. There is only one IP. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SPACKlick, this is a case of poor editing and too much reverting, rather than vandalism, so I've reverted to the last good version and I'll leave a note for the IP. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite feedback protection: All feedback is misplaced or otherwise non-useful. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I can only see three comments in 10 months, or am I looking at the wrong thing? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're in the wrong view. In the combo box at the top, change from "More" to "All comments" and you'll see them all. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Okay, got it and done. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unregistered IP users continuously keep dictating guidelines that they don't understand and keep removing reliably sourced info under false grounds. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, seems to be a content dispute being discussed on talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – LanguageXpert socks. SMS Talk 15:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. I'd need more information and there isn't a huge amount of recent activity. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin If you are asking for information regarding the sock I have filed it at LanguageXpert case page. -- SMS Talk 21:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected. Thanks for the information. I've semi-protected for three months for now as it seems to be a long-term thing, but going straight to indefinite seems too much given that the article hasn't been protected before. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of IP users editing section results by matchday against consensus and the given source despite hidden comments. Example here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Discussions about this section has been made at article talkpage and Talk:2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season. Time for a semi-protect now. . QED237 (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 14 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

26 January 2014

User talk:157.182.216.2 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – talk page of blocked schools user. [104], [105], [106],[107]. Ruby Murray 11:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed.. Favonian (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism which requires no degree in forensics to trace back to 4chan, including the addition of dubious yet unrefuted information by anonymous IPs. Ancholm (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Nothing for more than a month, please re-report if it continues. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from various IPs. Article was previously protected for one year, but vandals have returned. AD (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent disruption to article by IP editors. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Long term semi requested as article for years has been a target for IP's removing info without discussing (and now adding incorrect info - see talk page). NeilN talk to me 09:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Numerous IP address over the last few hours have made vandalism edits following what was deemed a controversial win for Henderson, a mixed martial artist, tonight. Protection is needed. Rockchalk717 05:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism; continuous blanking from various IPs. Span (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by anon IP editors to the article of a recently deceased person. STATic message me! 20:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template-editor as well, please. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template-editor please. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations – I emailed the real Bob Newton through "Email this user" to teach him an unblock appeal. However, I'm unsure if the email is still active. As for the "car crash" thing that killed one person, I think that was already resolved in talk page. Looking through history log, that was about dispute over one matter, which the blocked user/article subject was sensitive about. There haven't been sockpuppets or vandalism before the protection. Just content dispute already done and reduced into one or two sentences about two car crashes. The protecting admin is not active since 2013. George Ho (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's email address is still active; he was uncertain about me in email. I don't know if he can trust me or anybody else from Wikipedia since he was blocked from Wikipedia. Also, he probably has the alternative account, bobthenewt, not used since, although not blocked. --George Ho (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. Given the page only gets 10 or less views a day we may as well try unprotection first. Let me know (or post here) if the BLP vios etc return. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection or some kinda pending changes thing. Politician who seems to be in the news a lot; repeated breaches of WP:BLP by multiple unregistered editors and an occasional registered editor. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Jim1138 (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --slakr\ talk / 02:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism by different (but related) IPs: 220.255.2.129, 220.255.2.161, 220.255.2.108, 220.255.2.100. Nick Levine (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by requestor Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 14:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistant vandalism of an important image (removal of .svg map of the highways).gogo3o 12:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 09:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – PC isn't strong enough for growing vandalism. George Ho (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I see some good edits so I think we should stick with PC. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

27 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Sockpuppetry is back after last protection. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 17:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 5 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AdmrBoltz 18:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: All the pages of this section are semi-protected. The page 2014 has just been started. I was waiting for an entry so that we could have something to protect. Now that has been added too. . Tito☸Dutta 15:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. AdmrBoltz 18:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs vandalizing and changing spellings without sources. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There's certainly been some disagreement over the spelling, but I don't think it's at protection levels yet, plus there've been good and goodfaith IP edits too. GedUK  12:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Disruptive editing. Please temporarily semi-protect or apply pending changes protection Sherenk1 (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  12:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: This is a recurring issue since November 2012. A user comes and makes a telephone directory/soapbox out of this page and everytime I revert it, I get reverted with reasons such as Reverting Vandalism, or there is nothing related to soap. --. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AdmrBoltz 14:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism, also changing deceased object to alive. That BLP violation?. blastertalk! see 10:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AdmrBoltz 14:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template-editor please (a lot of templates haven't yet been downgraded for WP:Template editors yet) meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, in fact I've increased protection by including it on Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. It's transcluded more an 400,000 times so too high risk to downgrade (and shouldn't need to be edited anyway). 10:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Temporary pending changes: Persistent genre-warring. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 06:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – There have been vandalism, but not in this month. George Ho (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Happened once this month, but there have been vandalism for a long time. George Ho (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism. George Ho (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. protection history isn't long enough or recent enough to go indefinite at this stage. GedUK  12:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. edit count is way too high for PC, and will only get higher in a world cup year. GedUK  12:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection Children's network article IP vandal going after this one, asserting that it's switching to "Teen Disney" in February, which it isn't; disruptive editing and WP:IDHT by the IP. Nate • (chatter) 05:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

temporary semi protection: - alot of IP vandalism over several days.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template-editor as well; same reason. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent Vandalism from IP users about the name of the team. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 01:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Ruby Murray 01:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full-protection Content dispute edit warring; being discussed on the talk page, yet some feel the need to add the new material without due process. Dreadstar ☥ 07:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's the right page? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Looks like it's calmed down now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: This was vandalized last month, and no one noticed. George Ho (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs extra protection time. Some vandalism, although comes and goes. --George Ho (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Wait until protection expires or contact the admin who protected the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: User using multiple IPs has resumed making edits against consensus and despite warnings. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: User requesting in own userspace. Wikipedia:PROT#User pages, it's also for testing protection levels in userpages. ///EuroCarGT 22:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – There have been reverts on edits by IP. George Ho (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Long-term vandalism magnet, but often slow-burning. It needs protecting, but should only need PC. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Repeated IP and unconfirmed editors making unsourced changes to the article. Probably only needed for the next 24 hours or so. (Page is currently PC1-protected.). --ElHef (Meep?) 20:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indefinite PC protection unchanged. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent editing against consensus, and some vandalism. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Edit war with IP. The Banner talk 15:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template. Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 15:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded to exactly 50 articles. tutterMouse (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, that's a lower number of transclusions than I look for when protecting templates. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Looks like we've got a couple of IPs here adding utterly trivial and unencyclopedic information in here at the moment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – vandalism removal of COI tag by 3x suspected COI / socks of subject. edit warring. Widefox; talk 14:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, no disruptive edits in past three weeks. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

28 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect, IP adding information that's inaccurate and needs reverting each time. JMHamo (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 13:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, One cock-up by one user doesn't really neccesitate protection. GedUK  13:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Both users have been warned for edit warring so let's see what happens next. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There have been other incidents of vandalism before this new user appeared. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Repeated vandalism/speculation over a football transfer. Dirkbb (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I contacted the admin, but he hasn't responded yet. The page is receiving occasional vandals lately. George Ho (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Let's wait for the protecting admin to comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Declined, I think PC's doing exactly what it should do. If HJ hasn't responded in teh next day, then relist as it'll need extending, but I don't want to extend with two days to go on someone else's current protection GedUK  12:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template editor: Both templates were originally protected because they are highly visible. APerson (talk!) 15:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. SMS Talk 08:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Kudpung. (1 month) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection Repeated vandalism, removal of image, etc on this high-profile BLP of recently deceased cultural icon. Page getting increased attention and needs semiprot ASAP Tvoz/talk 07:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page has been vandalized similarly by different anon. accounts . Safety Cap (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – It never stops, and protection will expire soon. George Ho (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mark Arsten (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protection. Repeated addition of unsourced, erroneous biographical content from multiple IPs and new accounts. Recently protected for a week; problem edits resumed as soon as protection expired. Constructive edits to article are rare. Rivertorch (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Dan653 (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Might need SALTing. Dan653 (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, it's only one editor causing issues here, so I suggest seeking sanctions against him if edit warring continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

semi protection - in addition to the standard fangirl nonsense, there is a dynamic IP who insists upon changing the titles of the source articles, impacting the future verifiability of the content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – One month; persistent IP vandalism. LT910001 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Single purpose account repeatedly attempting to re-add copyright breaching file, even after its deletion minutes earlier. Also likely sock of blocked user. Middayexpress (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, the two accounts are autoconfirmed, so semi-protection won't help here. I suggest seeking sanctions in another venue. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of vandalism from 1 user: 3R, deletion of existing material, addition of inappropriate material (in spite of polite request on User page). Stephenjh (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, after the last protection expired. If not can we get protection through the 2014 Olympics. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection I do not know how to request talk pages to be protected but Hercianas talk page is in need of that. endless discussions about her name which will be solved by May when Eurovision comes around. Protect until then please.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

request protection of the article, persistant wrong editions of a user Johan92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that insist to add incorrect information in the article. After johan92 was blocked it appeard an ip 190.239.45.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) making the same wrong editions and before the ip 190.235.102.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had made same edits. --Mastpolo (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator EdJohnston. (2 months) Armbrust The Homunculus 03:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:IPhone and Dimitri Rascalov (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. False information provided. Page is being used as an advertisement rather then for factual information.

Not done — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An anon is continuously changing the article so that it incorrectly states that this proposed amendment was adopted. The amendment's alleged adoption is a fringe theory. I, along with another editor, have reverted the anon's unwarranted edits, but the anon continues to restore the changes. Please SP this article so the anon can not further Vandalize this article. SMP0328. (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined No need to protect - not a heavily edited article and a 3RR warning would have been the best idea after 3 reverts. I've done this and have put this article on my watch list. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the extra pair of eyes. SMP0328. (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Whenever protection on this article expires, IPs immediately start vandalizing again. Honestly, I think indef is necessary. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm going to hold off on indef for now, but feel free to ping me if problems resume. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dubious unsourced additions. STATic message me! 02:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For the last few days, a new account and several IPs have repeatedly attempted to add "Getting married on Macklemore's set durin the grammy's" with a fake source (a real source but has nothing to do with the claim). I think they will tire of it if they can't edit the article for a while. I am One of Many (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Frequent vandalism on a (relatively) high-visibility page. Just to help in catching it :-). Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Many edits, all reversions, from users who only created accounts yesterday and IPs. Users are deleting well-sourced, relevant info and provide no explanation on talk page. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Novalia (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nexus 5 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated and frequent vandalism by IP-hopper. Thomas.W talk to me 18:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Acalamari. - I've also revdeleted the more serious vandal edits. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection to INDEFINITE date: High level of IP vandalism. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ®

Why not indefinitely? Please look at the protection history...the same vandal with a lot of IPs still vandalise the page after the protection is out. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Several users (mainly IP) keep changing the order numbers without providing a reference despite an official Airbus document providing different numbers. SideshowBob7 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from IPs and new users.LM2000 (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - LM2000: Looks like it's going to need some major fact checking too now... — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP and newly registered user vandalism. Երևանցի talk 22:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

indefinite semi-protection. The IP vandalism on this has resumed. The article has been subject to many short term and even a long term semi-protect over this same nonsense. IP keeps changing enough that blocking them is not likely to solve it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. SMS Talk 19:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by administrator Deb. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page just unprotected and IP disruption has continued. He is footballer rumoured to change club so many come in and change to their favorite team. . QED237 (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism is reigning the territory. George Ho (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. (cyberbot needs to calm down...) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Just came off protection and got vandalized again. Werieth (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Deceased Wikipedia, per userpage. Tito☸Dutta 15:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected indefinitely. --AdmrBoltz 18:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

29 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – It's silly season. Multiple IPs and now a newly created account are vandalizing this template. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 Weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There are some decent IP contributions in the history, the vandals only showed up a week ago or so. Lets try 2 weeks for now. Monty845 20:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Ongoing dispute over which is top, full protection may help this. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I don't think there's enough reverting at this point to merit full protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: The same disruptive IP hopper with the same disruptive uncommented removal of content over and over. STATic message me! 08:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – Page is being moved without discussion nor consensus. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I hope someone will protect this page from Darkness Shines.Kermanshahi (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. GedUK  13:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: Don't know if youo want to review this, as I've just blocked the user for move warring, for a month (we were both reviewing at the same time). GedUK  13:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, the move protection isn't going to do any harm so it might as well stay there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NP. GedUK  13:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: There may be an edit war going on on this article. Theparties (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I'm not going to protect the page because I would expect users to discuss or ignore something as minor as "Spanish" or "Hispanic" and the other two. If they can't I'll be blocking people; Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, Cadiomals and Theparties that's you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Dubious unsourced additions and disruptive editing by anon IPs and new users. STATic message me! 04:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: All edits since last period of protection from earlier this month have been 'they're airing Nick shows' vandalism and reversion from IP's. Nate • (chatter) 14:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent semi-protection: this BLP is a major target of continuous vandalism (don't know why). It doesn't last 48 hours without protection before being inundated again. Proposed indefinite protection. Span (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of Indef, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of unsourced IP vandalism that needs reverting, due to transfer speculation . JMHamo (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

semi protection - typical fanboy and flamer disruption occurring around the release of a film. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 20 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unsourced IP edits due to a transfer rumour. JMHamo (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Congressman who threatened a reporter this evening. The event made a lot of news and prompted a series of BLP-violating edits. GabrielF (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I don't see a whole lot of reverts amongst the other good edits so I'm not going to protect at this stage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator Callanecc. (36 hours) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated counts of vandalism and some mostly minor BLP-issues by a large amount of different IPs spread over different ranges. All problematic edits in the past hours seem to have been made by IPs (and by accidental reverts from ClueBot NG and various users to also-vandalized versions). The past fifty edits have existed almost without exception of either vandalism or otherwise disruptive edits, or (attempts at) reverting. . AddWittyNameHere (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: the sentence "His writing is generally narrow-minded and misinformed" has been added three times by three different IP users so far today. The article and the sentence has been mentioned in an article in a major Swedish daily, so the risk of continued vandalism is high. /Julle (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should be enough. Thanks. /Julle (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – Because someone put a word up there that I can not say. Sunjerbob (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Anonymous users deleting sourced content without giving valid reasons. Rameshnta909 (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent violations of WP:LISTPEOPLE. SMS Talk 22:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, the level of disruption is a little lower than I'd like to see when protecting, I'd suggest trying an editnotice first and see how that works. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistant vandalism of an important image (removal of .svg map of the highways). gogo3o 21:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, it doesn't look like vandalism per se, more of a content dispute. As the removals aren't very frequent I think protection may not be merited here. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Requesting 1 week block. IP user deliberately appears to be introducing misspelled words, non-standard formatting, and unnecessary tables into the article, against warnings. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Converting a bulleted list into a wikitable isn't exactly vandalism, and spelling mistakes can be corrected. --slakr\ talk / 02:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP edit warring . Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Warned both editors of WP:3RR; if they continue, re-report. --slakr\ talk / 01:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. SMS Talk 18:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --slakr\ talk / 01:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Some sort of nationalist edits by sockpuppeter. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous disruptive editing/addition of original research from several IPs. – Recollected • 02:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:X96lee15 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – A target of a sockpuppeting troll. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not semi-protect my talk page. I'd don't want my talk page to be protected against any IP posting there. The IPs/socks posting are not causing any harm. Here are the relevant posts (I don't know if you even care): [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113] — X96lee15 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No IP has posted on X96lee15's talk page that has not been operated by the troll who has been harassing me and X96lee15 has been enabling him by refusing to remove the comments that have been left.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, it's X96lee15's prerogative as to what they keep, and what they don't. If they don't want their talk page protected, it is inappropriate for it to be, and you should withdraw this request. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And edit warring to keep out a reliable reference, when more people view it as helpful than unhelpful, is why you've landed yourself in this mess in the first place, Ryulong. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The troll began harassing me because of edits to Bleach (anime) and he persisted in following me to University of Miami (which no one has edited in over a week). And don't lecture me on this. I am not withdrawing this request. This has been done in good faith to prevent further disruption to the project by the harasser which for whatever reason has shifted to constantly messaging X96lee15 and X96lee15 enabling him by not removing the trolling messages which should be removed per WP:DENY and WP:TPO.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --slakr\ talk / 01:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection, move-protection, 30 days: Overwhelming lack of regard for WP:V, WP:AT, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:BRD. In 7 hours, four users (41.191.235.138, 216.68.75.2, TheIntersect, Gparyani) changed the article with a disputed claim (See Talk:SkyDrive § Not yet OneDrive) that the subject's name is already changed to "OneDrive". The latter two even acted on moving the page to OneDrive. (A fifth user, 2.29.5.37, changed other articles to link to OneDrive.) This claim, however, has failed verification and are disputed. This name change has not happened yet; Microsoft might change decision midway and choose another name. (It did change mind once with this very same subject!) But if so many users have done it over 7 hours, experience tells me we should expect a torrent of such changes. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive edits by various IPs in the wake of Random Access Memories winning the Grammy Award for Album of the Year. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, He's been warned. Your sig is doing something weird, your timestamp time hasn't occurred yet GedUK  13:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Hi, requesting only autoconfirmed users be able to edit this page. Persistent attempts by a San Jose/Northern Californian IP hopper to force content into the the article that is unsupported by references. User is deliberately hopping IPs to avoid revert button. IPs: 207.31.22.136, 207.31.22.122, 207.31.22.107, 207.31.22.185, 207.31.22.156. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring over a controversial piece of text mainly from IPs. Maybe temporary semi-protection will help?. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – I'm requesting the protection level on this be lowered to  Template editor to allow me to fix the outdated code by removing the deprecated <font> tags and to make a modification to accept cm as an input unit of which there seems to be a consensus for as outlined in my Edit protected request on the bottom of the page. There is still an ongoing RfC on allowing the template to output cm as a value, and consensus seems to be forming to allow this, but it hasn't been closed as such yet and therefor my existing edit request does not include that ability. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done SlimVirgin (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Request 2 months temporary protection; multiple attempts at vandalism from IP editors. LT910001 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --slakr\ talk / 02:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High degree of vandalism. Vandal editors also targeted The Script, which is now also protected. Drm310 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --slakr\ talk / 02:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template. Technical 13 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. NeilN talk to me 22:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --slakr\ talk / 02:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP being vandalized by multiple IPs. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Roving IPv6 adding fake info to this article. Persistent. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --slakr\ talk / 01:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Roving ipv6 adding false info to this article. Persistent. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --slakr\ talk / 01:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Continued edit warring. Jnorton7558 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --slakr\ talk / 01:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations – IP continuing to add negative unsourced statement. INeverCry 19:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not the normal threshold of edits, but blocking the /24 would have had spillover issues. :\ --slakr\ talk / 01:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of new user vandalism. Stephenjh (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. These are socks of the same user. --slakr\ talk / 01:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-change protection or Semi-protection: Persistent and long-term IP vandalism. For example, see this recent diff, which shows almost no permanent changes to the article over 73 edits - in that period almost every edit was vandalism, or reversion of it. Similar patterns are apparent over a much longer period of time. The article was previously semi-protected last April, and vandalism resumed within a week of protection being removed. AJCham 19:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --slakr\ talk / 01:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – Used in {{Progress box daily}}, which has a bunch of transclusions; furthermore, progress lines 3 and 4 are admin-protected (hopefully soon to be TE-protected). APerson (talk!) 15:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I have been warned not to use template protection. Come back in three weeks if it's still needed and have another sysop review the request. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

30 January 2014

Semi-protection: I ask for protection for the item, since a single IP handles revert edit other users, and create war editions. only to impose their point of view. can view the history. With protection than a week would be fine, because it takes time ip is the same thing. GeorgeMilan Talk/Stalk 19:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple vandal edits per day. Been happening at a steady pace for some time. Dawnseeker2000 19:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Hi, this is a high-profile article related to children's television. It is a frequent target for vandalism, which accounts for about half of all edits. The article is also a very attractive target for FanforClarl aka HoshiNoKaabi2000 aka Unorginal. (Note Mr. David Jetix, Pelican Uno Chart Show, Cyphoidbomb Stinks in edit history). Requesting long-term protection, as sock operator has been active for some time, and has demonstrated no intention of quitting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Please protect, many unhelpful anon edits that need reverting. JMHamo (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Upon end of protection, there was an immediate influx of vandalism. It's still the Chinese New Year holiday season, so it might be a good idea to protect this page for another week or two. Transcendence (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protected indefinitely. O the salty goodness of salt. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Vast majority of edits is IP vandalism. Likely due to a new generation coming out. Needs locked badly.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection – I don't know where to put this, but this page needs move protection. People keep ignoring WP:COMMONNAME and moves the page to her married name, which is not her commonname at all. livelikemusic my talk page! 16:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of IP vandalism due to a rumour about his future at Blackpool . JMHamo (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Once again the subject has been in the news and the article has received unwelcome attention. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. --Jakob (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Anonymous users deleting sourced information and inserting unsourced and inappropriate information. Rameshnta909 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 12:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated low-quality, unsourced edits over months. Past 2 days have had 50 edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by several users. Areaseven (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High level of vandalism by multiple IPs, no helpful IP edits in recent history. Jinkinson talk to me 22:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Repeated edits which do not match sources. Jim1138 (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous pages to be protected

Hi, can someone put protection on Pope Pius V, Pope Pius X, Pope Paul VI, Pope Leo XIII, Euromaidan and 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots, Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, Pre-Tridentine Mass, Works by Francis Bacon and many others (check their contributions for further page protection, the list will be huge) because users user talk:189.61.0.190, user talk:200.219.132.103, user talk:200.219.132.104, user talk:200.219.132.105 did many disruptive edits, and I want them to stop NOW!--Mishae (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{RFPP}} Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking NOT about user pages but about those Pope Pius V, Pope Pius X, Pope Paul VI, Pope Leo XIII, Euromaidan, 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots, Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, Pre-Tridentine Mass, and Works by Francis Bacon!--Mishae (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong one, should have said this instead. Declined Edits are not vandalism. They look more like a new editor trying to help (for example [114] & [115]) and being told to go away. Try calmly talking to (not templating) them about what they are doing and why they are disruptive and "makes no difference" so that they can direct their efforts some which is helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen his reference details 11 pointless edits per page! I can be fine with one pointless edit from one editor but not over a 100 from different IPs! Plus, you are calling substitution of Uk icon to Ukrainian and ref to Sfn as trying to help???!!! Are you effing kidding me! If he is trying to help, why he A) Reluctant to ask for it ({{help me}} is a god start here) and B) Why so many articles ranging from airplanes and revolts to Popes and Artists???!!!! And no, edits aren't vandalism maybe, but they are disruptive and we have a policy against it! And the editor is not new either, don't make things up! He was editing since May 27, 2013. Is that clear?! O' and yes I talked to one of them, got no answer.--Mishae (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright how's this. I've blocked the 200.219.132/22 range and 189.61.0.190 which are the most recently used IPs for 36 hours. If that short block doesn't work we can look at longer blocks and/or protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection:: Vandalism. Noteswork (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: IP editwarring with problematic edits. Brandmeistertalk 08:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Discussion is taking place on the article's Talk page, but IPs and unconfirmed editors are ignoring it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. I've blocked the two most recent ones, if it continues I'd be more inclined to semi it for sock puppetry. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Temporary protections have come and go and the page is still a target of consistent unconstructive edits. Gloss • talk 18:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that a lot of the problem edits are not vandalism, but instead from new, probably young, editors who are attempting to be helpful, and just are not doing a very good job. Seems like we should avoid protecting an article like this that is attracting a lot of interest from new editors, even if they need some help. Monty845 20:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined I agree with Monty845 on this one, if the edit rate were a little lower I'd consider PC protecting it. But at the moment, while there are also good edits and not much really bad I'd rather leave it as is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template. APerson (talk!) 03:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Plus move=templateeditor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. JamesMoose (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Malik Shabazz. (3 days). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of vandalism by anon IP editors. STATic message me! 03:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Sockpuppet/trolling has continued. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guarantee he'll return. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Long-term IP vandalism. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short term vandalism and BLP concerns. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – A single-purpose account has had disagreements that Worldcoin should be on the list of "notable cryptocurrencies", and is trying to revert edits to make a point. This has also happened with other users in the past and it is nothing but disruptive. Requesting a short, full protection and the revertion of Kevoras's Worldcoin edit as I've likely gone over 3RR. Citation Needed | Talk 14:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring - User Citation Needed refuses to accept 3rd party valid links, or accept market cap as valid arguements for what is 'noteable'. Worldcoin is #8 in market cap, and traded in ALL exchanges, US and China, whereby Citation Needed believes those and third party links don't qualify. I suspect he has a conflict of interest? and he's trying to eliminate competitive cryptos? another link here for everyone to reference: http://m.nationalreview.com/article/367412/altcoin-investment-dummies-betsy-woodruff http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/01/24/worldcoin-community-funds-well-system-africa/ http://www.libertyglobe.com/2013/12/27/making-the-case-for-worldcoin-as-the-next-big-cryptocurrency/ http://www.coindesk.com/top-altcoins-2013/ http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch/cashing-in-on-bitcoin-111318083837 http://coinmarketcap.com/mineable.html

I have suggested User Citation Needed to talk with me on his talk page, but he refused and tried to be all righteous by raising this protection? As a returning user, I would like to invite a senior editor to come and objectively review? I do not wish to go back and forth without a judge or jury to decide. User Citation Needed also tried to label me as 'single use account' to discredit me, I have in fact been on wikipedia for a very long time, I find scuh 'smear tactics' from this user biased and unprofessional.

KR 14:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
much obliged. thank you. KR 14:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoras (talk • contribs)

Semi-protection: BLP vandalism and dubious unsourced additions immediately following end of recent protection period. STATic message me! 23:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PC1 added indefinitely.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Sockpuppet/troll continues to make a pest of himself. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I would consider making the semi-protection indefinite if you had a subpage from your talk page where IPs and new users could communicate with you. That would keep them off your main talk page.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Anon ips coming out of the woodwork lately. Likely mostly the same person. At least with full users I can leave notes on the talk pages to discuss that they'll actually read. Note that there is also some content dispute to go along with the vandalism. This has already been protected a couple times since late December but the anon ips come back as soon as the protection is lifted. This probably won't need to be updated till december 2014 so semi-protect or full-protect at your leisure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – I see nothing here that  Template editor's shouldn't be allowed to edit. Technical 13 (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected Mark Arsten (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long term effort by a range of IPs to insert information into the article about a contract killing. There is, as far as I can find, absolutely no coverage of this in reliable sources, and the back and forth on this issue as gone on for several months. Recommending at least six months of semi-protection. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Sturm br (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – IP sock of 2014yearoftherooster, as can be seen from this IP edit and the roster edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Many IPS or one IP hopping vandal attacking this article persistently for several days now.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Latest IP blocked 31 hours. Monty845 20:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – None of IPs are good lately. George Ho (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

31 January 2014

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent addition of unsourced and/or irrelevant content, such as links to Eat More Kale's website. Jinkinson talk to me 20:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection: Disruptive editing by multiple IP users. FonEengIneeR7 talk 19:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of a fortnight, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated restoration of content violating WP:NOT (i.e. indiscriminate information). ViperSnake151  Talk  18:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of a year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism for several years now. It's too much to be kept in check by vandalism fighters. AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Gloss • talk 17:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Widr (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Protection expired and disruptive edits/vandalism started back up. – Recollected • 16:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Deadline day in football and IP disruptive edits on this player rumoured to change club. . QED237 (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Either socks or meat puppets, clearly not going to discuss their deletion of 'supposed' . Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 15:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs have repeatedly change the same content without explanation/RS. Possible whitewashing. Oda Mari (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP-hopping editor repeatedly vandalizing the article. Deli nk (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Duffy is a continuous target of vandalism as she is on the UK school curriculum. There are almost no constructive edits over the last years; nearly all vandalism. Span (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of unsourced anon edits due to transfer speculation, that needs reverting. Please protect. JMHamo (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Even with the high number of edits there aren't enough reverts to warrant protecting the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of unsourced anon edits due to transfer speculation, that needs reverting. Please protect. JMHamo (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Currently the single most common target of Malaysian IP-hopping vandal who insists that the cast of The Wolverine are in it and several other films. Areaseven (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection against recent vandalism. 23:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of disruption caused that needs reverting due to transfer speculation. JMHamo (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Raw Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: Repeated insertion of a frivolous, uncited complaint by a series of IP addresses. Gamaliel (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: There seems to be PR work from the company and on the other side bashing against them by a rival.--Wingtip (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page still target of long-term vandalism by IPs. Nick Levine (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Though if another admin wishes to protect they should feel free to do so. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: High level of BLP vandalism and disruptive edits by anon IP editors. STATic message me! 04:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 Month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., and Pending Changes for another 2 months in light of the BLP issues, and the recent revdel history. Monty845 04:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary full protection in order to stop an edit war involving several editors and force people to discuss the issue constructively. This article has been the subject of long-term edit warring over the question of Armenian involvement in the original development of the unique alphabet of the Georgian language. IMO, protection will need to be lengthy in order to accomplish anything. I am too involved in this topic area to be willing to impose protection myself. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Repeated recreation, third time User:Mhmdouda has recreated this article without substantial improvement, calling for temporary salt. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "create protection" instead of "semi-protection"? Because I don't think you can semi-protect a page that doesn't exist. Jinkinson talk to me 01:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can in a sense. The protection interface (which you can view here) gives the option to apply any of the four levels of protection for all types of protection (edit, create, move & upload). I've warned the user so let's see if that works before protecting the page. Declined for the bot. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of unsourced anon speculation being added that needs reverting... JMHamo (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. FYI Mark Arsten. Hopefully the short semi will calm it down for a while. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the edit rate really picked up from when I added PC. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: frequent additions of unsourced content and vandalism.LM2000 (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Fottballer rumoured to change club. IP disruptive has started and will continue. QED237 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Player rumoured to change club. lot of IP disruptive eedits. QED237 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of unsourced anon edits due to transfer speculation. JMHamo (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi: The anonymous edit warring, basically bickering over a previously arbitrated article, has been increasing over the past month and is now escalating to where protection is requested. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Looks like unprotection is going to lead to edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Jim1138 (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection: This is the userpage of Jeffrey S. Medkeff, who died in 2008; therefore, per WP:DWG, his userpage should be protected indefinitely. Jinkinson talk to me 23:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs causing problems and inserting unsourced content. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Request temporary semi-protection due to recent spate of vandalism. Thank you for your time!. — Cirt (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a decent amount of vandalism history, but its not very frequent, particularly for a high visibility article like this. I don't think the recent vandalism justifies protection. Monty845 20:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Call me crazy, but it seems a little silly to apply PC indefinitely on articles with little protection history to begin with—particularly when the subject matter would render the action ironic. :P --slakr\ talk / 07:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True but given the looong history of disruptive edits and vandalism the problem is indefinite. Oh I thought of the irony, but more with semi-protection then pending changes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: No objection from me if you want to give PC a go. Monty845 19:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let's see how that works. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:74.104.131.200 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Blocked user consistently causing a disruption . Werieth (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite template protection: Highly visible template – Used by Template:Singles which is template-protected. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Higher level of IP vandalism over the years. Blazeamaze5 (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Even the fifth semi-protection did not help to scare off the vandals as they are back again, Now as IP instead of throwaway accounts as was the custom with the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lamrongpeng5-sockfarm. The Banner talk 12:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Pending-changes protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The Banner talk 13:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Deadline tomorrow midnight for football transfer and this player is rumoured to change club so lot of IP disruption today. . QED237 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: High level of persistent IP vandalism. The same group of IP's continuing to remove valid, sourced information of viewerships for episodes of the series. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP 99.100.71.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps engaging in WP:Disruptive editing at the Young adult (psychology) article. Does not heed warnings. Has already been blocked for his or her edits to the article in question. See the IP's talk page for further details on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2014/01&oldid=1146813574"