Two week semi-protection: Persistent removal of sourced content by IP-hopping unregistered editor(s), despite
attempt to resolve through discussion. Two recent one-week stints of semi-protection for the same problem (
here,
here). --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk)
16:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I usually would decline a request with an edit history similar to this one because unsourced additions are relatively infrequent (1 or 2 a week); yet, I understand the frustration of having to continuously deal with edits that are consistently bad. I'm protecting for a short time.
Airplaneman ✈16:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Got dynamic IPs continually adding dodgy health information in this drug & downplaying the serious potential harms.
Alexbrn (
talk)
06:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Until consensus can be reached on talk page. Lack of input in discussions at
WT:NFL has prevented consensus from being reached for months now, so edit warring rages on.
Lizard (
talk)
17:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Various IP users changing the year range in the Television section of the article for Hale's role on Pretty Little Liars (from "2010-present" to "2010-2017" or something similar). Recently, it was announced that the TV series was ending on Freeform, with the finale airing in 2017, but to change the year(s) Hale was involved in the show from "2010-present" to "2010-2017" is premature, per
WP:CRYSTAL.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
18:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined. I see why you might predict it, but so far, so good. There has been some IP vandalism, but also some positive changes from IPs.
Yaris678 (
talk)
22:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Create protection: Favorite creation targets of a blocked sockpuppeteer - editing on these articles has occurred very recently, resulting in two SPIs just yesterday.
MSJapan (
talk)
18:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm thinking it best to Declined this request. Not because there's something necessarily wrong with it, but because it looks like you're describing a perfect
Honeypot (computing) — if the user's giving away his own sockpuppets by recreating these pages, I'm not thinking it's a good idea to protect the pages and thus prevent him from self-identifying his sockpuppets for us. I'm not pretending to make this a "final answer"; leave a response here (and ping me), or chat with me at my talk page, and I'll consider your words, or if another admin wants to protect them, I'll not complain.
Nyttend (
talk)
20:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – This page has been the subject of a slow moving campaign by what seems to be one user on multiple IPs, to add unsourced content about the subject. A discussion has been open on the talk page but the IP seems unwilling to enrage in discussion beyond repeated assertions that their additions are true. I'm hoping a semi-prot will encourage them to do more than a drive-by revert and a token "it's true" on the talk page. .
CrowCaw21:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Requesting extended pending changes protection to this article. The Gun Laws portion of the article has been removed several times over the last month and appears contentious. Pending changes would preserve article integrity. --
Dane2007talk02:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected. Please explain why you want to keep that content on the article's talk page and engage in a discussion with the other users.
Yaris678 (
talk)
11:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Multiple IPs are changing the value for the population. This seems to be linked to the recent presidentail election in that country.
McSly (
talk)
21:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 Week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. 1 week given that one of the major recent contributors is an IP, and this will also lock them out. If disruption continues, a longer period can be tried out.
Vanamonde (
talk)
18:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Extremely high level of IP vandalism.
Oshwah declined on the 29th August, something I find inexplicable, given that at that point, there were 10 different IP editors who had vandalised the page 25 times between them last month alone; in fact the entire first page of edit history is nothing but vandalism and reverting vandalism. Almost as if to prove my point, the page has been vandalised 8 times today alone by 5 different IP editors. I therefore ask that a different admin look at semi-protecting this page. I'll also assume good faith and presume that Oshwah was veering on the side of new admin caution that day. :)
jcc (
tea and biscuits)
18:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Thank you,
Vanamonde! Yes, definitely needed protection. For the record,
jcc, yes I was siding with caution. I thought the edits had stopped which is why I thought it shouldn't be protected. Looking now, this is a clear case where it is needed. I apologize; I'm still learning! :-)
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)19:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined BRD isn't a policy (but 3RR is!) If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle. This looks like a content dispute between two users and I don't think semi-protection is appropriate.
Airplaneman ✈14:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Now and then, a few IP users make stupid edits (like misinterpreting sources; recently an IP user changed growth rate of Hinduism from 16.8% to -0.7%. -0.7% was change in percentage of Hinduism from 80.5% to 79.8%. Although percentage declined, the number of Hindus increased showing positive growth rate of 16.8%; same info is mentioned in the source in the end which these stupid IPs don't care to see properly.) which are not easily tracked since the article is a long one. Please semi-protect this page for at least one week.
Vibhss (
talk)
11:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – More IP's disruptively editing the page, seems to be one person using multiple IP's. I requested this page to be protected on Tuesday but the result was that users were blocked, but this hasn't helped as the vandal came back. I'm asking for Indefinite because this has been going on since February. Class455 (
talk)15:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Class455, I have semi-protected this for a month given that there is certainly disruptive editing going on by multiple IPs, and yet it is not a clear cut case of vandalism, and there have also been several constructive edits there from IPs in the past. I would suggest trying to open a discussion with this editor, and explaining to them why their edits are inappropriate. Regards,
Vanamonde (
talk)
16:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Class455: I understand that this can be frustrating, but when I look at the talk page of the article and those of the IPs, there does not seem to be much evidence of discussion: just a bunch of warnings. Moreover, there have been recent constructive contributions by IPs, and I'd rather not shut those out unless I have to. If the disruption continues despite an attempt to discuss this, another request would be seen quite differently. Regards,
Vanamonde (
talk)
17:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Vanamonde93 I was considering pending changes, but this would still involve reverting edits, and would cause slight disruption (seeing edits constantly being rejected). If they send in an edit request, we will discover why the IP wants to keep making this change. Class455 (
talk)17:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: This is module is used on over 3100 articles. There should be some level of protection for it, as an IP has just tried to make undiscussed changes to the module. Starting with semi, before going to full. .
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
16:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Requesting page protection for a week. Subject is involved in a political scandal and hence the edits on his page have increased. There have been several attempts to add uncited and un-encyclopedic material on his page. Thanks. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Over the course of the past few months several IPs and perhaps sockpuppets/alternative accounts have been adding unsourced information. There have also been copyright violation issues since November 2015. Myself and other editors have gone out of our way to revert these additions but whoever is adding them appears to keep returning with other IPs and accounts. In short, an indefinite protection on this page is required.
Zerotalk12:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined, I only see one sock on this page. Their behavior is borderline for me, but they should either be blocked or left posting what they want, I do not currently see any reason to protect the page.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
07:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism involving inserting slurs (e.g. "gee bag" and variants). Mostly this has been done by anonymous IP addresses, but two registered users have also vandalised the page.
Autarch (
talk)
01:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection with Admin watchlist: This is the second request for page protection on a contentious article complicated by multiple experienced editors and administrators participating. In theory a full protection does not fully apply here since the participants include administrators who are now editing over and against an open RFC in which they are participating. I am now requesting that the protection status of the page remain at its current protection level since it is already protected, though one neutral administrator may put the main page on administrator watchlist to ensure that no editor and especially no participating administrator edit the main page while the RFC is still open, and in which administrators are participating. I shall notify all four of these editors on their Talk pages to wait the normal 30-day period for the RFC process to run its course until it is closed, and then follow the close instructions as indicated by the closing RFC editor. This is a special request being made with some reluctance only because this is the second time that the main page there has gone through a full melt-down with massive section blanking. Requesting here that a neutral administrator watchlist the Jane Austen main page while the RFC is in progress.
Fountains-of-Paris (
talk)
16:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm not taking administrative action here, but I encourage the reviewing admin to dismiss this request. Fountains-of-Paris doesn't seem to know what page protection is for. They want editors to completely stop editing the page while they run an RFC on citation style, and they are reverting multiple people at this time. --
Laser brain(talk)17:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The article sections which are being section blanked have included the edits of multiple participating editors who have edited the article main page such as Tim riley and J Milburn. Their edits are also subject to this section blanking being done without consensus on the Talk page.
Fountains-of-Paris (
talk)
17:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Fountains-of-Paris appears to have taken ownership of
Jane Austen, and not in the positive sense of stewardship. There are significant problems in the article. On two occasions when someone has tried to fix them (first
Victoriaearle, then me—in each case with the agreement of other editors), FoP has reverted and requested page protection. See his RfPP from
22 August; pinging
Iridescent and
Ritchie333, who responded to that request.
SarahSV(talk)18:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
No ownership here of any kind, and over the past several months I have been very open to nearly everyone who wanted to edit the GA article since it went through the GA process with Tim riley months ago. The current issues with Sarah appear to have started with Ling and Victoria lighting a fuse for CITEVAR during the FA nomination of the article two weeks ago apparently with the intention of ending the FA nomination, which Laser then did end and close. All of these editors have been asked to make their edits and enhancements either off-line or in their sandboxes, and then to offer them as regular normal process contributions when ready while the CITEVAR issue was being addressed. This had been offered when they requested it, and then they rejected it immediately followed with large section blanking of the article main body, last week done by Victoria and yesterday done by Sarah. Of course editors can contribute to enhancing and improving the article in the normal process of editing, that would be in the spirit of the late Wadewitz the original author from many years ago. But not section blanking over and over again, especially when an RFC has been opened by me last week to prevent this very issue from re-occurring. Since the section blanking has now recurred, this time by an administrator, I have requested the special watchlist oversight of this article by a neutral administrator until the normal RFC process runs its normal course to completion.
Fountains-of-Paris (
talk)
18:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined Semi-protection is not the answer for a such a content dispute; what good would it do? I've tangentially followed this dispute since the last RFPP report and honestly don't think that this is the right place to bring it. And what good would a neutral admin watching the page do? If I were the neutral admin, what would my response be? Revert any edits made?
Revert to what? I'd encourage everyone to slow down here. I know how disheartening it can be when you spend many hours making an article "better" only to be disagreed with by (an)other, equally passionate editor(s). It's tough, but RFPP won't make it any easier.
Airplaneman ✈19:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined@
Koconder: The problem here is something semi-protection won't solve for very long, as a soon-to-be autoconfirmed user (
User:MarcCerr) is responsible for the edits I believe you're referring to. I'd suggest speaking with MarcCerr to let them know what's going on. Also paging
User:Velella, who has been involved in editing this article.
Airplaneman ✈14:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Request full page protection until the current AfD has been closed. This article has been the subject of highly contentious editing including attempts to blank most of it and persistent resistance to efforts to restore material deleted under highly controversial circumstances. See the talk page and
related ANI discussion.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
16:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Not to sound ungrateful but you protected a recently "blanked" version - so the the version they're voting on at AfD is neither the one editors wanting to "keep" wanted or editors wanting to "delete" didn't. Can you restore it or maybe unprotect it so others can until the vote's ended? I think the requestor's goal was that we vote on a stable version.
James J. Lambden (
talk)
17:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite Semi-protection: I'm the bot operator of
User:GreenC bot which runs under AWB thus the bot is halted whenever someone posts on the bot's talk page. The notice at the top of the page says this, but it has become an invitation for IP editors who think it would be clever to cause the bot to halt for no good reason.
[4][5] They can always post on my talk page as described at the top of the page. If indefinite is too long this current job will take up to 8 weeks to complete (assuming the bot isn't halted too much).
GreenC16:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Being used as a sandbox again. Not even a used IP, so could the page be permanently protected?. Also perhaps a rangeblock, since the edits are being done by a specific IP set (203.87.129.xxx) ‖
Ebyabetalk -
Welfare State ‖
06:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Pending changes protection: Both pages are semi-protected and still users keep adding the unconfirmed news. Request to upgrade the protection to pending changes.
Coderzombie (
talk)
19:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined@
Montanabw: It looks like a content dispute that semiprotection won't solve. Seeing as it looks like 1 user vs many, I'm not inclined to full protect quite yet; if reversion keeps happening, a block may be in order.
Airplaneman ✈00:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.:Pending-changes protected Indefinitely, because there have been a number of previous protections, and the vandalism keeps restarting. If a number of constructive changes come in from new users, we can reconsider the PC protection.
Vanamonde (
talk)
06:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection - there's a sock at it again which has this article as a perennial target. I'll be gonig to the blacklist as well to try to avoid figuring out every iteration of the title.
MSJapan (
talk)
03:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent soapboxing by IP-hopping unregistered editor, unsupportedly labeling NTSB as "neo-prohibitionist" despite repeated cautions and reversions by other editors. .
TJRC (
talk)
23:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
clarification: I should have labelled this "content-dispute/edit-warring" or "disruptive editing"; opinions may vary on whether it rises to the level of "vandalism".
TJRC (
talk)
23:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of disruptive edits by IPs since around June of this year; such disruption has recently increased. IPs typically refute arguments brought up on the article's talk page and resort to edit warring rather than detailed discussion. –
Matthew - (
talk)
04:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined This appears to fundamentally be a content dispute, and there is not much evidence of bad faith on either side. If the edit-war resumes then full-protection might be an option: but if your complaint is that that IP is edit-warring instead of discussing things, then
WP:ANEW might be a more appropriate venue.
Vanamonde (
talk)
16:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: A while after the protection expired they were back, using a different IPv4, IPv6 or newly registered new every time. Longer protection is needed. Same as on
Sephardi Jews, which was protected yeserday for a month. I am at a loss why these guys keep coming back for the not to important reason of changing population numbers.
Debresser (
talk)
19:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Of concern is a couple of recent changes made by IPv6 users to the date of his death, which occurred last year.
[7][8] I recall this flip-flopping of dates shortly after he died, for a few weeks, since the sources were differing on the date itself, but afterward (and for the last 11 months+), this part of the article stayed pretty stable, leaving his death date on August 29, 2015. (The relevant topic on the talk page is at
Talk:Wayne Dyer#What date did Dyer die, August 29 or 30, 2015?).
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
14:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of Indefinite, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. High profile individual. Numerous temporary semi-protections over the years have been ineffective. Disruptive edits/vandalism only resume upon expiration of the temporary protections.
— Maile (
talk)
13:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Seems to be the target of someone associated with this college, after their username was blocked they seem to now be using a floating IP, has not responded to messages or being blocked.
331dot (
talk)
12:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There is a mix of well-intentioned edits from new accounts, and occasional tests: not enough genuinely disruptive activity, in my view, to protect right now.
Vanamonde (
talk)
07:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There haven't been unsourced additions of a problematic nature on this page that I can see.
Vanamonde (
talk)
07:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary protection: One IP was blocked for deleting info w/o explaination, now a second is doing the same. Please restore content?
Jim1138 (
talk)
09:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined@
KATMAKROFAN: Looks like it's one problematic user:
184.97.174.74 (
talk·contribs). Please warn users on their talk pages when you see this kind of editing to provide clear instruction. Edit summary explanations are nice but often awkward and easy to overlook. For continual disrpution, warnings also provide evidence that direct intervention hasn't worked and that blocking is necessary. As it stands, I'll warn the IP user in question on their talk page about these edits and encourage you to do the same in the future. I'm declining this request because 1) I believe there was insufficient communication of why the edits were wrong 2) page protection isn't the best way to ward off vandalism involving only one user and 3) it seems like the IP has moved on. Please let me know if the IP continues and I'll be glad to issue a short-term block.
Airplaneman ✈04:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There has not been a constructive edit from a new user or anon IP in months, it's just a steady stream of drive-by vandals and a waste of editor time reverting them.
Montanabw(talk)06:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
WP:BLP vio by IP-hopping anon IP who removes one of two
WP:RS cites for a disputed birth date (that given by a sports team that hired the subject), leaving unexplained POV choice of the other date. No discussion despite being told about
WP:BRD procedure. Whenever an article involves someone on the TV shows The Bachelor or The Bachelorette, these type of hit-and-run fannish edits often flare up. --
Tenebrae (
talk)
06:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Recent trading news or something like that. Too much vandalism by new editors and ips. A couple of days protection semi would be enough.
Lourdes14:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continuous addition of false cast members and character names by few members, who are clearly
WP:NOTHERE to edit constructively. I have reported them, especially JoannaPaul for
WP:AIV, but I want protection on this article also. —
IB[
Poke ]20:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Already protected by administrator Airplaneman. Already semi-protected: full protection would lock the bunch of you out, and I don't see the disruption as being severe enough for that right now. One of the users is blocked: another was already warned, and I've warned the third.
Vanamonde (
talk)
06:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Since new outbreaks are making headlines, there has begun a spate of edits without any sourcing, adding numbers to the case counts, trying to stick in every scrap of news that comes along. —
Gorthian (
talk)
06:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – IPs are edit warring over a word, Told both to take it to the talkpage and was simply reverted by of the IP warrers, Thanks. –
Davey2010Talk02:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
2-week semi-protection-persistent IP vandalism from
67.81.195.86. This user has been blocked 3 times for essentially the same reason: inserting problematic images without discussion and after repeated warnings. The 3rd block is now expired, and I fear he may begin vandalizing again, creating more work for me and others. These pages are some of his favorites to vandalize. We can't semi-protect all of the other pages just because of him, but by taking care of these, we may finally be able to discourage him.
Display name 99 (
talk)
18:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Pending changes protected (level 2) for 3 months: The page is semi-protected but the users are still adding unconfirmed news. Please increase the protection.
Coderzombie (
talk)
19:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent long-term vandalism by Canadian IPs, adding deliberate errors in titles, book isbn's, publication dates, hiding bad edits inside ostensibly constructive edits. Page has been protected before.
Keri (
talk)
23:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – This article has been protected three times since May. Every time protection runs out the vandalism (by both IPs and new users) returns. Permanent PC1 still allows useful contributions while robbing vandals of visibility. I might add that
CGPGrey has egged-on this behavior on his podcast (the subject of the article) so this behavior isn't going to stop anytime soon. Chris Troutman (
talk)23:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – This article has been vandalized seven times in the past four years. Every time protection runs out the vandalism returns. Permanent PC1 still allows useful contributions while robbing vandals of visibility. The subject's career is going to continue to attract vandals so it won't end anytime soon. Chris Troutman (
talk)23:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Already protected.. The article is already under semi-protection and move protection until March 2017. There was one disruptive move made in July by an autoconfirmed user, who has since been blocked.
MelanieN (
talk)
22:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Despite current PC protection it is being vandalized @
NeilN: Now should we go for semi again. That IP's edits had gone live I could see them while logged out also. PC has been unsuccessful here. VarunFEB200315:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined So far as I can tell, there has been only one instance of vandalism since the PC protection was applied, and that, after all, is what pending changes is for: that edit never went live. If the vandalism becomes persistent enough (again) that it becomes more of a nuisance to reviewers, then maybe semi-protection will be worthwhile.
Vanamonde (
talk)
18:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: As soon as the protection expired they were back, using a different IPv4, IPv6 or newly registered new every time. Longer protection is needed. I am at a loss why these guys keep coming back for the not too important reason of changing population numbers. Any ideas what to do with this case?
Debresser (
talk)
22:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
FleetCommand, what the hell are you doing? What I asked you was a second opinion, not assistance in starting a full-scale edit war! Haven't the number of blocks in your block log taught you not to engage in mutual counter-reverting? I told you I need to clear my mind so as to start a talk page discussion. Couldn't you wait until then?
You said you needed more evidence to prove this the same guy that chases you around Wikipedia. I only made a revert just to make him accuse me of meat puppetry as he always does and as no one else ever has. That's your similarity evidence. And please get back on the messenger. This method of communication is very uncomfortable.
FleetCommand (
Speak your mind!)
13:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
No need for protection. Provided that
Codename Lisa starts the above referred to discussion rather than practicing
WP:OWN and insisting everyone but her must engage in discussion, I will stand down. Otherwise, you should probably block me and place the entire wikipedia under full-protection.
2601:5C2:201:9CD:B44A:F209:FDBC:AE06 (
talk)
13:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
You have violated
WP:3RR. This means that if a fourth person arrives and announces his disagreement with a revert, you will just counter-revert. You have by now proven that you don't even know how to discuss. Want me to prove it with another revert?
FleetCommand (
Speak your mind!)
13:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Repeated addition of an unsourced living person - caste claims require self-identification.
Sitush (
talk)
12:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: This is a commonly edited article by IPs, and often their edits get reverted (most recently for spam) and it is likely to remain this way as it is a household name in places where HP is popular like South Asia.
<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (
talk)
01:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There were a couple of disruptive IP edits yesterday, which I think takes it a bit above the threshold for PC (which is generally, but not always, isolated disruptive edits over an extended period). If there are still problems after the week is up, pop back here and we'll look at pending changes.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection, I would make it a month (I can't do is per
WP:INVOLVED). Anon adding tendentious material to the lede of an article on a quack therapy. Anon is at 3RR today. Material was originally added by a
WP:SPA (which would also be caught by semi protection as the user was not autoconfirmed). Guy (
Help!)
08:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Anon is now at 4 reverts. Investigation shows the content he's pushing to be sourced from an
OMICS Group journal and other worthless sources, so this is clearly POV-pushing. Guy (
Help!)
08:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Long term semi: Looking at the history, pending changes has been an unnecessary time sink, as all or nearly all activity since it was instituted on 05AUG have been unconstructive edits and reversion.
TimothyJosephWood11:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP edit warring to make this an article, despite several reverts by different editors. Has been invited to discuss on talk page but hasn't done so.
Boleyn (
talk)
06:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Long-term semi-protection: Article was created in late July and has been already been protected four times. Protection came off two days ago and has already been subject to disruptive IP editing.
LM2000 (
talk)
17:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – An IP is repeatedly "splitting" an oscar category in the article, to create 6 wins out of five:
[13]. This is fully explained at
Talk:Doctor_Zhivago_(film)#Art_Direction.2FSet_Decoration. I would say that this is closer to vandalism than a content dispute because the official oscar site is crystal clear that the art direction and set direction are two components of the same category. The IP just keps reverting and refuses to discuss on the talk page.
Betty Logan (
talk)
16:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from various IPs. The article is being changed to include non-neutral language such as "terorist", and most recently "[they] murder children".
GhostOfNoMeme (
talk)
20:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Some IPs seem to be adding unconstructive inaccurate edits recently, it maybe one person. I am hoping a two week page protection will send them away. .
Govvy (
talk)
10:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The club moved to the Hive Stadium in Edgware, they train there and operate from there. The club use to be in Chipping Barnet but are no longer there. Three different IPs have made edits saying the club is in Barnet still when they are not.
Govvy (
talk)
11:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Note:VarunFEB2003, you've made similar requests before. Please explain how this meets
WP:UPROT? "User pages and subpages can be protected upon a simple request from the user, as long as a need exists—pages in userspace should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected."
NeilNtalk to me12:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – It seems that defamatory content is being added by unregistered users
[14] and either the subject or some one close to the subject is complaining
[15]. I recommend semi-protection for an extended period while we try to clean up and develop proper content. .
Kautilya3 (
talk)
14:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I see some instances of unsourced additions that could be considered
WP:BLP violations. The rate of editing is relatively slow and I think pending changes will allow for better edit filtering.
Airplaneman ✈15:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – This article has a long history of edit warring by throwaway SPAs and anon IPs, who keep inserting a large amount of unsourced POV claims. The edits are months or sometimes even years apart, going back to 2009, depending on how long their edits have remained in the article. The disruption continues as of last week. I seem to be the only person who watches this article. We need permanent pending changes to prevent periodic and ongoing vandalism and disruption. Temporary won't help.
GigglesnortHotel (
talk)
14:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. Editor(s) from a number of IP addresses continually altering player's statistics (to make them appear falsely positive).
Macosal (
talk)
06:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
SummerPhDv2.0: In the future, consider posting directly on the various IPs' talk pages as well to point them towards the article talk page discussion.
Airplaneman ✈16:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Anonymous editors ("IPs") keep adding commercial/unreliable sources over and over again since March 2015 --Usien6msg •
his14:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Perhaps a week of temp protection... Three times recreated within the last two days.
Lourdes15:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined Whilst the ARB motion is clear, the remedies say that it may be enforced by various methods, of which PP is one. However, looking at the edit history of this specific article, I don't believe that protection is necessary in this case at this time.
GedUK12:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined Whilst the ARB motion is clear, the remedies say that it may be enforced by various methods, of which PP is one. However, looking at the edit history of this specific article, I don't believe that protection is necessary in this case at this time.
GedUK12:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined Whilst the ARB motion is clear, the remedies say that it may be enforced by various methods, of which PP is one. However, looking at the edit history of this specific article, I don't believe that protection is necessary in this case at this time.
GedUK12:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection An anonymous editor insists on deleting content that multiple users agree should not be deleted. The page should be semi-protected until the anonymous editor learns to listen to other users and that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. –
PeeJay22:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined Whilst the ARB motion is clear, the remedies say that it may be enforced by various methods, of which PP is one. However, looking at the edit history of this specific article, I don't believe that protection is necessary in this case at this time.
GedUK12:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The article itself is semi-protected, but I don't see any recent disruption on the article's talk page to warrant a need for protection at this time.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)11:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Long-term abuse by IPs range from 60 that persistently adding arms foreign suppliers with random countries without giving any valid references. The IPs also doing the same to
Royal Brunei Armed Forces article and I suggest both articles should be protected for a definite of time from further disruptions.
Molecule Extraction (
talk)
10:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Only two edits have been made to the page over the last few days, with the previous edits made in July 2016. There doesn't seem to be a high volume of disruptive editing to justify protection at this time.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)11:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Previously semi'd for 6 months and the problem has returned - addition of unsourced items in the list and deviations from how the source describes certain groups.
Sitush (
talk)
07:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Long-term issues including IP's continuously adding uncited content and modifies other nformation, does not provide edit summary.
Esw01407 (
talk)
01:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Plain old edit warring. I've warned one party and I think the other ought to know better, but both editors appear to have broken 3RR.
clpo13(
talk)03:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Could I ask that PC be applied to all these articles, Some IP seems to have an obsession with changing names to incorrect ones and despite being warne etc they've just come back under a new IP and continued from where they've left off, The vandalism hasn't occurred on all of the BB articles yet just those above, Thanks,. –
Davey2010Talk13:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – protect this article for 6 months - addition of unsourced content and removal of sourced content- high level of IP vandalism
ktrtrs (
talk)
08:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Wow, the article history is almost solely vandalism and reverts. I've left the indef pending changes on the page; let's see how it is in 1 year's time.
Airplaneman ✈19:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: High level of persistent IP vandalism to the article. Requesting a one week semi-protection, or at least through 12 September due to persistent vandalism.
Ppt1973 (
talk)
18:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Tempoary semi-protection: Repeated removal of flags from article (vandalism) by one autoconfirmed and two IPs - likely same person.
Jim1138 (
talk)
16:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This looks like a content dispute. I understand one party has been blocked for edit warring and it's highly possible that they're editing anonymously. I'll make a post on the talk page and notify involved users to attempt mediation.
Airplaneman ✈16:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: As Donald Trumps Talk page is protected this Talk page should be protected until election is over to prevent BLP issues and violations of 1RR. Flow 234 (Nina)talk11:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: persistent removal of sourced content by various IP addresses. I am personally involved content-wise, else would protect myself.
Vanamonde (
talk)
04:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Recreated thrice in the past three days. A week or less protection should suffice.
Lourdes04:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Recreated twice in the past three days. Combined with
Baloch rukhsani, which has also been recreated thrice in the past three days (and is reported above), a week or less protection should suffice here.
Lourdes04:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page appears to be a magnet for IP editors and newly-registered editors who make their first and only edit here, usually in incomprehensibly poor English.
PamD17:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – requesting temporary semi-protection due to recent wave of vandalism, addition of unsourced content and most probably an imaginative plot as the film hasn't released yet. -
Managerarc™
talk23:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Question: Can I have a second opinion? There are many edits by IPs, but many appear to be content-related, some are constructive, and not a large amount of disruption. Protecting would lock out those that are trying to constructively edit. I'm leaning to decline but I'd like to have a second look by someone else. Thanks :-)
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Oshwah: I would apply a brief semi-protection here, because though the edits are in good faith, the edits are causing disruption. Many of them are plot related, and the movie has not been released, so these are by definition OR.
Vanamonde (
talk)
05:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite Semi-protection: I have always asked for temporary, but am asking for indefinite here. This article has been subject (in waves) to intense promotional pressure from editors affiliated with the organization, as you can see in the header of the Talk page. This has included socking, etc. There is an IP editor who showed up today who is making the same edits that past editors made. Can we please indefinitely semi-protect? Thanks.
Jytdog (
talk)
19:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected Indefinitely. I would not usually jump to indef, but the promotional activity seems to have been going on for long enough, and is severe enough, that it is justified in this case.
Vanamonde (
talk)
05:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined In 2016, the only edits from users who aren't extended confirmed were constructive. If others want to play the blanket "you can't edit this page" game such as
this, I'm not going to fight them... I however am not playing that game and refuse to protect pages merely because other related topics had at some point in the past experienced considerable disruption. This page has not, therefore it should remain open — MusikAnimaltalk21:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined Same as before. We aren't "required" to apply protection, much less extended confirmed, and here we've had but a handful of edits over the past year. This by any standard does not qualify for page protection — MusikAnimaltalk21:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Long-term semi-protection: Persistent disruption and BLP violations by IP editors since the last 6-month semi-protection expired on 4 September 2016. --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk)
19:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Extended confirmed wouldn't seem to help here. Even six months semi is excessive for the disruption I'm seeing here, but okay... — MusikAnimaltalk22:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined I'm seeing good edits as well as bad; I don't think that protection should be applied just because there's a high IP edit rate and some of the edits are questionable.
Airplaneman ✈17:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Persistent
vandalism – Plenty of vandals (all socks of an UnderArmourKid, it appears) seem to like blanking the page and replacing it with "NASCAR'S Biggest mistake.", among others. NFLisAwesome (
ZappaOMati)
19:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Continuous to and fro editing re her upcoming loss of number 1 ranking. Rankings will not change until September 12 but multiple IPs are attempting to incorrectly update her current ranking from No. 1 to No 2.
Meters (
talk)
18:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This obscure page should be indefinitely semi protected, as it is constant place of nationalistic battleground reverts. Or at least for a very long time, as we cannot constantly ask for protection.
Axiomus (
talk)
12:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Note: I'm inclined ot semiprotect articles such as this one indefinitely. This one exhibits all the signs of chronic vandalism but isn't edited too frequently. In the past year, the article has been edited a little over 100 times, with the majority of those edits being vandalism and vandalism reverts. Yet, the article has only ever been protected over short chunks of time. Does the editing history of the article put it under the category "not enough activity to justify protection"? With such a high percentage of vandalism, I'm not sure pending changes would do much good. I feel that I may be on the more liberal side when it comes to applying protection to articles and would appreciate others' thoughts on this matter before making a decision.
Airplaneman ✈04:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed:BLP policy violations – Can we get either auto-confirmed or semi protection on this article till Sep 12? It's a BLP of a player who will likely become #1 on Monday when sourced rankings come out on Monday morning. Every anon IP and new user seems to want to edit it prematurely... and it's going to get worse if she wins on Saturday.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
07:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Serious BLP violations and blanking, clearly by editors related to the subject or to
John Naisbitt University which also needs protection. This appears to be revenge editing based on partisan sources. I rewrote the material in both articles covering the problems with Jovanovic to use much better sources earlier.
Doug Wellertalk13:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary read-only-protection: High level of vandalism from both sides due to the ongoing Kashmir conflict. I can't find the last good version without material removed, perhaps you can.
Kintetsubuffalo (
talk)
00:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined, the article is being actively edited, and there is (almost) no discussion at the talk page.
User:Kentansg is the article creator, and they should be best involved in the discussion.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
06:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Agree that semi-protection is needed; possibly indefinite but would suggest at least a year since this article has been an ongoing target by socks. --
Dane2007talk01:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Agree that semi-protection is needed; possibly indefinite but would suggest at least a year since this article has been an ongoing target by socks. --
Dane2007talk01:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High traffic page that attracts vandalism and disruptive editing on a near daily basis. It has been protected in the past for this very reason. DarkKnight214900:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism, deletion of sources and sourced content by a hopping IP. The article was protected for 7 days in early August for the same behavior by the same hopping 2a02:c7d:*:* IP, but the user has returned, ignoring restoration of content by multiple editors. An invitation to discuss any concerns on
Talk:Manipur has been ignored by the IP since early August. Requesting a temporary semi-protection for 1 month, a bit longer than last time.
Ms Sarah Welch (
talk)
21:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. We can't say if the IP vandalizer in the article will go back to vandalize it again. Look at the article history on how it was vandalized by several IP users. Just to be sure that it will not be vandalized it again, please grant the indefinite Semi-protection. ~Manila's PogingJuan13:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Vandalism isn't all that frequent, but it's definitely there. I do see some good faith additions by IPs and new users so I'd like to keep that as an option through Pending Changes.
Airplaneman ✈14:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined Looks like a case of edit warring where only one of the parties involved is unregistered/new. Semi-protecting would give an impression of favouring one party over the other.
MikeLynch (
talk)
09:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined I would suggest
Assuming good faith and explaining why exactly you think this is linkspam (because, prima facie, it doesn't look like there's an explicit bad intention). Of course, if it continues, and in bad faith, feel free to report.
MikeLynch (
talk)
09:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: A vandal is using multiple IPs to spam the article with nonsense revolving around unrelated mobile games, despite having been reverted several times by
DangerousJXD. The vandal even did the same to DangerousJXD's userpage once (
[16],
[17]). DarkKnight214905:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Due to persistent, long-term IP and new user vandalism on almost a daily basis. Prior attempts at short-term, semi-protection have proven ineffective.
X4n6 (
talk)
03:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: A certain IP user (184.100.90.255) continues to vandalise the article by adding "Taylor Majeres" (who I imagine is the user himself) as a member of the collective. I reckon semi-protection for about 2 weeks would help.
Davykamanzi →
talk •
contribs •
alter ego05:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent BLP vandalism. One or another variant of a complaint about a named individual has had to be reverted more than 10 times since 31 August 2016. Would a 10-day duration wear out this abuser's patience?.
—jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)07:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism by IP (45.118.244.18). Since the IP is expected to change, request you to protect the page instead of just blocking the user. The user seems to be removing genuine information from this article. Since the vandalism is persistent, but slow, request a long term protection for the article. —
LeoFrank Talk15:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism/warring. I made a request for this just a few days ago, but the IP was just blocked instead. I predicted that it wouldn't help, and indeed, they're just back with another IP now.
CodeCat (
talk)
23:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism and poor edits by anonymous editors are now continuous. Presumably this will continue until November. Protecting from anonymous editors until after the election would be good.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
23:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite / Temporary semi-protection: Page was page protect for a long period of time until it was lifted not too long ago. This player gets a high amount of media attention and is subject to ongoing vandalism on his page; especially today as he is making his debut for his new club. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★20:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined There has been only one edit since the page was unprotected. I have warned the user: if disruption continues, please report this again, and protection may be considered.
Vanamonde (
talk)
13:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and addition of unsourced content from multiple IPs, ignoring comment in article and repeated requests to not add information without a source.
Cwmxii (
talk)
15:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism taking place. Article already lost GA status once due to heavy disruptions. Editors unable to monitor the article. Urgent action required.--
Øystein.Eide (
talk)
13:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Another Gaelic warrior in the ring to fight the long standing consensus that the English language uses English names instead of Irish names. Editwar looming / content dispute. The Bannertalk09:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Oh please. This user makes a large deletion on the page without consensus, and keeps reverting me when I impose common practice on WP. Also, he harasses me on my talk page with irrelevant user warning templates. I have explicitly made a section for resolving the dispute on the talk page, but he hasn't written anything there yet. Ignore his proposal.
It's terrible that you resort to blatant lies to defend your case. You made the first action, a deletion in [21] without any prior discussion. The infobox contains key informations, and is thus of large importance to the article. You need consensus to make these deletions. I reverted you and encouraged you to discuss this at the talk page, because you need the consensus of the WP community to make deletions of this scale. Also, you shouldn't spam my talk page because you're offended, it's not constructive and will certainly not defend your case. --
80.63.3.167 (
talk)
12:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Do not reverse the roles . It's terrible that you resort to blatant lies to defend your case. You made the first action, an add of an infobox [22] without any prior discussion. You need consensus to make these deletions. I reverted you and encouraged you to discuss this at the talk page but you continued your pov pushing and edit warring. --
Panam2014 (
talk)
12:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Listen, have you heard about causality? You know, the thing about cause and effect. You made your deletion without consensus the 14th of August 2016. I reverted you my first time today. Do you really believe you're going to fool anybody here? --
80.63.3.167 (
talk)
12:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The infobox was there before you and I had this little edit war. Then you decided to remove this important part of the article without consensus. It's not okay. That's why you should argue for your case at the talk page. By arguing, I mean real arguments for the deletion - not baseless ad hominem accusations. --
80.63.3.167 (
talk)
13:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined Content dispute. Please do not continue to war over the text; take the disagreement to the talkpage instead. If the disruption continues, the page will be full-protected, and you are both flirting with an edit-warring block in any case.
Vanamonde (
talk)
13:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
First of all, the rule's not about "tomorrow" but 24h. Secondly, judging by your threat to continue edit warring, you seem more interested in fighting me instead of presenting arguments for your case like any other mature person. You should calm down. --
80.63.3.167 (
talk)
13:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Tomorrow in 24h. Secondly, judging by your threat to continue edit warring, you seem more interested in fighting me instead of presenting arguments for your case like any other mature person. You should calm down. I haven't time to lose with a pov pusher. --
Panam2014 (
talk)
13:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Both of you: this is not the place to dispute the content, or make demands with respect to it.
Dat Guy, I am aware of that restriction, but it is a little fuzzy with respect to IPs involved in good faith disputes. Therefore, to make it absolutely clear, if either of you makes any further reverts at any point before consensus is reached on the talk page with respect to this dispute, you will be blocked for edit-warring. Take the dispute to the talk page, and pursue it there; not here.
Vanamonde (
talk)
13:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. If both parties take the matter to the talk page, no protection or blocks should be necessary. —C.Fred (
talk)
22:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Considering it's today's featured article, I'd like to protect cautiously. It does look like there has been a steady stream of vandalism, some of which has taken a while to revert. 3 hours surely won't be enough to catch all of the vandalism, but maybe it will help while many are asleep.
Airplaneman ✈04:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Content dispute/edit warring – IP-hopping editor in Edinburgh is engaged in edit warring. No point in blocking the IP addresses, need to protect the page long enough to force a conversation on the talk page.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
04:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruption – IP's constantly adding unsourced content and being generally disruptive with their editions.
LLArrow (
talk)
21:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruption – IP's constantly adding unsourced content and being generally disruptive with their editions.
LLArrow (
talk)
21:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I realize it won't be released until March 2017, but I feel that applying a long-term protection that would last until then is a bit heavy-handed. Let's start with 2 months.
Airplaneman ✈20:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Long history of vandalism. The page isn't one that really should expect or need frequent changes, so the burden of edit-protected requests should be low. It's not a particularly high rate of vandalism, but it's such an obvious target for them. It's also the sort of thing which could make negative headlines if someone misses an attack: "Wikipedia can't even do basic math!" is the sort of headline tabloid editors love (without letting little details like truth or balance get in their way…).
Murph9000 (
talk)
16:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of Indefinite, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Noting that the vandalism has been happening for more than a year. Expiration of a previous 3-month semi-protection resulted in resumption of the vandalism.
— Maile (
talk)
16:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Pending-edit protection is not preventing or discouraging an anonymous vandal using a morphing-ip to editwar about trying to insert inane trivia into the article.--
Mr Fink (
talk)
18:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of vandalism. Please make it permanent semi-protection as it was previously protected for three months but vandalism has persisted requiring repeated corrections.
Josephus37 (
talk)
15:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. An IP-hopping editor has for a long time been repeatedly adding disparaging opinions about this organization to the article. It had to be protected in the past to stop it, but it has returned.
Deli nk (
talk)
13:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: An IP individual, likely the supposed candidate, consistently adds irrelevant information, non-valid sources, and the like, and has been doing so for several weeks.
ALPolitico (
talk)
04:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Apparently some HS football player is claiming on his Twitter that he's going to be suspended for "solidarity with Colin Kaepernick" and social media has picked it up. There's no other attribution other than what this kid says thus far, and yet there's already been an IPv6 adding the statement (via mobile edit) to the article.
MSJapan (
talk)
03:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Also note there has been only a single addition/revert. Full protection is not appropriate for situations like this (they are for edit warring primarily) and even partial protection is not justified. Suggest close. Added to my watchlist.
John from Idegon (
talk)
04:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit-warring over names (see talk page discussion) plus a lot of unsourced changes.
AussieLegend (
✉)
03:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Different IPs in the last few days have continuously been making an edit to the same end, and reverted by
User:Karst and me with explanation. Hopefully the edit attempts die down again in a month. --
Eddyspeeder (
talk)
18:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – After the main article page was semi-protected, at least a couple of users (not autoconfirmed, since they used the edit request option for semi-protected articles) continue to request material be added that is unsourced and violates BLP policies
[24][25]. Both of the diffs I cited I reverted on account of BLP violations. This needs to stop, and I'm hoping having this semi-protected for a day or two will cool down these users.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
00:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely. I strongly considered pending changes, but taking a closer look at the edit history for the past 14 months, I did not see a single constructive new/IP user contribution. In this case, I think the time saved with semi-protection is worth its more restricted access level.
Airplaneman ✈01:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of sock-puppet IP vandalism, related to the case and investigation above. The IP was blocked in June, and article protected until 9 September, but now restarted the same disruptive activity. The article should be protected to prevent any disruptive IP editing and edit-war.
Crovata (
talk)
22:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism from IP's. Some decision he made in the Swansea v Chelsea game (maybe awarding a goal when
Gary Cahill was fouled) has angered these IP's, but this is not the place to take this out on. Class455 (
talk)21:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP cruft and addition of mis-representation against sourced content started the moment the last protection expired. —
IB[
Poke ]09:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined This appears to be a content dispute, in which the IP addresses are not paying attention to the sources. Warn them about verifiability, and report to ANEW if disruption persists.
Vanamonde (
talk)
10:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Okay, fair enough. Enough of the earlier IPs have received warnings for me to protect; however, please remember that this is not vandalism. Unsourced content is a problem, but a different problem. Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Vanamonde (
talk)
11:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary full-protection: 3 months full-protection for discouraging
vandalism and
edit warring. Also check if this current
is passable with wiki-policies and guidelines, before protecting it.
Declined There is no vandalism occurring on this page, and the only disruptive editing is by the IP address who reported this. I am reading this as an attempt to get the page locked at the version preferred by the IP.
Vanamonde (
talk)
04:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Unfortunate, I have updated the faulty article and this is the response - disruptive editing. The request was a mere attempt to avoid disruptive editing and it was extended in this request to check where the disruption stands in regards to wiki-guidelines and check if the edit is passable. IP-editors aren't disruptors and shouldn't be out-rightly discriminated for using available community resources. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
59.88.211.93 (
talk)
05:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Update: Investopedia links made all the problems, I didn't know.
Now I know.
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated namecrufting. The last substantial edit to this article, other than the addition and removal of these two unreferenced YouTubers was in February 2012. A few minor maintenance edits by registered users, but no content added in 4.5 years. Just repeatedly dealing with unreferenced non notable individuals. The same 2 unreferenced non notable individuals. If you cannot protect, could you please forward a request to wherever it should go for the creation of an edit filter for Quire+this article? That would stop the problem too.
John from Idegon (
talk)
05:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: An editor recently popped up trying to add POV-style info about the company banning its userbase, etc, using bad sourcing (youtube videos), and appealing to popular opinion as a reliable source. After a little back and forth of being directed to
WP:RS,
WP:SPS and
WP:VG/S and so on, they've started blanking acceptably sourced info
like this in anger.
Eik Corell (
talk)
21:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP vandal repeatedly posting seemingly-nonsensical article links here as they have done on other user talk pages - someone using a particular IP has done almost-identical edits over more than one day on separate pages even though they had already received a Level 4 Warning. I deleted the links from my user talk, and they have persisted in their bad behavior.
I do have a separate IP-talk page set up if someone comes along and needs to make a meaningful contribution there.
Shearonink (
talk)
00:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism that I have been reverting. These vandalisms are small and may be missed unless someone compares the diff for each IP edit. I have been reverting these pieces of vandalism a few times, and think it is frequent enough to warrant protection.
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk)
21:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Constant disruption -- Multiple editors making disruptive edits constantly. Page is already under semi-pro, which expires tomorrow. I recommend a weeks long full protect to let users calm down concerning this particular, hot topic article. Thank you,
LLArrow (
talk)
22:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Article does still seem volatile, so I've extended the semi protection past the premiere date of Sep. 14. I think full protection is overkill; I realize there is a bit of disruption, and if that continues, I think blocks are the way to go.
Airplaneman ✈23:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: persistent vandalism by IPs and newly created inappropriate username editors (
JuneForayFan) (see
[29]) regarding whether the actress (aged 99) is retired. She is and has had no new credits since 2014. Maybe her spirit is willing, but the flesh ......... See
here also.
Quis separabit?16:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@Airplaneman: Yes, there's this one: http://en.mediamass.net/people/june-foray/retirement.html (which may or may not be acceptable) and there's also IMDb and her last credit was in 2014. In the acting biz, if you're not working, you're not working, especially when you're 99 years old, God Bless Her. How about a compromise -- if she goes back to work we can update the infobox. SIMPLE AS THAT.
Quis separabit?00:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Rms125a@hotmail.com: I honestly see this more as a content dispute. If attempts at discussion continue to fail, I'm inclined to issue a full protection of the page. I can't quite grasp the validity of your argument that she must be retired because she's old and she hasn't had a credit in two years. The mediamass site you linked to me only speaks of rumors of retirement, and it looks like the page has been updated to say that the rumors were false. Unless there's a source stating that she's retired, I don't see how your edits aren't just as problematic as you claim JuneForayFan's are. If I'm missing something, please let me know. Best,
Airplaneman ✈01:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined I'm gonna go ahead and decline this for now. Please, please discuss this if it continues to be an issue. Otherwise, a full protection may be in order. All the best,
Airplaneman ✈19:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Additions regarding her pneumonia have been reverted twice and seem likely to occur again; discussion is underway on the talk page.
331dot (
talk)
16:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and addition of unsourced content as of the past few days/hours (a boxer who has recently had a high-profile fight).
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
23:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined This appears to be a content dispute (though a singularly strange one, confined for some reason to the color of a certain panel?) and certainly not vandalism. If the dispute continues, full protection might be applied: but I suggest
you sort it out on the talk page first.
Vanamonde (
talk)
09:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Constant promotional adding of non notable person to list. Tried using multiple IPs, then a new account, now back to an IP.
Jevansen (
talk)
07:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I.P. Is edit-warring with registered users. There is a disussion taking place on the talk page, which they've started, but won't continue. Protection from I.P.s or newly registered users is requested at least until a consensus cant be built. Corkythehornetfan (ping me)
14:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
By now it is plain disruptive editing. The IP does not engage in meaningful discussion but keeps removing sourced content. See
Talk:Baylor University#Why a ranking of 701+ is not a useful ranking. IP claims a prior discussion came to consensus, but such a discussion is nowhere to be found. He (I assume) also claims that ten of thousands of universities have the 701+ ranking. But it is already the given sources that proves that it is a false claim. This won't stop unless the article is protected (or the IP blocked). The Bannertalk17:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
"Consider the edit warring noticeboard" will accomplish the second option. I've made it clear to the IP what will happen if the edit warring persists. --
NeilNtalk to me17:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent vandalism/reversion – I.P. is edit-warring with registered users. A discussion took place on the talk page however they will not respond to it. Protection from I.P.s or newly registered users is requested as this has occured with multiple IPs is currently only one however
85.96.56.233.
Lalichii (
talk)
17:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection. While it's not under constant, heavy attack, come on. Major props to
User:AlexiusHoratius and
User:Ymblanter, the admins who took
WP:AGF to an extraordinary degree by supposing that anonymous editors could constructively contribute here and putting it under pending-changes protection accordingly. Predictably, it shows up on the p-c list once every few hours to once every few days and these edits are pretty much always
junk that badly needs to be quickly reverted; I've removed several names of real people recently.
RunnyAmiga ※
talk20:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Ymblanter: The last time a reviewer let a pending edit stand was
back in May; since then, the listing at pending changes has just made it a sort of manually semiprotected page since new and anon users never do anything good there.
RunnyAmiga ※
talk20:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined I don't think the edit rate justifies semi, and PC is doing exactly what it's supposed to do. Remember that only logged-in users see unreviewed edits and that
WP:RD2 is available for egregious BLP stuff. Katietalk21:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Article title is similar to that of
Facebook and has suffered many of the same attacks that page did before it got protected. Indef-semi as a preventive measure, if you will please. Thank you,.
<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (
talk)
00:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Newly created article at
Heiko bleher doesn't seem speediable (past versions at the old title were copyvios, which this isn't; there was no AfD or user block) but can't be moved here due to protection.
McGeddon (
talk)
11:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Several versions of the article were deleted as G11 (spam), being overly promotional. I protected it because of the persistent attempts to create this either as a copyvio or as an overly promotional puff piece. Somehow I'm not surprised that it now has been re-created with a slightly different orthography... I think it would be good if another admin had a fresh look at the current article. If it is acceptable (i.e., not a copyvio and not deemed overly promotional), I have no problem if someone would unprotect it. However, should the current version be deemed G11, again, I'd recommend salting this orthography, too. I have no opinion on the current version, but do note that it has been created by a single-purpose account. If kept, I hope somebody will watchlist it to prevent it becoming the same puff-piece that it has been before. --
Randykitty (
talk)
15:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I checked and this version is clear of copy vio and the article is not blatantly promotional (it has been deleted as G11 in the past). There's a lot of citations, but the ones I checked did not mention Heiko Bleher directly (many of the articles are about the various species that bear the Bleher family name). I'd like someone else to assess for notability, as I am not very good at that, but otherwise this version looks okay to me. —
Diannaa🍁 (
talk)
00:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I have answered questions and made statements on the TALK-side of these articles. My answers and statements have been vandalized by another user by removing my text and adding his own, without any reason given what so ever. He then requested the page protected with his vandalized version, and got it.
I request that the page turns unprotected and that his vandalism is stopped (my comments returned).
The admin who protected the page has protected his page, so I can not contact him.
Temporary semi-protection: IP users keep adding un-sourced and outright false information to the page and are vandalizing it. Temporary semi-protection was lifted yesterday, vandalism and false information was already posted this morning.
Real tlhingan (
talk)
18:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
the problem is a war of senseless changes in
section1Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people of which you complain of the sources that are authoritative sources, ask the page restore, of
The Voidwalker1 with Axumite kings,
who has tried to mediate with the words
Wikipedia: Accuracy disputes
SennaitGebremariam, I am not the only one changing the Tigrayan article. Infact I am disagrement with some other editors. Right now I am not focused on Tigrayan article. However, I think I explained to you, that all you ahve to do is provide sources stating that the Aksumite kings claimed to be Tigrayans or Tigrinyas or Amharas? That is the same requirement that Soupforone had for living and deceased Eritrean Tigrinyas for their respective articles. Please do not feel that I am focused on you with this regard, it's only a case of making sure we have conformity(Continuety)with the way wikipedia edits things.
Otakrem (
talk)
07:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Can we please have protection on this article again? Still getting ip hoppers and I don't see them stopping in the near future. Although this set geolocates outside of California, I'm pretty sure it's the same editor as did
this weird edit. Thanks.
Doug Wellertalk12:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Previous protection was supposed to last until 2025 but seems to have been lost for some reason. (In case you don't know, Essjay was formerly an arbitrator who was later outed for lying about his credentials, see
Essjay controversy).
Everymorning(talk)02:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing regarding the subject's name, mostly from IPs. The subject recently disclosed that he was in the process of legally changing his name, but confirmation of said change has not yet been presented.
Prefall18:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
NeilN: Yahoo only cites the podcast, which does not confirm if it was approved. From the podcast, the subject stated "[...] when this airs, you know, hopefully everything is approved [...]". In review of the podcast,
this Wrestling Observer article stated "As of now, it isn’t known if the attempt was successful. He still goes by “The Big Guy” on Twitter and is still being advertised under that name for his wrestling appearances going forward."
Prefall23:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I completely understand why you asked for protection, but I'm seeing quite a few useful IP contributions as well. I think the best chance for this article to grow while he is still in the limelight, and also have a better way of dealing with disruptive edits, is pending changes.
Airplaneman ✈01:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely. Looking at the past 500 edits (~2 years) of edits, it's almost entirely vandalism and reverts. I did not identify any useful contribution from a new or IP user (though I'm sure there are a couple if I combed through the history line by line).
Airplaneman ✈01:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
There are two versions:
Draft:The Smiley Company and
Draft:The Smiley Company 2, The first makes a claim about a living individual, that he invented the Smiley symbol, without any attempt to provide sourcing outside their own website and without mention that the claim is significantly disputed and is, as I understand it, a minority view. The version 2 implies it, by saying what is technically true, that the founder of the company licenses the trademark, , but without mentioning that his claim to have the right to do so is a minority view. I will unprotect when someone write a NPOV article. DGG (
talk )
01:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
DoneVanamonde (
talk) 11:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Not done: It was pointed out to me that PC should not be applied to the Wikipedia namespace, which is something I knew, and forgot. I'm going to let somebody else decide whether or not semi-protection should be applied.
Vanamonde (
talk)
11:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. (Although the irony of applying pending changes to the pending changes page would be delicious. And nutritious.) Katietalk12:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined There appear to be two IPs adding unsourced content, but other IPs making constructive changes. I have therefore warned those two IPs, and left it at that for now. While there is certainly disruption, the content being added and removed is not particularly damaging. If disruption continues from those IPs, a block might be in order: if there is evidence of IP hopping, please come back here.
Vanamonde (
talk)
11:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Less than two days after the previous three-month semi-protection, the same group of IP hoppers that originally caused the page to be protected began disruptively editing the page again.
Katniss♥15:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I would normally wait a little longer after a previous protection expired, but I see no reason to mess around here. Katietalk14:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Could this page be protected for a while (maybe 15 days) to prevent edit warring and
WP:OWN behaviour by User:Lysimachi who somehow has no intention to reply on the article talk page but will continue to revert to enforce their version of the page.
Lemongirl942 (
talk)
03:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Page-move vandalism – Some muppet's been moving my userpage around overnight. There's no reason anybody other than an admin executing a name change, or me rearranging my pages, should ever do that.
Cabayi (
talk)
06:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. In view of the occasional good-faith contributions from new editors, longer semi-protection did not seem entirely appropriate.
Vanamonde (
talk)
10:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IP editor does not like sourced material and so keeps reverting what’s there, but does not provide any source beyond own opinion.
Strebe (
talk)
01:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I've added the page to my watchlist and will continue to monitor. If the situation were to change in the near future, I would semi-protect the page. —C.Fred (
talk)
20:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I see Darwinforth protected the page but it's been reverted by a bot, presumably due to the protection being related to "biography of a living person" rather than "TV show". –
Skywatcher68 (
talk)
20:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent spamming by an IP editor under a variety of IP addresses. Article was semi-protected for 6 months back in March; as soon as the semi-protection expired, the spamming started up again.
DH85868993 (
talk)
23:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism by a persistent editor with an infinite assortment of IP addresses. Article has been repeatedly protected, only for the editor to return immediately after expiration. Seems sadly necessary to drop an indef.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
00:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – The title of the article has been discussed recently. It was renamed without consensus; it reverted back to just the person's name. Recently, I started the RM, but this page may need this type of protection.
George Ho (
talk)
18:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Full protection: I requested semi-protection for this yesterday, but that was an accident. I meant to ask for this page to be fully protected, as it used to be before this protection was lost in a move. It should be fully protected for a very long time (20 years, the time it's currently semi protected for, should do it).
Everymorning(talk)20:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Article being targeted by IP hoppers and newly-registered user accounts (looks like it's coming from a school computer lab (Poudre School District R-1)).
Dawnseeker200020:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Badly translated section of irrelevant original research, repeatedly added by what looks like an individual using a smallish range of Ukrainian IP addresses. Talk page behavior includes claims of censorship, accusing other editors of not being smart enough to understand the pearls of wisdom being offered, and
tone-deaf attempts at wikilawyering.
Just plain Bill (
talk)
21:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Different IPs keep adding essay-like and unlinked passages to the lead.
[37],
[38],
[39] I'm sure they are well intentioned but we cannot have the top of this highly visible article (over 4,000 per day) looking like the efforts of a school student.
: Noyster (talk),10:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent and blatant vandalism by IP editors. One IP editor is currently making disruptive edits to this page, and when other editors revert it, the IP user reverts the revert again. Also, disruptive IP edits are being displayed on the page for days, and it takes quite a long time to revert it all. WikiPancake✉📖02:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined I can't see evidence of more than one disruptive IP user, who has been blocked. If disruption resumes and there is evidence of IP hopping, please report back.
Vanamonde (
talk)
05:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I've indefinitely protected the page and its talk page; I'll get started on the other suggested article names momentarily. Incidentally, thanks for the post here, if I had not followed up I wouldn't have known about the other accounts needing 86-ing.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
11:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined Since
Vanamonde93 declined the previous report this morning, there have been no disruptive IP edits. This is a content dispute, which I suggest you all solve before edit warring blocks get handed out. Katietalk00:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Pending changes and/or Semi-protection: Or however a patrolling admin sees fit... This page has gone threw so much vandalism and unsourced content added by various IP ranges; something major has to happen in regards to protecting it... Previous protection was from September 2 through September 9, and the disruption immediately resumed after the expiry of that protection.
208.54.5.128 (
talk)
03:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent personal attacks and insults by multiple IP users. Perhaps I was not clear on my first demand, I would like the insults to stop in talk page too (and edit summaries). --
Launebee (
talk)
08:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Could you just let a message on his page, for him to understand that his comments on me are not acceptable and that he would face consequences if he continues? --
Launebee (
talk)
11:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary full-protection severe edit war over content by registered editors, including possible (as in, alleged) socking; discussion on TP has degenerated into an equally massive edit-war including the repeated refactoring of each others' comment and removal of large sections of text. Suggest a short blast of TFP to clear heads.
MuffledPocketed13:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined Blocked disruptive user for sockpuppetry. If CheckUser comes back negative (and it won't, because he's admitted to it) and the disruption resumes, let us know. Katietalk13:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
He's only 'admitted' to one account. The CU is also for the 'CowardlyAbyssinian' account which he denies, I believe. The request for protection was due to the fact that BOTH parties were as bad as each other; this result does not necessarilly reflect that. See what I mean?
MuffledPocketed13:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism and BLP violations. Extended semi-protection would be beneficial here. Not too frequent, but very derogatory in nature: so PC1 might also be helpful. .
Vanamonde (
talk)
14:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – I'm not sure that this is appropriate, but I'm at a loss for how to proceed. I'm involved in a content dispute with an IP that has devolved into a slow-motion edit war as the IP absolutely refuses to discuss their edits on the talk page - I'm literally the only person posting on the talk page. The only way that I can see to resolve this is to semi-protect the page, forcing the IP to use the talk page. (Because we have various IPs refusing to edit collaboratively, I've tagged it as persistent disruptive editing.) --
Irn (
talk)
14:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Repeated unexplained unsourced disruptive editing by IPs (probably the same user, using different IPs, as the content is the same). The user(s) don't explain their edits on the talk page.
Apuldram (
talk)
16:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent advertising and disruptive editing and personal attacks my multiple IP users. I explained the issue
there and
User:Robert McClenon advised to request a semi-protection. Here is what I explained:
The Sciences Po page was a
pure advertisement page. I tried to put it in an encyclopedical form and was
personnaly attacked for it (saying that I carry out a personal vendetta against Science Po). The user admitted using several IP adresses.
Now, they are trying to
put back the advertisement style and remove the banner. For example, they insist putting in the lede, without any source, sentences like: "Beyond its academics, Sciences Po is well known for its international outlook." "The Institute also maintains a robust sport programme and competes against other grand écoles in the Île-de-France." "Sciences Po and its innovative curriculum would inspire and serve as the model for the London School of Economics." (the article says part of the inspiration, not the model and innovative) "Almost every member of the French diplomatic corp since the Fifth Republic, and roughly half of ENA’s cohort each year are also graduates." Etc.
I claim that there is also sexism here. I know for sure that I never wrote anywhere that I was a woman, so sentences like "she was lying about the citations she was using" or "she is a dishonest editor", is an attack on me as a woman (it’s easy to say that women lie and are dishonest). And it’s untolerable.
Done; I agree there's no reason for the protection to remain in place after the competition ends (I've given it until a week after the final to allow cooling-off time).
VarunFEB2003, for about the thousandth time will you please actually read things before you shoot your mouth off; there was absolutely nothing wrong with this request. As per the many warnings you regularly remove from your talkpage your repeated incompetent interventions on admin pages are well beyond the disruption line. ‑
Iridescent08:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Persistent
vandalism – Several people probably close to the subject of the page, constantly try to remove the information already published in Globe and mail and Bloomberg because that info might harm Mr. Mizrahi's business. .
Masterofthename (
talk)
05:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The article is essentially unchanged since the last request a month ago, and the problem is exactly the same: the current article is pretty much word for word the one that was deleted, so it's a
WP:CSD#G4. It needs to go to
WP:DRV. And I hope it does not get undeleted: this is blatant promotion. The first version was created by a user now banned for spamming, so was the second, identical copy. I suspect someone is paying to get this article created. Guy (
Help!)
09:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: BLP vios and edit warring.
Wikidemon (
talk) 00:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
An IP / SPA editor has attempted 5 times now in quick succession
[42][43][44][45][46] to add weakly sourced and poorly worded accusations about this biographical subject that he is behind the "
Birther" accusations that US President Barack Obama is not an American citizen, apparently in support of Donald Trump's false claims to that effect. I have reverted on BLP grounds and attempted to warn the editor, but this does not seem to be working. -
Wikidemon (
talk)
00:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Also, it looks like a sock account, or at least an experienced editor who is fast to get into gaming / battle / tendentious mode. Up to 5RR or 6RR now. This material _must_ be deleted on BLP grounds. Thanks -
Wikidemon (
talk)
03:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Redtigerxyz: I'm assuming you meant semi-protection in the request: full protection is very rarely used, and would lock you out, too. In view of the fact that some of the editing is in good faith, and that it is not very frequent, I have applied PC instead of semi.
Vanamonde (
talk)
17:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Anonymous editor has blanked or otherwise vandalized the page repeatedly in the last few hours, threatens to "have friends all over the world do the same". Request 48 hours semi-protection.
—jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)13:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Massive vandalism and strange editing from a particular set of IP addresses.Another way is to go for blocking the IP's.
ARUNEEK (
talk)
18:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I do not have a WIKI account but I would request Admins to FULLY Protect the page (or still better BAN COMPLETELY this User Mar4d) ONLY AFTER proof-reading it and seeing to it that every claim (of incidents / organizations / figures handed out there) is referenced by unbiased (non-paki and non-chinese) sources. mar4d, who requests protection for this page, has been banned several times (along with fellow vandal User:TopGun), and has come back after much begging, having spent more than half a year in wilderness after what was initially a lifetime ban by User:Bbb23. He and TopGun have openly flouted basic norms of WIKI, indulged in unexplained re-reverts, often put in lies and fabricated claims, and they add a litany of falsities, and say "it a work in progress" (when asked for supporting refs). And that he was indulging in that on this very page as seen here [
[47]] They esp TopGun around 4.5 years ago used to indiscriminately add "Separatist/Independence Movements" to India's article left and right [
[48]] One of the edits these two lowblooded vandals were trying to push through was this [
[49]]. Please see for yourself how many of those said movements were properly sourced. There were about a half a dozen other editors then including some non-Indians who reverted these two vandals but they are not n this article any more. While asserting something on WIKI cannot change the truth on the ground, and the truth is what matters more than anything else, I would like WIKI admins to prevent this from happening any further. WIKI may not be the only source for people looking up information on India, but is certainly one of the foremost sources, and almost among the best one can hope to get on the Net. It would be grossly unfair to WIKI itself more than any other that such lies and fabrications and exaggerations (unsourced) are allowed to remain.
59.92.144.62 (
talk)
11:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined Not, strictly speaking, vandalism. Potentially factual errors, with no evidence of malice (indeed, plenty of evidence of IPs trying to be constructive), and actual disruption not severe enough to warrant protection, IMO.
Vanamonde (
talk)
06:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: OK, this article has been harassed enough lately by drive-by IP's adding unreferenced personal life gossip info. (I mean, who cares about the dating lives of teenagers?!... Other teenagers, I guess...) Anyway, it's time to semi this one, please! --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
21:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
(Non-administrator comment) I suggest a quite long semi or PC here, due to the extreme rant and threats made at
User talk:68.107.60.119 (which I reverted as a
WP:SOAPBOX). IT IS NOW MY FULL TIME JOB TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL., THERE WILL BE MANY CONTINUED DISRUPTIONS…, and Prepare to War With Us. Note also the
WP:PERSONAL in there.
Murph9000 (
talk)
22:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Additions of problematic and unsourced content, which I would nonetheless not describe as vandalism.
Vanamonde (
talk)
06:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. for disruptive editing. This does not seem to be vandalism, but a content dispute that's gone a little off the rails.
Vanamonde (
talk)
06:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Steady vandalism over long periods of time. Another viable solution may be to make a /64 IPV6 range-block on the IP address range that is editing this article, if need be.
73.96.114.189 (
talk)
17:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Semi-protection: or Pending changes level 2 protection High level of IP and new user vandalism. Requesting either semi-protection or Pending changes protection. The article had over 50 vandalism edits starting at 20:56, September 18, 2016 through 23:17, September 18, 2016 before I was able to restore a non-vandalized version of the article. ♪♫Alucard16♫♪03:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Due to the vandalism edits taking place I changed my proposal for either semi-protection or pending changes level 2 protection because a lot of the accounts that are not IP addresses are vandalizing the page at a rapid rate might be an auto-confirmed user by the software. ♪♫Alucard16♫♪03:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Editors insist on including the subject's nickname in the article which is irrelevant and has been removed multiple times.
Dkendr (
talk)
17:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Under attack from socks. Extended confirmed is better to prevent socks to farm edits, become sleepers, and then be used.
96.237.16.56 (
talk)
01:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Two edits to the page and a discussion on the talk page asking you what your concerns are to which you haven't responded is hardly sufficient rationale for protection.
207.161.217.209 (
talk)
02:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistently unsourced changes/additions to the 'Plot' section by IP editors (many of which appear to be just made up...). --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
21:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent high level of IP vandalism/disruptive editing for no apparent reason. One IP address in particular has made a staggering amount of incorrect vandalising-like edits, making the edit summary page incredibly hard to work through and revert.
ThirdWard (
talk)
12:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: vandalism of the upcoming soundtrack list - It seems that the page has been badly vandalised since late August. We've just had to deal with this on the FNaF Subreddit. I'm going to try to undo the edits according to the source provided for the list. --
Kizzycocoa (
talk)
21:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: persistent IP edit warring over pointless, inaccurate, and, in some cases, moronic edits like the one where the IPs acting in tandem feel it necessary to add parentheses to the parents' names in case it's not clear that Thomas Farley was his father and Mary Anne Farley his mother (see
[51],
[52],
[53],
[54]).
Quis separabit?01:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The article is essentially unchanged since the last request a month ago, and the problem is exactly the same: the current article is pretty much word for word the one that was deleted, so it's a
WP:CSD#G4. It needs to go to
WP:DRV. And I hope it does not get undeleted: this is blatant promotion. The first version was created by a user now banned for spamming, so was the second, identical copy. I suspect someone is paying to get this article created. Guy (
Help!)
09:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)reply
It can't be exactly word for word from what was delete. The AfD was on 2 February 2016. Since then, new news stories has came out about the subject this summer (ie [
[55]], [
[56]], [
[57]], and [
[58]]). Here [
[59]] is a copy of the deleted page. If you look, you'll see that it is much different than the draft, especially since it includes the new news stories -- something that the deleted version could not have had. Because of that, it can't be WP:CSD#G4. Yeah, the first two copies were blatant spam but that doesn't mean the subject is forbidden from obtaining an entry in the encyclopedia. The requirements for an entry is that a subject must meet the notability guideline from reliable sources, which this one does.
CerealKillerYum (
talk)
22:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)reply
This isn't a content dispute. No one is talking....just repeated re insertion of promo material and unreferenced BLP content about the criminal conduct of a former employee.
John from Idegon (
talk)
04:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. Yes please. Article subject died in an overnight single-car accident, some inaccuracies were initially reported so I expect some back&forth vandal-edits at least on the manner of death. Also I just now reverted a vandal-edit.
Shearonink (
talk)
15:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed:BLP policy violations – It's been several months since the allegations thrown at her about a scandalous video allegedly involving the subject first emerged, yet it still rages on as anons keep on adding it to the page. To top it all off, the subject is a minor and as such gossip like this would be borderline child abuse.
Blake Gripling (
talk)
09:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Repeated changes of pronouns for a recently-deceased trans person by different IPs, plus edit warring over details over cause of death.
EdChem (
talk)
14:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Longterm semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism from both vandalism-only accounts and vandal ips that showed up almost immediately after the page's page protection expired.--
Mr Fink (
talk)
14:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by anonymous vandal using multiple IPs. This person continues to remove content and citations without any explanation, switching between more than 5 different IP addresses. When myself or others undo this vandalism, with in days or hours the vandal removes the content and citations again. The article was protected for three weeks (ending August 17) and the vandalism started again and has continued.--
Kfg12 (
talk)
18:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection. This article has been under nonstop attack from two sides: a group of people who work there and are probably adding reams of promotional edits as part of their jobs, and a group of people who really, really don't like the company's founder, Felipe Luna. (For that matter, Luna has almost certainly edited here under more than one identity.) It's just been a perpetual stream of promo edits, attack edits, and reverts since the article, which still doesn't have a talk page, was created just over a month ago. (See also the
excellent roundup at the COI noticeboard that
User:TimBuck2 put together.)
RunnyAmiga ※
talk21:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The article is essentially unchanged since the last request a month ago, and the problem is exactly the same: the current article is pretty much word for word the one that was deleted, so it's a
WP:CSD#G4. It needs to go to
WP:DRV. And I hope it does not get undeleted: this is blatant promotion. The first version was created by a user now banned for spamming, so was the second, identical copy. I suspect someone is paying to get this article created. Guy (
Help!)
09:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)reply
It can't be exactly word for word from what was delete. The AfD was on 2 February 2016. Since then, new news stories has came out about the subject this summer (ie [
[63]], [
[64]], [
[65]], and [
[66]]). Here [
[67]] is a copy of the deleted page. If you look, you'll see that it is much different than the draft, especially since it includes the new news stories -- something that the deleted version could not have had. Because of that, it can't be WP:CSD#G4. Yeah, the first two copies were blatant spam but that doesn't mean the subject is forbidden from obtaining an entry in the encyclopedia. The requirements for an entry is that a subject must meet the notability guideline from reliable sources, which this one does.
CerealKillerYum (
talk)
22:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Eleven vandalism attempts from four anonymous IPs in less than 36 hours, from 18:00 19 September to 22:24 20 September. The most recent added the text "nice meme", which makes me wonder if the editors are responding to something off-wiki.
Cnilep (
talk)
23:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – This article has been targeted for some time, by IPs claiming the subject murdered Kurt Cobain. Normally it is a simple revert, but it was last in the article for 5 days unnoticed. As a clear BLP issue, page protection is warranted.
freshacconci talk to me21:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – The page was semi-protected for a day. After it was lifted, major edit war broke out between unconfirmed users with ugly language being thrown around. This is too hot a topic to be left unprotected. (And, the page gets 70,000 views per day at the moment.).
Kautilya3 (
talk)
21:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:vandalism – IPs/new users There has been repeated removal of all content mentioning the referenced fact that the subject of the bio was a transgender man by IP editors and transient accounts with no discussion in Talk. This has been happening for months.
Jerilyn Franz (
talk)
11:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Has been protected three times in three weeks, and vandalism started right up again. Probably needs a longer duration this time.
agtx03:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Not done. I'm always reluctant to protect talk pages, and in particular this one. These questions are coming from some of our most clueless newbies; let's guide them elsewhere and not just lock them out. Instead I added some better instructions, in a way that I think newbies might see them, and I hatted a thread called "can't create a page why?" which was just attracting the same question over and over.
MelanieN (
talk)
00:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing with unsourced material, needing incessant reverts (some airline fanboys really want their preferred carrier be on top of whatever metric, but they don't understand the need for neutral, simultaneous comparisons and unbiased sources. Not vandalism as it is made in good faith, but it is causing the article to be difficult to maintain.) --
Marc Lacoste (
talk)
08:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The article is already under indefinite Pending Changes protection, but recently the disruption has been too frequent for PC to work well. The PC protection should kick back in after the semi expires.
MelanieN (
talk)
00:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruption -- IP's and unconfirms constantly changing/adding unsourced content. Article recently came out of protection, I recommend extended coverage.
LLArrow (
talk)
04:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: This is a problem article. There is persistent low-level vandalism and, because of the language issues, it's also near impossible for en:WP to monitor or check this. I have no solutions, but semi protection might at least reduce the vandalism.
.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
18:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Of 108 edits over the last 50 days, only 31 were constructive (12 from IP/new editors). 41 edits were identified as vandalism, and 36 were vandalism reverts. Of the 29 edits over the last 10 days, no edits were constructive; all were vandalism or reversions of such. —Laoris (
talk)
18:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Mr. Luckey is receiving a lot of press coverage today for his association with an
alt-right "shitposting" group
[68]. Considering the topic and the misplaced "enthusiasm" already displayed by few IP editors, temp semi protect might be a very good idea. --
1Wiki8........................... (
talk)
19:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined, we do not protect pages against a single user. Action should be sought against this user, please follow the dispute resolution procedures.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
14:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Also, the similar redirect
Almost Over You should be protected for the same reason. These two redirects should not be made available for IP editors to create a new article (since new articles should only be created by registered users), and they certainly should not be available for more hoaxing by the Kenny Loggins vandal.
Binksternet (
talk)
20:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I only protect one redirect, we do not protect pages pre-emptively. Feel free to bring it here if disruptive editing starts.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
14:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Also, the similar redirect
Almost Over You should be protected for the same reason. These two redirects should not be made available for IP editors to create a new article (since new articles should only be created by registered users), and they certainly should not be available for more hoaxing by the Kenny Loggins vandal.
Binksternet (
talk)
20:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I only protect one redirect, we do not protect pages pre-emptively. Feel free to bring it here if disruptive editing starts.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
14:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Constant addition of unsourced content; in this case, it is the anagrams that come from the titles, which require sources. While the anagram may be obvious, many editors ignore the notes and add them without sources. This issue also occurred for Season 1, all the way from Sep '15 to May '16.
Alex|The|Whovian?09:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined. This is clearly a content dispute, the IP talk page is a redlink, and both of you clearly overstepped
WP:3RR. Just stop reverting and start discussing. If the IP proves to be non-responsive but continues reverting, use dispute resolution avenues.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
07:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Three slightly-different IPs have tried removing the AfD template from this article since it went up yesterday.
McGeddon (
talk)
12:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined. This is a clearly legitimate protection request, however, I believe, that protection in this case is not the best solution. The article is AfDed and is on its way to deletion, however, an IP can still save it by adding reliable sources (e.g. in Urdu) there. And removal of an AfD template can be reverted in one click and has indeed been so far done by three different editors.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
07:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined. This is just one IP. Please warn them (they have a redlink talk page), and, if they continue without any reasonable response, report them to 3RRN or AIV.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
07:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: I think this may be a good idea considering this just recently happened and I think we don't need IP editors vandalising and/or inserting false claims. Requesting this go until around Sunday, where I hope things die down. Past that I would recommend leaving it at pending changes protection. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs)
02:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Only been two unconstructive edits since my decline, but I suppose that's enough... To be fair, the disruptive edits are buried in with the good ones given the edit rate is so high. Hopefully things will have cooled off come tomorrow — MusikAnimaltalk04:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Someone is trying to make large changes without discussion. See recent history and attempt to start discussion on article talk.
Johnuniq (
talk)
10:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: The only IP edits this article has gotten in the past year are people watching last year's Big Bang Theory episode where characters discuss the wording of the first sentence of the Mexican standoff Wikipedia article, and editing the article to reflect the joke.
McGeddon (
talk)
08:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Removal of semi-protection. The article was semi-protected in 2010 and I see no reason to believe that the article continues to be at risk of heavy and persistent vandalism by unregistered users. (Note: The protecting administrator does not appear to be active and is listed at
Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians.)
207.161.217.209 (
talk)
06:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Subject of the article wrote a controversial tweet. Requesting short-term protection as BLP violations (calling them a racist) have been added off and on since by IP and new accounts.
RickinBaltimore (
talk)
20:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, and addition of speculative information regarding the event which has yet to be confirmed by organisers. IP/anon editors showing no understanding of policies. ---
PageantUpdater (
talk)
16:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Candidate whose party failed to make the ballot and does not seem to understand formatting for these types of articles repeatedly makes nonconstructive edits, and has for quite some time.
ALPolitico (
talk)
14:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: IPs and seldom used accounts repeatedly inserting details about Crutcher's past criminal record, which isn't relevant to the subject of the article and is being used to besmirch him days after his death. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
21:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined I agree that there are a lot of edits that are besmirching and undue, but not all of them are coming from IP/new users, and there is an overall productive trend in the article's editing history. Responding on the talk page thread about criminal record to suggest a hidden comment addressing some of the problematic edits.
Airplaneman ✈05:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Since the beginng of the school semester, this page has been vadalized numerous times by IP and user accounts especialy created for vandalism. It would be a good idea to put a semi-protection not only on IPs but on new users for a certain cooling period.
Pierre cb (
talk)
00:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated attempts to add a politically-tinged term ("Ballghazi") as an alternate name for Defllategate. It was a political dig at the time which has gone nowhere, but someone from Houston is ip-hopping and repeatedly adding the statement, claiming no need for discussion.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
22:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: persistent changes from Kuk to Kek even if the discussion about this issue is still ongoing on the talk page; Furthermore, several meme-related disruptions.
Khruner (
talk)
23:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – PC1 clearly seems to be ineffective here, as users are still submitting vandalism as pending changes requests, wasting our (reviewers) time. Lets have a go at upping the protection to Semi Protection and see how that goes. Class455 (
talk)00:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Katie, we apparently crossed, and I protected in the meanwhile - the article was protected for 2 month until Sep 20, and after the protection expired there were at least two bad edits (I did not chek again). I therefore thought it would be a good idea to protect the article for 6 months. Could you please have a look; if you still think it should not be protected I will remove the protection. Thanks.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
16:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm not seeing a need for ECP here. Maybe semi, but ECP is overkill. Anyone want to pitch in here? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
KrakatoaKatie (
talk •
contribs)
(
edit conflict) I am not convinced there is a pressing need for EC protection here. Since there is obvious disruptive editing by IP addresses, I have semi-protected this past the date of the US election. However, I think a second opinion might be useful here, so I'm not marking this done: and should another admin feel the need for EC protection, please apply it without feeling the need to consult me.
Vanamonde (
talk)
16:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Apparently this chap made some inflammatory comments, and the page has been receiving some grief for it. Requesting semi-protection for a new user (via IRC) who is having trouble understanding the RPP interface.
Primefac (
talk)
15:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: It seems like I have chosen wrong protection yesterday, Sept. 24. I forgot that my user page, with full protection, cannot be edited by myself. Please grant my user page the semi-protection, instead of the full page, so I can also edit. Thank you!. ~Manila's PogingJuan15:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Repeated IP-hopping, unsourced changes to sourced material, and additions of
WP:Undue weight, by
an editor who was repeatedly warned for this type of behavior. Despite
concerns expressed on the article talk page, the editor keeps making these type of changes. Instead of signing in and commenting, the editor has chosen to continue to IP hop and edit war. Right now, it is a slow edit war, but it needs to stop nevertheless. I ask that the article be semi-protected for at least two months, which will likely lead the editor to at least sign in and take his case to the talk page.
Flyer22 Reborn (
talk)
07:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
And as for what ties Rafe87 to the IPs, other than the same type of editing, see
this discussion where Rafe87 admits to being a 177. IP range. The IP hopper at the Gay sexual practices article has a 177. IP range (well, it's just one of the ranges that Rafe87 uses; 177.40.231.23 and 177.42.183.110 are among the Rafe87 IPs I've noted reverting at the article).
Flyer22 Reborn (
talk)
08:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Anyone can see my edits - the ones you keep removing - are sourced and that I'm not engaging in any edit warring. I made some edits, all of which extensively sourced, and then you arbitrarily reverted then, and that's it. I'm not doing anything to deserve your callousness and accusations, and I never tried to use the IP to escape accountability for my actions, since I have from the beginning admitted it was me, as you helpfully admit. Anyway, I've called on arbitration to weigh in on this matter. I humbly ask the moderators to delay their decision on protecting the page until arbitration is exhausted.
Rafe87 (
talk)
10:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Additions being sourced do not mean they should stay. If you would take the time to learn this site's rules instead of always trying to do what you want and edit warring, you would know that. And as for IP hopping, your IP hopping is problematic because you are clearly trying to
evade scrutiny and avoid discussion when you do it and because you are not just the 177. IP range. You use other IP ranges too, whether you admit to it or not.
Flyer22 Reborn (
talk)
13:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Probable SPI is back at it. M.O. is to make edits like this
this, sometimes across multiple articles and with both IP and new accounts. Temp semi until they settle down.
Montanabw(talk)23:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Sports figure is subject of speculation concerning a team change
[74], change to associated team is repeatedly being made prematurely and without any announcement by the subject or his agent. Please protect for a few days to allow the dust to settle. General IzationTalk 01:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – And persistant BLP vios. I had edited once during a large line of revert-revert-revert and then there is another reversion of a vandalistic edit on that article 3 hours after my edit.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk |
contribs)
02:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: Edit war/vandalism due to the recent "Irish Slavery" myth-meme being passed around as fact. It has been going on since June 2016 from time to time. It is heating heat up again with October/Halloween approaching
CaptainStegge (
talk)
18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection -- the instant the page is unprotected the vandalism resumes (see
here,
here, and
here). That should be clear by now after years of this nonsense. Leave it protected permanently.It's a pain in the ass going on for years now.Quis separabit?20:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Non-neutral language ("terrorist", "kill babies", etc.) has been persistently added to the article for the past few months, in addition to other general vandalism. It was previously semi-protected temporarily.
GhostOfNoMeme (
talk)
20:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – As soon as previous protection expired, the IP hopper was back, adding unsourced content.
Sro23 (
talk)
14:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Systematic incorrect claims about dates, often vaguely citing NASA, often changing template parameter to incorrect or malformed value. Going on since 3 September, suggest protection period be double the activity period, 38 days. IPs in different parts of world, 1 new registered user.
diff 1diff 2diff 3diff 4diff 5Jc3s5h (
talk)
17:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Some protections have been implemented. Please reconsider. Jc3s5h is insisting that the vernal equinox time in 1903 is Coordinated Universal Time, but the timescale was not invented till 1972.
79.79.52.55 (
talk)
16:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
We're supposed to not bite the newbies. Vindictus23 was trying to be helpful - the NASA website gives the dates when the sun is in the actual constellations, and for Pisces it's 12 March to 18 April. This should have been explained, instead (s)he gets a sarcastic message about NASA taking up astrology, a block is threatened and all astrology articles are offlimits to IPs for a year.
79.79.52.55 (
talk)
16:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I was mistaken about the bad faith, but did not see the IP providing a reference for the change,
only the word 'NASA'. The only talk page discussion I have seen about date formats in astrology articles seems to be the one begun by
User:Jc3s5h at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology#Corrections to dates, date and citation format in sign articles. If you disagree with that is in the articles now, this might be a place to make your case. Arguing GMT over UTC i possibly a misunderstanding, because UTC can be freely used in notation for past dates, even if the astronomers of that time did not use it in their own writings. Just as we can put dates in articles like 44 BC, though the people who were alive then didn't use that terminology.
EdJohnston (
talk)
00:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
(Non-administrator comment) As an uninvolved editor who happened to spot this, might I suggest an alternative to full protection. A simple admonishment / reminder of
WP:1RR and the potential consequences of violating it, to all involved parties, and an interim ruling on which sources are reliable (which can be changed by clear consensus on talk or taking it to
WP:RSN). It just seems to me that this is an important area of current world events, which can have significant changes on a daily basis. It seems detrimental the the goals of the encyclopaedia if it is prevented from being kept current for any length of time. Hopefully some wise words of authority might be sufficient.
Murph9000 (
talk)
13:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
DatGuy: Ok. It just seems a shame to cripple our ability to cover a fast moving current event, that's all. If that's the only way to achieve sanity on it, fair enough. I certainly agree that warring on here is a bad thing and needs to be controlled, especially on known controversial subjects. I leave my suggestion and thoughts above to the discretion of the admins, to use or ignore as they see fit.
Murph9000 (
talk)
15:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection This template links to currency conversion sites from all currencies pages, it is regularly spammed by account created just for this purpose. Very strange, that 2 days after creating an account these users are able to modify such complex template...
Mascarponette (
talk)
10:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Vandalism resumed immediately upon the previous protection expiring. Please re-protect the page for longer this time (it was a fortnight last time).
Cwmxii (
talk)
16:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. No idea if this is LTA (I'm not well-versed in the area) but it certainly looks suspicious. I think a month of semi-protection would help out in the meantime. Good luck,
Airplaneman ✈15:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Heavy vandalism immediately after previous protection expired. The bot hadn't even removed the protection template yet before the first vandal hit.
Lizard (
talk)
14:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Nairspecht: Full-protection is certainly not justified here, and I hesitate to apply semi-protection because of the number of IPs that are making constructive contributions. PC should take care of most of it: but if the volume of disruption is too high, please come back here for semi-protection.
Vanamonde (
talk)
08:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Vanamonde93: Continuous vandalism continues amidst which we are unable to get any fruitful contributions from IP's. Can you configure semi protection there. All IP edits are generally being reverted except 2-3. Semi-protection would be quite appropriate. Thank you VarunFEB200309:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Right after the page protection was lifted, the
John Stumpf article was again hit with a BLP violation relating to the Wells Fargo news. Please extend the protection to two weeks.
Bahooka (
talk)
14:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated abuse of an infobox field that is for the original Japanese network(s) on which the series first aired on. Italian IPs keep adding unsourced Italian networks that the series was re-aired months later. —Farix (
t |
c)
20:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Disruption -- Constant adding of unsourced info, original research, and terribly disruptive behaviour. I recommend a week's full protection to let involved editors (including myself) cooled down. Thank you,
LLArrow (
talk)
03:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Endless unconstructive edits: one or more IP-hoppers repeatedly changing numbers in the article (from the numbers of floors in the building to parameter values in templates etc) to random numbers, such as in
the latest batch of edits. - Tom |
Thomas.W talk20:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Disruptive Toddy1 does not know who's doing what again or who's doing it for their first time. And it's not disruptive to use the official name of the church in the article. The info. already uses it, and there's an article here with that name. The church specifies the official name is to be used except where the nickname "Mormon" shows up in "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" and The Book of Mormon (and Words of Mormon inside it, and the name of Mormon the prophet himself, etc.); or where abbreviating, to say "LDS Church." Why would it not be encyclopedic to use it to refer to the missionary service using the official name of the church? Disruptive Toddy1 is overreacting. There is a discussion at the talk page now too.
75.162.209.1 (
talk)
06:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semiprotection. Under attack from an IP-hopper. This person is adding large amounts of text with stuff sourced to Facebook, removing other large amounts of text with stuff sourced to reliable outlets, ignoring warnings and requests to discuss, the usual.
RunnyAmiga ※
talk17:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing. I've tried to explain to the IP user that his editing is not relevant to the article especially without any reliable sources but the user is not listening and keeps re-adding the same thing over and over again.
Thebestwinter (
talk)
17:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semiprotection. Similar to
Azad Kashmir, which was under pending-changes protection when
it was semiprotected last month, this extraordinarily sensitive article has become a target for unhappy nationalists to try to reverse well-sourced statements regarding dominion. The extensive sourcing there establishes India's claim but several new and/or anonymous editors over the past week have tried to replace the word "India" and its derivatives with "Pakistan" and its derivatives.
RunnyAmiga ※
talk16:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Only a handful of accepted edits out of a sea of reverts, so a brief semi seems appropriate, and leaving PC in place — MusikAnimaltalk21:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined No further disruption has taken place. If edit-warring resumes, then please report back. Protection might have helped at the time of filing, and the responsibility for not applying it rests with the admin corps...
Vanamonde (
talk)
15:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Requesting a lengthy protection... well-meaning editors keep trying to change Stenberg's pronouns because she is non-binary. But she specifically asked that she/her be used on the article. See article talk page for discussion and links.
EvergreenFir(talk)15:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not terribly comfortable limiting the ability of good-faith editors when there's no bad-faith involved. PC protection should do the trick: if the edits become too frequent for that, please report back here for semi-protection.
Vanamonde (
talk)
15:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – As page has been irresponsibly been deleted on the issue of notability without verifying internet resources that are available at the click of the mouse in Find sources section. Mohsinwaheed 15:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) @
Kleuske: this isnt a disscussion noticeboard, there is no need to support/oppose a request. Its based upon admin discretion and page protection policies.
Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (
talk)
14:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Declined The reason behind this request is because of the edits made by one user. Please talk to the user and report for disruption if needed. Protection is not warranted at this time.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)08:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism from IPs and new accounts. The article hasn't actually seen a constructive contribution to the content since June, just a long run of vandalism and corresponding reverts. Due to the long term problem, I suggest a longer protection period.
Murph9000 (
talk)
12:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: This has had ongoing problems for months with poorly-sourced, controversial material being added, and when removed reverted back in rather than using the talk page. It was protected for five days, which has been fantastic for forcing people to use the talk page and get consensus before making disputed changes; however, this expires tomorrow, and unless it's extended the same problems are just going to resume.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
06:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent, long-term vandalism, due to the massive popularity of the Broadway musical
Hamilton and the willingness of its fans to vandalize related pages. Several attempts at short term protection have, predictably, only had short term effect. If not permanent/indefinite protection, then at minimum, one year protection is needed. Otherwise, we'll constantly be doing short-term Band Aid fixes.
X4n6 (
talk)
08:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Policies require that semi is attempted first, which appears to be what will resolve the bulk of the vandalism. If further disruption continues and further protection is needed, please re-report.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)08:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Another case of persistent, long-term vandalism due to the massive popularity of the Broadway musical
Hamilton and the willingness of its fans to vandalize related pages. Several short term protections have also been applied here with the predictable short term effect. Recommend 6 months of protection to cover the actor's remaining tenure with the show.
X4n6 (
talk)
08:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There's not enough activity to warrant semi protection, but hopefully pending changes will help solve the problem (including the longer term vandalism which has been occurring. Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
06:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: I am using my sandbox to create a list of IP addresses used by a sock puppeteering vandal for an administrative report, and the vandal has already tried to tamper with the list twice (
[77],
[78]). DarkKnight214922:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continued vandalism on Thomas Wood article. Repeated revisions with non-RS. Persists in posting despite extended discussion. [
Thomas Woods].
Stubb05 (
talk) 19:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The requester is engaging in vandalism by removing highly sourced content from the page totally disregarding what reliable secondary sources demonstrate. --
GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (
talk) 20:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN has made edit to page, in spite of stating he would await consensus. He has engaged in vandalism on multiple pages and continues this behavior. This page was previous protected. During this time GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN made no recommendations to change but waited until it was unprotected and committed vandalism.
Stubb05 (
talk)
21:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC) STUBB05reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – I think PC protection would work well with this article. Long-term IP vandalism, however there has been some constructive anon contributions. . -- LuK3(Talk)01:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: A little over a year ago, my user page was set to "admin only". As I have recently appealed to the oversight committee and am now unblocked, I would appreciate it if I could have access to my user page. I would also like it if any ip is also able to reach me at my talk page. Thanks
Ferociouslettuce (
talk)
14:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semiprotection. Hard to tell if it's one student or a group, but Coronado is apparently today's topic in class and consequently, the article is under heavy attack.
RunnyAmiga ※
talk19:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I see indeed heavy edit-warring, and there is no discussion at the talk page, but I do not understand what the problem is. Breitbart is a Jewish surname.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
07:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Intermittent but persistent caption vandalism(seems to have started ~2011 or earlier).
Multiple users, both IP and confirmed have involved themselves.
Hardly a serious offense, and I honestly appreciate the humor, but this isn't really the place.
The article seems complete enough to not suffer from full protection - the photo may even be entirely unnecessary, given the graphic at the bottom of the page.
Emetre (
talk)
09:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Remove PC and enable semi too much of vandalism and disruptive editing. Recently unprotected then NeilN enabled PC but it ain't helping. Over 50 edits since his protection but not a single change as each edit is reverted by Vandal Fighters. VarunFEB200308:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: The previous protection expired last month, now being vandalised again with the same repeated IP edits as before.
Angusta (
talk)
10:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Given the persistent vandalism, addition of unsourced content, and general disruption that continues to be caused by anonymous editors, I believe PC might be a better option. I have left warnings on user talk pages, reverted with appropriate edit summaries and even created an editnotice for the page but none of these have any effect. The page is constantly edited by people who apparently only interested in editing this particular page and who have no intention of following our policies and guidelines, even if asked nicely. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
04:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Virtually no constructive edits from IPs or new users since pending changes was added two months ago.
Lizard (
talk)
02:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Was about to add this myself. The simultaneous appearance of different IPs (and unfortunately a couple users who should know better) suggests that this might be an attack that's being coordinated off wiki. So sooner rather than later is better.
Volunteer Marek (
talk)
03:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: An IP-hopping editor keeps altering the color scheme in the table at a number of articles which introduces a possible
WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue. I have started a discussion at
Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#Table_changes where another editor agress with the accessibility concern, and have attempted to communicate with the editor at
User talk:153.217.207.181 but the IP hopping is making it impossible to pin him down. Either he's unaware of my messages or ignoring them, but I'm hoping semi-protection would oblige the editor to at least discuss the changes.
Betty Logan (
talk)
03:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create-protection: Create protection required after deletion. Repeatedly recreated after being deleted multiple times in the past few days. Political campaigning and advertising.
Lourdes06:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Long term problem (all of 2016, by the looks of it) with IPs blanking it or redirecting it to a rival team. I suggest a long protection period.
Murph9000 (
talk)
06:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Done I have no idea what is wrong with the formatting of this request, but *I* was able to parse it, and it's been unprotected and the history deleted. --
Floquenbeam (
talk)
22:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. The main page is already protected but the vandals have moved into the talk page. If PP can't be done for a talk page (understandable) any other ideas welcome.
GreenC20:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Huh? It already went through AfD? I have to rehash it again, just because he wants to game the system with an edit war? We would not want to head off a edit war. Which is so easy to game as both sides should be punished under the elementary school style rules. He took me to notice board just because I did do what he said in regards to the article.
Spshu (
talk)
15:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: A single editor from various IPs in the same range has been repeatedly changing this longstanding redirect to a malformed disambiguation page. As they do not initiate communication, and their IP continues to shift, warning is not likely to be effective.
64.105.98.115 (
talk)
14:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi protection There has been recent news of an attack by India over the border with Pakistan: in response, there has been some edit-warring by IPs on the article. Perhaps a short duration semi-protection would be helpful to tamp down the disruption.
Kingsindian♝♚10:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing from IPs, including the insertion of unsourced content and the removal of sourced content, usually with no edit summary. Consider a longer-term semi-protection, as this article has been protected three times before.
Neutralitytalk15:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Unexplained content removal by a number of IPs. Two IPs have been temporarily blocked for socking, however exact same content removal continues by a different set of IPs. --Peaceworld13:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – The sock just won't die. I've filed
another SPI to kill this one, but I'd like this page to be semi-protected to keep them off of it. Perhaps they may lose interest. Also requested semi-protection for the other page they've edited that isn't currently semi-protected because of them. --
Gestrid (
talk)
04:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – The sock just won't die. I've filed
another SPI to kill this one, but I'd like this page to be semi-protected to keep them off of it. Perhaps they may lose interest. Also requested semi-protection for the other page they've edited that isn't currently semi-protected because of them. --
Gestrid (
talk)
04:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Reduction in protection level: From full protection to extended confirmed protection. These pages were repeatedly and vigorously vandalized the last few days by a user who has only been on the site for five days and has made 100 edits. I have been working on these pages for a long time, and now that they are fully protected, I as well as several other co-editors are unable to continue our expansion/clean-up of them. I request this decrease in protection so that the disruptive editor cannot modify their contents, but those who have edited for a while can update the pages as needed. I sent a note to the protecting admin (i.e.
User talk:Yamaguchi先生), but I haven't heard back.--Gen. Quon(Talk)14:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
As the disruptive user now has an indefinite block, I have no problem removing protection entirely. However, you need to wait for Yamaguchi to respond, and you only gave him 90 minutes before posting here. Katietalk16:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Create protection: Content has been added several times in the past by User:Gregjarlot, about a contest that has only been rumoured at present. The user has been advised 3 times in the last 3 months about not creating an article on unsourced information. User was also
warned by an admin. Wes MouseT@lk18:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment:@
NeilN: I appreciate the redirect is fine. However, the user keeps reverting the redirect back to unsourced content. I'm not sure if there is a recommended way so that the user cannot revert a redirect into an article about a contest that is only in the "pipeline" with nothing more that can be verified with sources to expand the article. Wes MouseT@lk20:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Constant vandalism by IP's, and not many good faith edits from IP's to justify. This page has been temporarily protected once this year already (365 days), and has been protected over 5 times.
JJBers (
talk)
01:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Repeated attempts by a dynamic IP over the past few days to add hoax information to the article. Was given sole warning at one of the IP addresses, but as it is dynamic, they probably didn't even see it.
oknazevad (
talk)
01:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – Might be time to lock down this user's talk page with their repeated unblock requests.
RickinBaltimore (
talk)
15:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Longterm semi-protection: Repeated disruption by LTA IP ("Best-known for" IP) for the past 20 days. Previous semi of three days was insufficient for this persistent disruption. --
Softlavender (
talk)
08:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: This is the primary target for a banned editor who has been creating sockpuppets and attempting to recreate his deleted film article on a daily basis. It would be prudent to make this page off-limits to all but autoconfirmed users, at least until there is time for the sock master to disperse.
DARTHBOTTOtalk•
cont21:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semiprotection. Is there any shorthand, like an essay or something, for when an article's subject comes up in a high school class somewhere and it falls under attack from bored students?
RunnyAmiga ※
talk18:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The article is already under PC protection, which should persist after the semi-protection expires.
MelanieN (
talk)
00:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Newly created sock is adding links to images on commons that are clear copyright violations. Neither sock (Saniasliza) nor the main account (Soshuvo) have made any attempt at communication despite multiple requests. Semi protection is to stop the new socks and their IP address from further copyright violations. Would not mind full protection to force them to discuss.
Ravensfire (
talk)
16:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Not too long ago, the page was protected because a disruptive IP-hopper was edit warring with non-constructive edits. Now that the protection expired, the user just went right back to doing the exact same thing. DarkKnight214918:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply