Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive: Difference between revisions

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Snotbot (talk | contribs)
98,645 edits
Bot archiving 4 old RFPP threads
Snotbot (talk | contribs)
98,645 edits
Bot archiving 3 old RFPP threads
Line 3: Line 3:


==06 September 2013==
==06 September 2013==

==== {{la|Leônidas da Silva}} ====
'''Temporary semi-protection:''' Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism intensified due to Google doodle. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Widefox|Widefox]]</span>; [[User talk:Widefox|talk]]</span> 10:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
:{{RFPP|s|1 day}} [[User:Ged UK|<font color="green">Ged</font>]][[User talk:Ged UK|<font color="orange">'''''UK'''''</font>&nbsp;]] 12:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

==== {{la|Oy vey}} ====
'''Indefinite semi-protection:''' Persistent vandalism – Please renew semiprotection. Assorted IPs adding defamatory and racist content. [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk:Hertz1888|talk]]) 06:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
*{{RFPP|semi}} by [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]]. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 11:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

==== {{la|Anu Hasan}} ====
'''Temporary pending changes:''' Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism. Request PC for 3 months. [[User:Evano1van|Evano1van]]([[User_talk:Evano1van|எவனோ ஓருவன்]]) 05:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
:{{rfpp|pend|1 month}} Let's just try a shorter duration first to see how it goes. [[User:Ged UK|<font color="green">Ged</font>]][[User talk:Ged UK|<font color="orange">'''''UK'''''</font>&nbsp;]] 12:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


==== {{la|Gretchen Carlson}} ====
==== {{la|Gretchen Carlson}} ====

Revision as of 14:24, 6 September 2013

    Requests for page protection/Rolling archive
    Shortcuts

    This page contains a rolling archive of recent requests for page protection. This page is updated by a bot; please don't edit this page unless you are manually unarchiving a thread to continue a discussion. By default, any requests from the last 7 days can be viewed here, and older requests will be removed. Currently, no permanent archive of page protection requests is kept. To see older requests for page protection, you can search through the revision history of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

    06 September 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    05 September 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Temporary semi-protection: A new editor (User:Scoobydunk) is significantly altering the article based on a single source (a PBS documentary) and WP:OR arguing that an Indentured servant is a slave, therefore Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner in Virginia. That Johnson was is supported by the vast majority of historians. I have posted that I am rewriting the entire article and to wait until I have finished in a few days[1] but he has ignored this this making the rewrite difficult. See also the article Talk page and my own Talk page for his claims. Wayne (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    TheREALCableGuy target articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    04 September 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Indefinite full protection: Highly visible template – As much as I am loath to do it, it's time to snap the chains on this template. 22k transclusions [2] is too much and based on multiple editors reaching in and accidentally adjusting the template today I feel that the time is apt to lock the template down. Hasteur (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I guess there is no need of full protection now. But semi-protection should be given due thought, considering the meatpuppetry and may be block evasion. --SMS Talk 02:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[]
    Declined, At this stage, the IPs don't seem to be causing a major problem, so semi protection doesn't seem approrpriate. GedUK  11:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[]

    03 September 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    02 September 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    01 September 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Just to get it out of the way, Wifione's comment [4] following protection strongly suggests full protection was deliberate. Further there is plenty of reverting going on by both new editors, and old. Several editors who would not be effected by semi have made substantive content reverts. I can certainly see a justification for full protection, even if I wouldn't necessarily have done it myself. WP:RAAA counsels that an administrative actions should only be reversed with good cause, and I don't see anything here that would support unilaterally unprotecting the article. At which point, either you should convince Wifione to change it, or we should wait for the discussion at Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks#Is_such_a_high_protection_warranted.3F to reach consensus. Monty845 04:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[]
    Looks like a consensus to me. Also, Wifione has been unresponsive for 24 hours. --JFH (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[]
    I deleted Wifione's message because I misunderstood a comment at the end of it. That was my fault, and I apologize to Wifione for it. I have now restored it. I declined protection because that was my view at the time I was reviewing the history of the article. Although I could see the article history, I wasn't aware of some of the goings-on on the talk page about protection. In any event, I agree with Monty. I would not want to interfere with his decision absent an emergency or with his permission. It's true that he hasn't edited for a over a day, but I don't see any urgency at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[]
    There is quite clearly consensus for semiprotection - see Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks#Is_such_a_high_protection_warranted.3F. I see no reason why an administrator's action should override talk page consensus. Full protection for 24 hours to allow editors to cool down might have made sense, but the experienced editors who got overheated have had plenty of time to cool down by now IMHO. Please switch to semi-protection. (By the way, Wifione's statement "Please read the note above that lists out the process for the protection to be lifted" was quite confusing - it would have been better to say "Please look in the obvious places to search for the note..." or "Please click on 'view source'..." rather than pretending that the info was "above". ("above" meant the subsection immediately above - in such a long page, I missed it - I was wrong)) Boud (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (strike on my side comment) Boud (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[]
    I've just notified Wifione of this thread. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]
    No sign of Wikione's on-wiki presence since 43 hours ago. Boud (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]
    Sure, but it's good form to notify them in case they do log on before this request is actioned :) Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]
    In line with other suceh pages, semi-protestion is good enough. We did the same for Egypt's conflict recently and the IPs went away . Some conflict appears but non too hardsh that results in wars and lack of discussion.Lihaas (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]
    Can we please get this sorted out? There is much to do on this developing topic. Podiaebba (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]
    Translation into plain WP:admin-speak: Podiaebba is saying to admins, "Please drop this to semi-protection!" I'm fairly sure there is 100% consensus among editors on Talk:2013 Ghouta attacks and here in favour of dropping from full to semi-protection. I didn't notice anyone in favour of full protection. Even Lihaas and I seem to fully agree on this point ;). Apologies for the bold, but a somewhat hasty, well-intentioned act by one administrator should not be taken as an absolute order from above. How about a bit of WP:Wikipedia Spring here? Boud (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]
    I think this would be a good time to drop protection levels to SP. Its been nearly 72 hours and the talk page shows no indication of any new issues. It was the IP onslaught which didnt help reg eds' nerves. I think its sorted now. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Note: It was dropped to semi-protect.[5] ANI notice link — -dainomite   21:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Declined We don't lock pages from edits by everyone based on the questionable edits of one user. KrakatoaKatie 20:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    31 August 2013

    Temporary Semi-protection: Multiple IP vandalism. User was blocked, however changed IP. Article was recently protected for several days. Request another semi-block on article for two weeks. Msw1002 (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Changed to another IP with same vandalism and comment. Might need a one month semi-protection. Msw1002 (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]
    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 21:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – ;Chelsea Manning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Recently, someone requested a rename to "Private Manning". Therefore, I expect an extension of move-protection right away. Also, along with the recent decision to revert back to "Bradley", the administrator requested waiting no less than 30 days to request re-renaming to Chelsea. George Ho (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Already done. The indef move protection followed when the article was moved back to 'Bradley'. KrakatoaKatie 21:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Semi-protection - persistent vandalism and reversion by IP users.--Smerus (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Semi-protected for a period of three weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Your IP users are sockpuppets. KrakatoaKatie 21:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Unprotection: This article has been indefinitely semi-protected since July 2010. Most of the things that triggered vandalism have likely gone away, and it's not currently a high-profile page. I think the page should be unprotected. Heymid (contribs) 13:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Unprotected KrakatoaKatie 21:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 20:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There has been nonstop Vandalism. Bobherry talk 14:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 21:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Many, many unhelpful IP edits, please protect for a few days. JMHamo (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Semi-protected for a period of ten days , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 21:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs have been continuously removing sourced contents. Tolly4bolly 07:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Semi-protected for a period of ten days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 21:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Temporary semi-protection: This article is currently getting a lot of attention from zealous editors who wish to insert spoiler warnings, but who may not yet be privy to WP:SPOILER or Wikipedia's WP:NOTCENSORED policy. It's not epidemic, but I'm requesting a temporary block of 2 weeks or so against IP editors and non-autoconfirmed users, assuming that's a reasonable request in this case. There is an active discussion going on about how to incorporate spoiler plot details into this article. Thanks! . Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 21:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Long-term protection. Sockpuppetry resumed after unprotection. Nothing but addition of false information since 2010. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 20:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and sockpuppetry - Since the protection was removed, IPs and even auto-confirmed users (some of them are sockpuppets) are vandalising the article, and such disruptive activity is proving to be too hot to handle.----Jionpedia ✉ 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 20:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Since the protection has been removed, all the IPs have done is try to remove the killer from it. JDDJS (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Pending-changes protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 20:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Semi-protection: Article was protected and protection has recently been removed. There have been several edits in the last few hours, for instance changing 'dog' to 'doge'. After several edits to-ing and fro-ing, mainly by IPs, I reverted to most recent 'protected' version, which was promptly changed by another IP that (thankfully!) has just been reverted by by another editor. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

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

    Pending changes: For a long time now, a large percentage of the IP edits to this article have been time-wasting. Instead of semi-protection, pending changes would prevent the nonsense from going live.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please re-report if you change your mind and want to try semi-protection instead, as that would also be a good option here. Diannaa (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Numerous IP jumping vandals. Nymf (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Temporary semi-protection: A dynamic IP, going through several different ranges, is insisting on reinstating an older image in the infobox. Any chances of this being in good faith were destroyed in this edit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    User talk:Dumbfuxxor4 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Protection or reblock. Vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. Materialscientist (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Temporary semi-protection - Persistent unsourced speculation being added to the article as to the North American release date. Article was already semi-protected for this same reason earlier this month. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 23:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Note there's no record of previous protection; you must be thinking of a different article. Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Block evading user repeatedly posting inappropriate external video links. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 04:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indefinite semiprotection isn't really an option here, since the problems only started a couple of hours ago and the article has never been semiprotected before. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Temporary semi-protection Repeated vandalism from IP users [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and one non-autoconfirmed account [12], due to controversies during the current high-profile England–Australia cricket series, which will continue until 17 September. I suggest semi-protection until February 2014, as England are about to travel to Australia for a return series. (Back-to-back series like this are unusual; on average, teams only play each other once every two years or so.) Dricherby (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection., we do not proactively protect pages. GB fan 10:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Temporary semi-protection: Although vandalism has not been persistent yet, there have been vandal incidents. George Ho (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GB fan 10:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    30 August 2013

    Create protection: repeated recreation —rybec 01:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Done by Materialscientist. GB fan 10:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Pending changes: I requested protection a few days ago when one established editor kept removing the "Controversy" section from the article. Since then, at least two other accounts (which look to be new) have removed the section. Removal of the section is under discussion on the talk page, where there doesn't appear to be a consensus. —rybec 20:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Declined Admin Kww has blocked the new accounts as sockpuppets and is watching events unfold. Protection is likely not necessary right now. Diannaa (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Unprotection: Not on the main page anymore, or alternatively add {{Featured picture|Moore tornado}} to the page. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Unprotected Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Within the past year (the last ~50 edits), over 80% were vandalism and edits reverting vandalism. Vladimir (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GB fan 22:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Temporary semi-protection Vandalism - IP 2.218.174.153 removing important information to the article. Pedro J. [talk] 16:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. This looks like a content dispute. GedUK  19:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism on a high-profiled artist releasing a VERY highly-profiled and anticipated studio album this fall, and is likely to fall victim of IP attacks and incorrect changes to article, especially due to the artist's public persona changes and high criticisms. livelikemusic my talk page! 14:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Good edits are also coming from IPs and new users. Pages like this help us attract new editors. Please re-report with sample diffs if/when the situation worsens. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Temporary full protection - Two editors duking it out deleting each other's edits, not talking on the the talk page, and filing complaints about each other on AN/I. Full protection to get them talking to each other to work out some compromises -- there's nothing so egregiously bad about either's version of the article that it will be a disservice to our readers. Once the protection runs out, if they start up again, some attention-getting blocks might be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Fully protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent IP vandalism. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 02:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I'm just not seeing it. Please re-report with diffs if you disagree. Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Semi-protection: Just like Miley's twerking, the high amount of IP vandalism shows no signs of slowing down. There have been numerous instances of false track titles being added, in addition to the removal of sourced, relevant material. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Good edits are also coming from IPs and new users. Pages like this help us attract new editors. Please re-report with sample diffs if/when the situation worsens. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive&oldid=571784191"