Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – The user GORI 40, tries to impose its editions through different ips. I already talked to him about the topic in his discussion but it did not seem to matter and what he did was erase the messages in his discussion. Philip J FryTalk18:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism over several months, attracted by necessary mentions of defecation. There have been no substantive improvements to the article apart from reverting vandalism since October last year.
MichaelMaggs (
talk)
14:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)reply
DoneRonhjones has been active, so I'm going to assume they missed the ping, and go ahead and unprotect this: no sense in getting too hung up over a minor issue. Ronhjones, if you feel my unprotection was in error, feel free to reverse it without consulting me.
Vanamonde (
talk)
15:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)reply
One Year Semi-Protection: Make it get the same treatment as 2013 did, like how it was semi-protected for one year (from January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014) due to excessive vandalism.
206.45.42.137 (
talk)
23:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – All my other user pages are semi-protected because of persistent trolling and vandalism by one determined individual, and I'd like to have this new talk page archive protected as well. Thanks!. bonadeacontributionstalk10:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – We have a lot of IPs editing to change neutral and referenced statements of this religion's beliefs into unreferenced assertions of those beliefs as facts. This has been going on for years, on and off, so I am almost tempted to ask for indefinite semi-protection but maybe lets try it for a good long temporary period and see if that is sufficient.
DanielRigal (
talk)
01:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP addition of somewhat-contentious content which is under discussion at the
article's talk page. It is regarding whether to include the person's ethnicity in the lead section, the discussion of which the IPs have continually ignored for weeks now—which is getting rather disruptive.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
03:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: An IP user with widely varying prefixes repeatedly insists on adding wrong or unreferenced content, even though it's either clearly wrong (like the old name of
macOS) or unreferenced but likely also wrong – like overstating the role of Digital Video S.p.a. (although the
Github contributor stats show no involvement of anybody by Digital Video,
shun-iwasawa seems to have ties to Dwango). In rare cases that IP user left change comments, they are usually on the hostile side, like
[1]. Therefore I request temporary semi-protection for that page. Maybe a week or so. --
KAMiKAZOW (
talk)
19:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Used by almost 300 pages. The YouTube phenomena would make the template visible and a potential risk. --
George Ho (
talk)
02:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page is regularly vandalised by anonymous IP address user/s who add false chart peaks and remove valid chart peaks from the page. The vandalism has occurred over an extended period of time.
Nqr9 (
talk)
02:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP hopping person(s) back pushing agenda and abusing edit summaries - continuation of previous behaviour: page has been protected several times and edit summaries removed. .
KylieTastic (
talk)
22:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.; I am not watching this page, do not forget to reapply for restoring the semi-protection after the full protection expires.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
22:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Page keeps being edited by both members of Steve Hoffman's forum and rival StereoCentral to "improve" Hoffman's image and tarnish it respectively.
Thetamlakid (
talk)
19:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IP editors keep adding the
UK Independence Party. Regardless of any personal opinions the IP editors never add sources nor do any reliable academic sources exist defining that party as fascist. My latest reversion was in turn reversed by an IP so I'm bringing it here as a last resort.
Keresaspa (
talk)
19:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Click history and you'll see most edits these past months have been vandalism and reverting vandalism. Probably the same idiot using different IP addresses each time, they all seem to have one edit only, and that to vandalize that page.
DreamFocus15:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Some reverted edits were marked as "good-faith edits". Other reverted edits were either disruptive or vandalism. --
George Ho (
talk)
12:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I note that NBSB was the last to edit this page: however, the protection is not an endorsement of either version. Go sort it out on the talk page, please, and refusing to discuss changes while "your" version is protected may be considered disruptive.
Vanamonde (
talk)
12:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Full-protection: Vandalism / joke edits: Bielefeld keeps getting added to the list of fictitious entries. While the status of
Bielefeld remains unknown, it isn't a fictitious entry.
Matsunishigaru (
talk)
00:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Longtime troll. Formality. Will note that they are targeting my sandbox as well but there's no need to protect that just yet. —
DangerousJXD (
talk)
08:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – For some unknown reason, this page has for a long time been a magnet for IPs and single purpose users who want to add Hamilton as a relative of Laurens. Last page protection was in December for two weeks but the vandalism has resumed.
Tom (North Shoreman) (
talk)
20:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Someone is repeatedly wiping all references to an accident that occurred on January 1, using multiple IP addresses but always stating that "incident is under investigation".
Really? We grant page protection to IP's who don't sign their posts and are refusing to follow
WP:BRD? I removed it again. It is obviously
NOTNEWS. If someone cares to discuss it on the talk page, I'll be happy to discuss it.
John from Idegon (
talk)
18:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: ... Or downgrade to at least semi-protection. Not a likely vandalism target anymore. This redirect has been protected for over 10 years, and its protecting admin hasn't edited since 2009.
Steel1943 (
talk)
17:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: One of a number of pages targetted by a persistent IP-hopping vandal. Needs protecting for long enough for the vandal to get bored and go away.
David Biddulph (
talk)
13:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Repeated vandalism from an IP with 49.xxx every time. Five such edits within the last month. Suggest PP duration to last a few months and maybe they'll leave it.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
09:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Frequent vandalism. High level of IP vandalism, slander and continuous defamation or blatant deletion of material for a extensive period of time , discrediting subject in question and cataloging the person in negative light by particularly IP source
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/50.143.44.47 . Page has ALREADY been approved to be protected but unfortunately for a short time , immediately after same source continued its VANDALISM .
Anaphoto (
talk)
04:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There have been repeated backwards/forwards edits on this article by multiple authors which intimate that Microsoft has discontinued sales and production of Lumia devices - this may well be the case, however, the sources being cited are of poor quality and therefore a large amount of conjecture is being relied on.
As no consensus appears to be reached and the content of the page is changing as often as a weather forecast, I would like to request that the page be protected temporarily, until such time as a verifiable source can be used to cite with some accuracy what is actually going on. Otherwise, the article is just a misleading mess and that is unfortunate.
Demonuk (
talk)
03:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent attempts by AAFM-related COI SPA to add promotional material to the article and undo the work of numerous editors in keeping the article balanced and well-cited.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
18:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – An IP user has been systematically removing wikilinks from this article. I believe it is well-intentioned, at the same time an attempt was being made to sort the entries alphabetically; hence I have not raised this at AIV. Several different IPs have been used: 5.80.113.163, 5.80.114.82, 5.80.114.37 and a couple of others. Since a different IP is used each time it would appear pointless to use talk pages to feedback the problem. Could the page be semiprotected for a short while to combat the removal of the wikilinks please? Thanks,.
Martin of Sheffield (
talk)
22:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – An IP has constantly vandalised these Big Brother articles (changing various days and names), This has gone since January 2016 and clearly who ever this person is they're not ever going to go so I'm requesting indef protection, Temporary protection would obviously stop the issue however that'd only be temporary so once expired they'd simply return so am asking for indef,
Temporary protection: Immediately after expiration of page protection, new removal of properly sourced content, see talk page consensus
DVdm (
talk)
16:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Page is being consistently vandalised by multiple unauthenticated users (IP addresses) and the wave of edits seems to be continuing incessently. .
Demonuk (
talk)
05:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP User 190.181.202.83 has refused repeated requests to use the talk page to build consensus and has engaged in an edit-revert war.
GetSomeUtah (
talk)
01:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This is another page on which IP User 190.181.202.83 has refused repeated requests to use the talk page to build consensus and has engaged in an edit-revert war.
GetSomeUtah (
talk)
01:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Raise protection level: from none to template editor protection. This is a new template forming part of the automated taxobox system. It currently shows about 37,000 transclusions; I would expect about 43,000 when the database catches up.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
06:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – User Losangelesfan03, whose contributions are only on this article (I find it difficult to believe that a regular user will spend months fixated on a single article doing the same edit over and over again) is repeatedly adding a lot of advertising from the parent company of this article's subject. .
Kingsocarso (
talk)
17:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Full protection content dispute boling over to edit wars with tags and revert after revert. Let's lock the page for a bit till the editors involved work it out.--
Moxy (
talk)
17:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: What? NBC also maintains brand licensing agreements for international channels in South Korea and Germany? I don't think this is not true, but I guess semi-protect this page so no strangers, unestablished registered or unregistered users vandalize it!
BadPiggies (
talk)
21:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: I think this page should be permanently protected because when the protection expires, more anonymous users will add fake stuff there.
Pachisu124 (
talk)
22:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism over and over again. Myself and another user have been policing it but this much vandalism by so many IPs in so little time is warisome
L3X1 (
talk)
22:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 7 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hopefully that's long enough for the kids to be back in school and no longer have time on their hands. ‑
Iridescent00:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Multiple vector new account and IP vandalism over the last few days. Some of the vandalism has been revision deleted. --
Hammersoft (
talk)
20:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Move protection: Pages were disingenuously moved by a user who had previously accused my moving of pages as about being seen as the creator of them, but then actually did what he accused me of himself by moving the existing redirects for these pages into his namespace, then pasting discography content from the respective artists' pages over the created redirect, so I undid these moves. To prevent any further silly move wars, requesting the pages be protected. Ss11220:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Hanif Al Husaini: We just had a discussion resulting in the general conclusion that we wouldn't protect articles pre-emptively even under ARBPIA3 - has there been a recent problem at this article? Thanks.
Samsara18:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Because of popular dance trend, this page has become a frequent target of vandalism. Maybe semi is in order until it dies down? Almost all of the recent edits have been vandalism (or reversing vandalism.) . Chrissymad❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯18:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – There's a rather large edit war going on between a couple of IPs. Figure semi-protection would be good until it can be sorted out. Will probably be taking them both to 3RR as well.
Primefac (
talk)
18:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full-protection: Persistent
vandalism. – A bad history of changing factions and gaslighting positions, frequent reverts and content removals. As per church history goes there would be nothing new to be added but this seems to be field of test and testy edits by both registered and unregistered editors.
59.96.161.101 (
talk)
18:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Just removed a load of vandalism from this page that had been partially reverted by various people. It appears this BLP is in the running for the
Hull City job, and as such is attracting a lot of attention.
Gricehead (
talk)
16:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined All edits over the past 24 hours seem to be good faith from a cursory glance. Since Trump is hardly an out-of-the-way article, any actual disruptive edits are probably going to be fixed quickly as a part of natural editing.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – various IPs and accounts keep adding unsources promotional material to article. one recent user went further to issue me a legal threat.
Saqib (
talk)
12:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: I see reverts lately; one IP is claimed to be a sockpuppet or something. Actually, I started the discussion, which has been hatted but then un-hatted cyclically.
George Ho (
talk)
00:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Disruptive editing from IPs and anonymous users by adding false boxscore info and unproved tour dates. After a six month semi-protection, disruptive editing shortly began again.
Musicpoplover12 (
talk)
05:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Repeated BLP-violations by IP-hopper. The latest protection was for six months, ending in December, with the BLP-violations starting again soon after the protection expired, so requesting at least the same length of semi-protection again. - Tom |
Thomas.W talk12:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Edits under pending changes coming as fast as ever since expiry of previous week's semi. I'm unable to find a closing date for the show but going by previous series it's likely to go on until about the end of the month.
: Noyster (talk),12:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Indefinitely banned user SchoolcraftT has a past history of using IP address sockpuppets to circumvent his ban and edit this page. There have been a series of recent edits by IP address users that focus on the same topics as SchoolcraftT and exhibit a similar editing history. I believe they are further attempts to circumvent his ban. Semi-protection would protect against this and ensure the ban is enforced.
I am requesting indefinite protection because the sock puppets have been a recurring issue over several years. They will go away for months, sometimes a year, but they seem to always come back. A temporary ban isn't going to solve this problem.
Bitmapped (
talk)
19:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Page protection recently expired on this page and it looks like the disruptive editor is at it again. This person is again leaving abusive messages on my user talk page (
User talk:Simione001) indicating that they have no intention of stopping the disruptive editing. I suspect this issue will only snowball if not handled now. Requesting that the page be protected until 1 January 2018.
Simione001 (
talk)
11:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Create-protection: Repeatedly recreated. A fortnight of SALTING should do. Of course, please delete before salting (if it's not already deleted).
Lourdes07:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Reduction to permanent Template-editor protection requested. On December 26, I
posted a note on the talk page of the admin who protected it, but I have received no response. I'd like to add unknown parameter detection to this template. I see that it is cascade-protected, but it has only 1,600 transclusions, and I don't know why such a rarely used template would be listed on that page. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
20:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Disruptive editor blocked for 24hrs. If they return to this activity after coming off block drop me a line on my talk page or report them to ANI. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
00:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP vandalism, and another IP keeps inserting edit that appears to be a BLP violation as the sources imply Donald Trump attended a Sinn Fein fundraising prior to an IRA bombing. Linking the two events together, though actually unrelated, implies Trump was involved. I suspect that is the purpose of the original article in The Guardian. .
SW3 5DL (
talk)
22:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
He was not the president of the United States at the time. The event was in 1995, and The Guardian resurrected the event as click bait for their website back in November 2015. The article attempts to link Trump to the bombing. That makes it a BLP violation as no real reliable source supports this. WP is not a tabloid. Your persistence in reinserting it into the article is disruptive, as well as your wild, unsourced BLP violating claims on the Donald Trump talk page
here and
here and
here and
here.
SW3 5DL (
talk)
23:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: Persistent level of IP
vandalism all coming from Malaysia, changing of current squad list to include random players and deleting current Gamba Osaka players.
JNicol (
talk)
00:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Seems to get an awful lot of vandalism that no one notices for a long time but IP's are also a large part of the contribution here so PC seems right. EoRdE6(
Come Talk to Me!)23:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – It's getting silly. Whether there's a sock there I don't know, but this needs to stop.
Doug Wellertalk16:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This looks like a heated content dispute. Settle it on the talk page. If there are other issues either deal with them there or report it to the appropriate noticeboard. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
23:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Same IP user returns at various intervals to delete a well sourced segment. Initially made attempts to claim the segment was unsourced. Now refuses to even justify edits. User is clearly ideological and motivated. This is the second request.
Senor Freebie (
talk)
13:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. We don't generally protect pages from a single IP. I have warned them over edit warring. If they refuse to abide by established consensus then AIV is
this way. There is also
WP:AN3.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
15:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This appears to be a long term problem. Semi-protection however does not look like a good idea as a very large percentage of edits, including constructive ones, come from IPs.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
15:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent low-grade vandalism from IP, who has been blocked several times already. Semi-protection may be more effective.
BilCat (
talk)
13:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Template protection: Seldom edited since 2013. Edits by one user were reverted. One good edit was done by an administrator. Used by 500+ dabpages, potentially a high-risk. --
George Ho (
talk)
20:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Long term Semi-protection: IPs and new users continue to add phone numbers to this article. Was protected for short time previously. Long term is needed.
First Light (
talk)
10:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. All those matters were discussed on article's talk page and there was an understanding about how this page should look like, but IP users just don't care and remove what they don't like. This has been happening for quite some time.
Sabbatino (
talk)
09:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP's constantly adding crystal crap, A few days ago I somehow requested pending changes which I don't recall doing - Anyway PC changes are useless so was wondering if this could be changed to Semi so the IP edits stop altogether, Thanks,. –
Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year02:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Shortly after protection expired, two different users vandalized the page again. -- Danetalk05:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Go sort it out on the talk page: as far as content disputes go, this one seems as silly as they come.
Vanamonde (
talk)
06:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: This page is experiencing a heightened degree of vandalism and unilateral edits from IP editors. I'm recommending that this page be given a few weeks of semi-protection, as new content about the film is revealed and so any recommended edits by IP editors will have to be petitioned through the talk page.
DARTHBOTTOtalk•
cont02:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page has been consistently vandalized for the past few days -- I'm not entirely sure why, because I'm not that into the sports-ball, but I'm pretty sure it has to do with rivalries. It's ranged from obscene to just petty, and it's enough of an issue for me to request protection.
ɯɐɔ💬02:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Lower to extended confirmed protection or unprotect: I recently created
Dumb Bitch (title case) as a dabpage. I thought about contacting the administrator who salted the page to prevent re-creation. However, the administrator is inactive. Therefore, I ask that the page be reincarnated as a redirect to that dabpage. --
George Ho (
talk)
01:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There has been a years-long campaign by anon. editors to remove cited information from this article or to attempt to "balance" the film's claims with claims from unreliable sources. Long-term semi-protection is necessary to maintain the integrity of the article. The Old JacobiteThe '4500:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: If the problem resurfaces after this expires I would probably support some level of permanent PP. But I prefer not go permanent right off. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing This page was previously protected and its protection expired on Christmas day. I have seen some vandalism which I reverted recently.Would request that this page to be semi-protected for a few months at least since this entity is in the news on an almost daily basis
FlyingBlueDream (
talk)
08:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Vandalism target from a variety of IP addresses on a nearly-daily basis. This article was protected for a week in October; I'm requesting a more permanent solution this time. PKT(alk)12:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Vandalism target from a variety of IP addresses on a nearly-daily basis. This article was protected for a week in October; I'm requesting a more permanent solution this time. PKT(alk)12:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary protection: - continued vandalism by Surtsicna at all articles about Swedish royal family (warned and blocked for it before). No current vandalism as per today but persistency. Would happen again if I reverted.--
BabbaQ (
talk)
23:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – We seem to have a tedious IP hopping vandal here. Maybe a period of protection would persuade him to seek entertainment elsewhere, preferably elsewhere to Wikipedia.
DanielRigal (
talk)
18:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Req: 1 month semi - Persistent disruption of financial data after recent block expiration, like
here and
here where the gross values are changed from "disputed" to ₹630 crore and ₹700 crore. There is a significant dispute surrounding the gross figures of this film, and pro-Tamil editors seem to be swallowing the high values and in the case of the links above, trying to bury the idea that the numbers are disputed. There was a lengthy discussion about this at
RSN and presenting the info as disputed seems the smartest overall choice, per consensus. Thanks.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
18:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Reduction in protection level: From full protection to template editor protection. Page has been inactive for about a month and the talk page is filled with requests to edit without any responses from administrators for weeks.
Tntad (
talk)
18:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Administrator note This is only because the OP actually reported a redirect from alternate capitalization, the actual problem was at the target article. It's all good.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
22:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I'm seeing long-term vandalism. Although the previous protection was in 2012, the page has been always been under vandalism. . -- LuK3(Talk)23:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The article has had long stretches of mostly peaceful unprotection, and the current disruption only seems to go back a few weeks, so I don't think we need indefinite protection here. --
Bongwarrior (
talk)
06:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Reduction in protection level: From full protection to template editor protection. Page has been inactive for about a month and the talk page is filled with requests to edit without any responses from administrators for weeks.
Tntad (
talk)
18:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism from one person using different IPs; unsourced changes/citing sources that do not verify the changes.
Dan56 (
talk)
19:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism from one person using different IPs; unsourced changes/changes with sources that do not verify the changes.
Dan56 (
talk) 19:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
:Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
22:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reconsidering as it seems cleart his is the same dispute as at the album article.
Beeblebrox (
talk)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – for the vandalism of the article names and constant changing without sources . MatthewTardiff 17:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Alieu Darbo(
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)extended confirm protection request forever protection from new users (possible socks with only one article edited, the page) and IP user (again single page edited) that keep adding hoax stats. to bluffing the career of the player. (Soccerway, or community site transfermarkt can confirm Croatia, England and France stats. are hoax. Soccerway and transfermarkt may be wrong, but no source from Croatia (.Hr) from France (.Fr) from England (.UK) can confirm the alleged stats. )
Matthew_hktc19:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Moreover I was msged by a possible sock user that he was instructed by the player, thus it is my rational to keep the page away from new created account.
Matthew_hktc19:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: In ten days, if I don't remember to do it myself, request return to semi from me, another admin or through this venue. Thank you.
Samsara22:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Same problem as last time. Continuous genre changes by IPs, contrary to what the sources say. This has been happening multiple times a day since the last protection.
Kokoro20 (
talk)
18:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Multiple IPs making unsourced claims that he has died. Media coverage says that he has suffered a heart attack, not that he has died.
Meters (
talk)
19:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – There seems to be an upswing in idiocy here as people try to insert an irrelevant and inappropriate item of trivia about Stevens' personal life. Stevens' own article is already protected, presumably for the same reason. Maybe a period of protection will stop this.
DanielRigal (
talk)
15:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Editor keeps attempting to restore article about non-notable person which was changed as a redirect as a result of an AfD discussion.
Onel5969TT me12:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I used full protection because the user who keeps trying to recreate the article is autoconfirmed.
MelanieN (
talk)
16:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Move protectedindefinitely. The article already restricted moves to autoconfirmed users. That is clearly inadequate and I have fully move-protected it so that only admins can move it.
MelanieN (
talk)
17:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed:BLP policy violations – There is a person(s) who do not favor having this article subject having content showing that they have been convicted of a crime.
BarkeepChat08:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: It's difficult to view the removal of content that shows the subject in an unfavourable light as a BLP violation. However, my main comment would be that a single user is involved, therefore protection is not the remedy to seek.
Samsara08:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. (Semi protection would not work here, IMO. I have also posted on the other editor's talk page encouraging them to take the issue to
WP:TFD.)
AustralianRupert (
talk)
10:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism by new users and IPs. Protection indefinitely if allowed, and at least for a year if at all possible. The current senior class going on this page and constantly makes incorrect changes, that are often rude. There is warring between students and information that they write, such as choosing to put their favorite teacher as the principal. The page already requires a cleanup, as "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." It would be best to give this page semi-protection at least temporarily.
Azeyrt (
talk)
06:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – I would advocate semi-protection or pending changes to be implemented on this page for a week or so. This lists terrorists incidents and users on WP have often been adding misleading, false, and disruptive information. It seems here that users are more concerned with how fast they can place information on the article without reliable sources (e.g.: the shooting in Florida that has taken place in the past hour has already been labelled a terrorist incident without any sourcing). This has been protected before for 3 days because it's a fast-moving page subject to vandalism/disruptive editing and I would advocate this protection for a longer period to ensure that the information here is correct, and not just rumours.
st170e20:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. Long protection log, most recent protection expired only a week ago and vandalism from IPs and new editors has resumed.
WNYY98 (
talk)
05:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined I'm not seeing strong evidence of recent vandalism like lots of reversions. It also doesn't help that no one seems to believe in edit summaries on this article. Beyond that IPs seem to be making a disprortionate amount of the edits, including constructive ones. I am going to need stronger evidence before I slap PP on this article.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
00:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. with 14 reverts in a couple of days, this seems to me to be necessary:
Ad Orientem, I hope this is okay with you. Some of the reverts are, admittedly, after you declined this.
Vanamonde (
talk)
06:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The tour was over a decade ago and now an IP-hopping editor from the Indian sub-continent has decided that the genre in the lede needs to change from that which is in the band's article. Clear case of
WP:GWAR. Since the tour was in 2004, it's unlikely that any significant changes need to be made to the article that can't be handled by an edit request on the talk page.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
05:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Restore indefinite semi-protection: Was used before full protection, which expired an hour ago or so. The original protection should be restored. --
George Ho (
talk)
05:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There's been a lot of uncaught vandalism on this page over the past few months. I've tried to undo as much as I can, but it seems not a lot of the vandalism is being caught when it happens. Help!.
Aristophanes68(talk)00:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Unauthenticated users
190.181.202.83 and
181.189.226.120 are in an edit-war, continually reverting information within this BLP article to reflect their own chosen state of events. The former IP has been the most active, however, there is a storied history for both, and, from even the most cursory glance of the edit styles, it is clear (to me at least), that the edits appear to be being carried out by the same editor.
Multiple messages have been left for the editor over the various talk pages by various people and have not been heeded, and, likewise, messages have been left on the article's own talk page to establish consensus, however, this has not received a response.
It does not seem like ARV would be the best course of action as the editor has already shown that they will submit edits from another location.
Semi-protection: Repeated addition of fake death information (he is still posting on his Facebook page) and other vandalism by socks and 106.67.*.* IPs. Please consider a bit longer protection.
GermanJoe (
talk)
18:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeat re creation of an autobiography over the past few days (5x). Constantly CSD tagging. PP would stop the creation. Thanks all!
TheMagikCow (
talk)
18:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: People have been modifying the list of animes for quite possibly no reason and I feel like it'll happen again soon.
No1dead (
talk)
07:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – or Semi-protection: There's a dynamic IP range here that has been adding completely unrelated "FanFiction" topics that are not relevant to the article at all... This has gone on for several months now...
Aurato (
talk)
06:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Article was unprotected three days ago and has already been spammed three times by IPs. Looking through the article history it seems that immediately after a 15 month term of indefinite semi-protection lapsed late last year, the IP spammers have added a massive list of numbers almost on a daily basis whenever the article wasn't semi-protected (for escalating lengths of time, most recently about two weeks).
Daveosaurus (
talk)
10:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Protection was for prevention of editing by a blocked puppeteer. No cases have been made against the subject since 2013. Seems rather pointless to have protection. NördicNightfury09:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Recently a sockpuppet with a long history was inserting BLP violating comment into this article and at Donald Trump. That IP, as well as another, were both blocked. Now another IP is back reinserting the same material
[3]. Please page protect for a couple of weeks. Maybe they'll move on to another article. Thanks. .
SW3 5DL (
talk)
05:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, had asked for PP when incident first occurred. Was turned down, and IP turned out to be sockpuppet Harvey Carter who has long history. Now another IP is back with the same source and edit. Please PP this article. This is a huge time sink for everybody, not to mention the admin who had to revdel all the comments this edit causes. Thank you.
SW3 5DL (
talk)
05:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Very subtle disruptive edits, though not occurring too often. Would help keep the unconstructive edits out and it would not hinder the legitimate edits that are (occasionally) made.
Aurato (
talk)
06:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined We rarely protect article talk pages unless the problem is really serious. It looks like the canvassing votes have been identified and I'm sure will be discounted.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
02:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)reply
It's not vandalism. What YOU'RE doing is vandalism, as you are refusing to provide a source. Do you not understand how Wikipedia works. You either provide a source, or you back down and accept that you're wrong, which you are here. I really don't understand why you're doing this. Is it to prove a point? The only thing you're proving is that you cannot just accept things as they are and move on. You HAVE to make things exactly how you want them to be.
PeopleEater143 (
talk)
21:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Also, I hope you know that in a few days I will be a confirmed user, so your page protections won't mean anything. Just accept that you're wrong and move on. You tried it.
PeopleEater143 (
talk)
21:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from IP bouncer who throws in fictional networks, removes additional items placed in the since their preferred 'good' fictional item-packed revision was first added months ago, and inappropriate use of outdated racial terms to boot. Nate•(
chatter)03:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There have been several people (or one making several accounts/sockpuppets) acting in conjunction to vandalize the article anarcho-capitalism today by inserting the word "oxymoron". I therefore request protection for the page from unconfirmed users for a short amount of time (whatever is usually proper). Thank you.
Knight of BAAWA (
talk)
23:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism — Large amounts of vandalism from both IP and registered users. All vandalism has been related the the release of YouTuber FilthyFrankTV's new parody mixtape of the same name.
Chewwie100 (
talk)
22:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Repeated insertion of OR by similar IPs. Talk page also affected, but less so. Alternatively, a rangeblock would probably work.
RivertorchFIREWATER06:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended Confirmed Protection: Persistent
vandalism - IP users are constantly changing religious breakdowns of the group to values that are grossly incorrect as per the cited sources. Have a look at the recent history to understand what is happening. The edits by IP user
106.51.23.81 are edits that are correct and are attempts to reverse vandalism. All other edits are vandalism and hence warrant immediate and urgent protection.
Thecorrector12 (
talk)
02:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Infrequently edited page with persistent vandalism. Has been semi-protected in the past, but vandals pop up a few times a month.
AlexEng(
TALK)19:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Experienced editors reinserting / deleting the same materal. Many calls to 'go to the talkpage'- but so far neither editor has. There was a previous edit war by IPs in
December, which resulted in a semi.
O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi.16:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
No worries! I'll defer to your time here - reasoning was that the protection level could be changed once things had settled down but hopefully that can be done in 48 hours -- Samtartalk ·
contribs16:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent potentially defamatory
vandalism by IP user(s) using unreliable (blog) sources. TBH am not sure this page reaches notability requirements.
FOARP (
talk)
13:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Every few days since early Dec 2016, a disruptive editor has been trying to promote a hairstylist named Byron Cuellar in this article against consensus, despite warnings, and despite repeated removals.
Deli nk (
talk)
13:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Lots of IPs claiming he's been transferred to Everton, despite no confirmation from either Everton or Manchester United. I recommend semi-protection until either the transfer is confirmed or the end of the transfer window (1 February). –
PeeJay10:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Unregistered editors using IP addresses repeatedly added the birth year once or twice a month. It's happening now. I repeatedly reverted it as no reliable sources would verify the person's actual age. The subject's
official website does not reveal his birth year.
George Ho (
talk)
00:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – An IP user is constantly removing referenced material. Regardless of whether the protection is added, please have a look at recent history; I do not want to revert again to break 3RR.
Matt Deres (
talk)
01:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Continued disruptive editing by sock-hopping IP, by removing content based on speculation or their belief that should a series not produce a new season within 12 months of previous premiere, it is cancelled, without
verification. livelikemusictalk!18:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Recurring vandalism by IPs, removing information relevant to the article. Including most recently an unregistered user (holds two IPs) that has been disruptive and removes sources that are completely reliable and widely used. Don't seem to be giving up anytime soon. Thanks.
Gsfelipe94 (
talk)
14:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There hasn't been any activity on the page. If there does become a need to protect the page, the page at that point can be protected. Also, unless an admin chooses to delete the page either via a speedy deletion (which this page does not meet), or consensus at an AFD, the page can't be deleted.
RickinBaltimore (
talk)
14:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Anon IPs using the article as a playground for their own amusement. Vjmlhds 15:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Increase in protection level: From no protection to template editor protection. High use template; currently about 42,000 transclusions, will be more when the database catches up.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
16:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Seven times in the last six months, an anonymous editor has blanked a sentence that is supported by the citation, and done so without explanation. Perhaps they have a point, but they never "come clean" and explain themselves.
LaurentianShield (
talk)
15:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Last January 7 my semi protection has expired. And there's another IP address who vandilizes the page by putting inapproproiate content. I am requesting for semi protection for another 3 months to avoid vandalism of different IPs. Thank you.
Leo kingston (
talk)
04:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: This page has suffered the most obscene COI editing I may ever have seen. Despite numerous warnings everywhere - talk page of article & editors, and a COI noticeboard report, the IP editor continues to ignore and defy requests to abstain. Not sure what the next logical step is but perhaps page protection may curb their activity?.
Rayman60 (
talk)
23:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Kids' Choice Awards pages have historically been subject to much vandalism in the weeks and months leading up to the show. There is already an AFD for this page, which has been removed at least one, and multiple IPs and new accounts vandalizing the page. .
Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing)
00:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – repeated attempts by unknown IP addresses to vandalise factual information, such as by changing his birth place and removing his current club. Vnonymous 08:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – This player is quite controversial in the sport and the page is therefore subject to reasonable amounts of vandalism. This page was previously protected and expired on 22 September 2016, since then, nearly every edit has been reverted due to IP vandalism. This player retired over 18 months ago and the vandalism on the page will probably never cease, therefore an indefinite protection is needed; also requesting pending changes as some good faith edits can also be controversial. i.e. relating to racism, reasons behind why he was booed etc.
Flickerd (
talk)
10:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry –
This sock puppetry has been going on for over 2 years now and the page continues to be targeted. Requesting that page semi-protection moves to Indefinite as temporary falls off and the sock starts again consistently. -- Danetalk09:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Full protection: - continued persistent vandalism and edit warring. I suggest revert back to 18:02 my edit that gave the original version so the matter can be discussed between the editors.--
BabbaQ (
talk)
17:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
This is not the place to have this discussion. It only however proves my point of yours and the others involved bickering behaviour sadly. Simply stop doing edit wars.--
BabbaQ (
talk)
17:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – It might sound silly to request Page Protection for an old Articles for Deletion discussion, but a quick look at the history for this AfD will show you why I believe it's necessary.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
00:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Note I reverted back to the edit that closed the AfD. I would suggest permanent rather than temporary semi-protection, clearly no reason for any IP or non-autoconfirmed user to be messing with an old debate.
Safiel (
talk)
05:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism - currently receiving large amounts of traffic (50,000 - 100,000 views per day vs. 1,500 usually) due to Tilikum's death. This has attracted quite a few vandals.
LoudLizard (
📞 |
contribs |
✉)
21:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Multiple different vandalizing IPs and non-confirmed editors in the past ~48h.
There's also a long-term vandalism issue with this page, albeit low-speed. ClueBot NG is the article's most frequent editor. (It has more edits to the page than the three next most frequent editors put together) At a quick estimate, around 600-700 of the article's ~900 revisions are either vandalism or the removal thereof.
AddWittyNameHere (
talk)
22:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Adding name change that was provided by a unreliable source . MatthewTardiff 21:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Temporary Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism with updates without source, reversed several times before figures are confirmed or official.
Wykx (
talk)
14:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Suddenly a wave of vandalism and/or unhelpful edits by IPs. I suspect an IP-hopper. I think that a week will be enough to spoil the fun. The Bannertalk15:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Deleted 3 times (no claim of importance, housekeeping, and AfD consensus, respectively).
KATMAKROFAN (
talk)
22:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done You fail to mention that prior to the most recent deletion, the most recent deletion was nine years ago. We don't speculatively protect pages without anything to suggest abuse. ‑
Iridescent23:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Article just came out of 2-month semi-protection yesterday after persistent anonymous IP attempts to alter the color-blind accessible color scheme selected via an RFC on the talk page. The disruption has started again almost immediately. Unfortunately some editors are seemingly unable to get their heads around the idea that accessibility is a higher priority than aesthetics.
Betty Logan (
talk)
08:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – An IP hopping editor is making a dedicated effort over years to introduce Americanisms into an article about an Australian subject, introduce undue weight, alter the article to refer to the subject by her childhood nickname of "Jessie", alter the article to make an unnecessary reference to one of her characters as "#2" in her filmography.
Paul Benjamin Austin (
talk)
18:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Adminitration page that new editors dont need to edit. Its a stable page that see nothing but new editor blanking.
Moxy (
talk)
19:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Who thinks we should Unprotect these articles: The astrology articles were very vandalized and needed protection back in September. This was due to several announcements by NASA. The Aries article was protected for 2 months, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces will be protected for 1 year, and Sagittarius has been protected indefinitely. The Aries article has been doing fine unprotected even while the rest are protected. So does this make you think these articles should be unprotected by now?
68.224.116.208 (
talk)
03:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I recommend leaving these semiprotections in place. If an IP wants changes, they can propose them on the talk page. It is likely that promoters of Ophiuchus as a member of the zodiac will continue to revert if protection is lifted.
EdJohnston (
talk)
14:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending Changes Protection: Temp whitelock requested (1 week or so) because of possible edit warring and accusations of sockpuppetry between 2 IPs and someone named Nirmal Mathew. 6 contradictory edits in tecent time. Was redirected to here from edit warring page.
L3X1 (
talk)
14:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
L3X1: I've opted to make this a full protection so that the editors discuss the dispute and make edit requests on the article's talk page. Pending changes would just be messy -- Samtartalk ·
contribs15:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Disruptive edits by IPs. One IP adding the name "Maharaj" to the title in the lead and infobox, another IP adding all flights that are not operated. . —
LeoFrank Talk15:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection Flood of transfer rumour. The news was Atlanta rejected the bid, not even in the stage of medical, but ip user keep on editing the page to "reflect" he was completed the deal to Everton.
Matthew_hktc13:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection is requested for the page at edit 759438607. The editors requested British era sources and some local unreliable publishers to not be referenced or used. This has been achieved. Only highly reliable sources have now been used. Still, changes were undone by someone else with comments such as, 'this doesn't seem likely', without discussion on references, books, history or other sources.
Digvijaykatoch (
talk)
04:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP-vandalism and edit-warring, with at least two IPs repeatedly adding unsourced claims and hurling racist abuse and accusations of vandalism at editors who revert them. .
Wikishovel (
talk)
08:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP-vandalism and edit-warring, with at least two IPs repeatedly adding unsourced claims and hurling racist abuse and accusations of vandalism at editors who revert them.
Wikishovel (
talk)
08:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP-vandalism and edit-warring, with at least two IPs repeatedly adding unsourced claims and hurling racist abuse and accusations of vandalism at editors who revert them.
Wikishovel (
talk)
08:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Page was protected until January 1 to stop an IP user who constantly vandalizes the page. I would report their IP address but their IP address constantly changes. So, this page needs to be protected again because they have begun vandalizing the page. (
121.219.109.233 (
talk)
05:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC))reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persisent addition of material outside scope of wikipedia prevents me from conducting maitenance upon the article. Many poor reversions must be sorted through, and it's hard to do that while some IP is copy/pasting poorly formatted lists and hitting "save".
L3X1 (
talk)
21:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: The subject of the page was concerned about personal information about his marriage which was added by an unknown actor.
leifberg (
talk)
13:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Page is frequently edited by various IP addresses seeking to change instances of "crab" to "lobster" for some reason. It's an ongoing problem, but seeing no protection log, I'm asking for temporary semi-protection first.
AlexEng(
TALK)18:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This is one of the important issue going on the state of Tamil Nadu. This must not be deleted as well as blanked because this article contains the depression of TN farmers who died this year or 2016.
wiki tamil 100 (
talk)
13:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – One of their players has been in the press. This has lead to many additions of speculation, gossip and opinion by numerous IPs - all unsourced and unencyclopedic.
Egghead06 (
talk)
17:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done It looks like there's only been two cases, both by the same IP. Please leave warnings for the IP. If they persist after appropriate warnings, use
WP:AIV. --
ferret (
talk)
12:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent potentially defamatory
vandalism by IP user(s) using unreliable (blog) sources. Began again right after previous 2-day semi-protection period expired.
FOARP (
talk)
11:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, specifically due to political views that some may view as being polar. Examples include changes made that called the a "Qatari news..." which isn't true, with no historical backing. As well as biased edits such as "is extremely left winged, and in recent years has become more controversial through repeated accusations of racism" and additional edit calling it "an American, left-biased, fake". Revision history shows consistent edits of people that are
Alt-right and simply do not like the show
TempTTC (
talk)
09:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Only highly reliable sources have been used. Still, changes were undone and most of the information on the article erased by someone else without discussion on references, books, history or other sources.. .... added 13:24, 11 January 2017 by
User:Danyal.252.
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Simply not a page new editors need to blank....or edit for that matter. Administration page that really only ever needs to be edited by those very familiar with coding.
Moxy (
talk)
08:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Ymblanter: Just saw your protection and thought the same thing - would you consider bumping this up to indef? The disruption has been somewhat long term, and you're quite right in saying that there really is no reason for it to be edited by unconfirmed users -- Samtartalk ·
contribs08:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Full-protection: An editor has repeatedly made dubious edits to the results table despite repeated requests to stop. A source was provided but does not back up their additions (in fact it contradicts them). More details on the
talk page. Could someone revert their addition and lock the page, as unfortunately I have already reverted them three times today. Thanks,
Number5712:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. It looks as if the two of you are already discussing it at the talk page. Work it out there, and don't edit war in the meantime.
MelanieN (
talk)
02:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – This article has been receiving vandalism lately, mostly from IPs. I suggest temporary pending changes until it's off the main page. MediaKill13(
talk)04:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Months of slow edit warring by two named accounts with no attempt at discussion. I don't know if this is blanking of content or repeated insertion of unsourced (or even fake) material since no-one is leaving edit summaries or warnings. Both editors have been given edit warring warnings by other users.
Meters (
talk)
05:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Low trafficked page that has been getting the same nonsense reddit related vandalism for many many months now. Thought it would stop after a while but it hasn't. PC will still allow edits but I am asking for indefinite as it has been going on since May.
Majora (
talk)
03:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Chrissymad: Seems like the content was moved to the 2016 article, and then partially reverted there. You may want to remove some of the content that The Banner (Good faith) moved over, as it was originally added by an IP in the ranges used by the sock. --
ferret (
talk)
19:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotected - socks were disrupting a then-high visibility redirect, and I meant to unprotect it after a time but it slipped my mind. Thanks for the ping. – Juliancolton |
Talk15:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Whitelock Persistent vandalism by a block evader. I am RCP, so I need to be able to communicate with IPs, thus SEMI won't work. Whitelock allows IPs who wish to protest or discuss a revert can still file it, and I can sort through the vandalism of SlitherioFan2016's sockpuppets.
L3X1 (
talk)
03:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent blanking of
West Coast Customs by self-described employees
[12] hopping IPs. Since in a recent edit this person has apparently been "put in charge of moderating the West Coast Customs Wikipedia page" by West Coast Customs, I would like to ask for the page to be semi-protected so only autoconfirmed editors may edit it. Note that I'm doing my best to assume good faith here and despite my authorship of 80% of the current article I am not trying to claim
WP:OWN or anything like that, but these IPs and now user accounts all with the same
modus operandi completely ignore my and other editor's attempts to engage them in discussion
[13] If it is too premature to ask for page protection, I'm sorry, I'm just trying to protect WP from vandalism which is quite likely to continue because it's obvious upper management of WCC does not like my article rewrite. Semi protection will allow these editors, if they have real grievances with the new version of the article, to ask for changes on the talk page and get consensus instead of the current hopping and blanking.
Psiĥedelisto (
talk)
05:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi protection: This page has been under attack for several hours. Each IPs block leads to a new one so perhaps a few hours protection will discourage them.
MarnetteD|
Talk03:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Not really seeing any disruption, just minor content disputes. Please give the talk page a try and engage the other editors. --
ferret (
talk)
01:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Same thing, same sort of vandalism, some of the same users apparently as at Kingdom Hearts III. Persistent and repeated vandalism. One of the vandals now has a user name.
Donner60 (
talk)
03:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Article was semi'd by Pats1 indefinitely in 2010 (the only time the article was ever semiprotected) and it has been six years since then, so it probably isn't necessary now and unprotection is worth a shot. —
MRD2014 (
talk •
contribs)
02:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Same IP is putting up false block notices, and ignoring warning over and over and over again.
WP:AIV Has not banned the IP yet, so a 2 or 3 hour SEMI would do the trick until AIV blocks him.
L3X1 (
talk)
20:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism, blanking the page and redirecting to an unrelated title. Received protection in November for same issue. --
Whats new?(talk)23:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: This article is regularly edited by people who try to recast the beliefs of this religion as absolute facts. Now we also have at least one person doing the opposite and mocking their beliefs. This is all pointlessly disruptive.
DanielRigal (
talk)
15:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection Repeated removals of sourced content with unsourced stuff on three occasions within the last two days. Usually done by IP accounts and disingenuously titled as "minor edit" while large swathes of content are removed.
Damien2016 (
talk)
10:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Persistent vandalism throughout 2016, 33 times by multiple unregistered users, 14 times by 4 SPAs (one SPA nominating the page for deletion, which was overwhelmingly rejected), one long vandalism edit war in February 2016. In 2014 and 2015, the constructive edits from unregistereds outnumbered the disruptive ones (2014: 3 to 1; 2015: 9 to 2), but this balance was overturned in 2016 (7 to 33). I'm not sure if semi-protection will solve the problem, because some vandals simply create an SPA. Also, most disruptive edits are reverted the same day, the page is relatively well-guarded. However, according to my calculation, 52 of the total of 232 or 22.4% of all edits are vandalism, which is far above the average of 5%. Interested in your opinion.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
04:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Unverified possibly false rumors about this actor's alleged health status and alleged death (the situation is unclear with conflicting forum posts). Google came up empty on reliable news (both in English and Spanish). Repeated BLP addition without source.
GermanJoe (
talk)
08:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There is a meme going around involving the lead singer (Sarah Midori Perry) being nicknamed "Crusher." The page had to be fixed a dozen times today.
Temporary full protection: Persistent
vandalism – When Toronto Maple Leafs play Ottawa Senators, which is happening this weekend and next, there is regular vandalism.
Alaney2k (
talk)
00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Page name keeps getting changed, using reference that cannot be considered 100% accurate. Have reverted to original name, but unsure if editor will change it once again.
Hellboy42 (
talk)
Question:@
Chrissymad: I hesitate to protect this since the article was just created and split from the main topic. I would be happy to watchlist it though and protect if it continues. --
ferret (
talk)
19:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – There have been multiple unexplained deletions, reverts, and removals of vital content in the lead paragraph by anonymous IP accounts and sock puppets. I would like to request that this page be protected so that only established editors can make reasonable edits to it.
Tiger7253 (
talk)
17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. It looks like several good faith efforts have been made to change the article, including removal of unsourced portions, updating or adding new sources, etc. Definitely not persistent disruptive editing. --
ferret (
talk)
19:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move-protection: See
this section. The article continues to be moved against consensus and without a policy-based rationale. It needs indefinite move-protection to protect the article from this back and forth. If anyone has a valid argument for moving the article, that person can start a
WP:Requested move discussion.
Flyer22 Reborn (
talk)
19:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Move protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Previous semiprotection was still in affect but autoconfirmed users who have past move-warred involved. Protection increased to sysop. --
ferret (
talk)
19:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Ferret, thanks. The reason I requested indefinite move-protection, though, is that the moving of this article will continue. People will keep moving it to "Lucas Horton" regardless of the arguments made on the talk page. It's better to have the article indefinitely move-protected than to keep requesting move-protection for it.
Flyer22 Reborn (
talk)
22:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Article has been CSD'd twice for A11 and has been repeatedly recreated. I reached out to the author letting them know they can use AfC next time if they want to create this article in the future with different content (if it should be found notable at that time).
Garchy (
talk)
21:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent link spamming of a 'private' (read, copyright violating fork) 'successor' to this closed MMO. A pirate server for a game about pirates.
MrOllie (
talk)
21:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry –
User:SchoolcraftT is using IP addresses to circumvent his permanent ban. The main page has already been protected but he continues to edit on the talk page using IP addresses, so I'm requesting the protection be extended there as well.
Bitmapped (
talk)
22:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Constant needing to revert IP tampering of infobox and cast list edits that go against Wiki Rules.
TropicAces (
talk)
16:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)tropicAcesreply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced content – Various IP editors are changing the name of a song from A to CTRL. It is not supported by the source cited.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
13:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined This is already semi-protected: I see no reason for template protection. On the contrary, it would inconvenience many folks who appear to be improving the template.
Vanamonde (
talk)
10:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Per its log, last time's year long protection doesn't seem to deter two specific instances of repeated unsourced disruptive editing. Extended duration this time, perhaps.
Ugog Nizdast (
talk)
13:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Infinite move-protection: My user and talk pages have been moved today by a vandal user. I would like to ask to move-protect my both user and talk pages permanently. Thanks--
Sahehco (
talk)
12:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I've put both at semi-protection for moves - if you experience further problems, let us know and we can elevate it further.
Samsara12:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Under heavy attack by vandals; only 41 revision of fourth and back reverts today. Worst of all this is an IP address from the 1.32.70.x range that conducts
sneaky vandalism under heavy disguise of dummy edits and multiple revisions. (But he hasn't done even one positive improvement.).
Codename Lisa (
talk)
12:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined There has been no further edit warring since the level 4 warning. I'm now watching this page, if there is anymore of this nonsense I will block the IP.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
23:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IP socks continuing to deny and change subject and subject's parents' racial heritage without sourcing, as has been a problem for years on this article. Nate•(
chatter)01:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Question: (1) Do you have a need for editing this template, and (2) have you attempted to contact the protecting admin?
Samsara07:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Persistent political based additions to the notable people list. Certain it is the same person every time. Ipv6 switches every edit so communication is futile. An edit filter for the name may be more appropriate. .
John from Idegon (
talk)
01:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm having a hard time seeing any urgent need IPs or newly registered editors will have for editing this category.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
23:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent removal of content associated with claims of libel from one IP user who violated 3RR. Another IP user joined in. Both have IPs from Seattle area near location of Bastyr.
Delta13C (
talk)
00:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Between the confirmed sockpuppets, the suspected sockpuppets, IP users, and new accounts - changing the genre of a 13 year old album, perhaps we need some protection for a few days.
Semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – IP sockpuppets of
User:M Rob1119 are overwriting this redirect with an article about some other person. Persistent. No need for IP users to create articles anyway and generally can't but overwriting redirects is a loophole.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
20:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done For one, this is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Second, no one has attempted to move it. I don't see a move of this as either imminent or likely to be irreversibly disruptive if it would happen, so I am not inclined to override our practice against preemptive protections. If another admin disagrees, they are free to override me. GoPhightins!17:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined –
Warn the user appropriately then report them to
AIV or
ANI if they continue. Looks like a content dispute here. If the IP in question reverts again, please re-report and we can look at a block. If hopping becomes an issue, we can do page protection, but as far as I can tell, one IP editor is the sole problem here. GoPhightins!17:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes:BLP policy violations – IPs are persisently adding poorly sourced claims on a BLP currently in the news.
Bradv19:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Let's try about 90 days of page protection; assorted drive-by anon IP edits are almost all trivia and inevitably unhelpful for this particular featured article.
Montanabw(talk)19:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IPs making unsourced changes to the article. There is no reference either in a news source or in the official website of the airline regarding these changes. Despite reverting, IPs keep re-instating the same. —
LeoFrank Talk17:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Could be equally BLP, vandalism & disruptive. For 3 weeks while the show is airing. Repeatedly subject to non-encyclopedic additions by IPs, basically fans of the show adding and amending based on chat forums.
Leaky Caldron17:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. We don't block preemptively, as you know, so for now I gave it one week. Feel free to re-report if the editing continues after a week is up. Thanks for your attention to this issue. GoPhightins!17:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
We don't protect pre-emptively, but due to past unhelpful contributions, the page is eligible for PC1, which I've enabled.
Samsara13:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined, this is just one user, who has been warned and for the time being stopped. If they continue edit-warring,
WP:3RRN should be used to get them blocked.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
08:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection "Edit war" by ip users (5, 10?) that did not known the use of infobox was intented for domestic league only.
Matthew_hktc10:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism. It has received temporary protection several times but vandalism has continued to occur and has required many reversions. Most of the vandalism seems to come from unregistered users so hopefully extended confirmed protection will remove this problem.
Josephus37 (
talk)
12:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: With his death today and his murder trial in the news for the past year or so, this has attracted a lot of IP vandalism.
GaryColemanFan (
talk)
02:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't know about the incident that
Samsara is referring to: but this appears to be necessary, and I am therefore protecting it. If there are important reasons to unprotect that I am unaware of, then feel free to unprotect without asking me.
Vanamonde (
talk)
09:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. In short, he's a mixed martial artist who's expected to face a Russian fighter,
Khabib Nurmagomedov, and what's probably happening is vandalism from Khabib's large Russian following.
TBMNY (
talk)
00:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Anon IP, including one who has erased several warnings from his talk page, are adding uncited personal-life claims both in violation of
WP:BLP but contrary to the RS sources in the article. As well, they are including disallowed reference links to IMDb. --
Tenebrae (
talk)
02:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Vandalism has died down. Putting it on pending. If edits are made at a high rate tomorrow, please ping me and I'll raise to semi. ~
Rob13Talk06:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: The protection seems to have become preemptive. The last edit prior to the version I reverted was October last year. I think that the PC should be reinstated once those unsourced additions come back again. Babymissfortune08:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – After the infbox battle that happened just before Christmas, a new edit war has started. It seems one editor wants
WP:CONSENSUS before a major change and I'm not sure what the other wants. A full lock, with a formal request for unlocking until an agreement is reached (on both topics) would be appreciated. I can't see a lot happening to Canada over the next few months that would require immediate change to registered editors.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
23:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: During the months of January and February, the page tends to get a rise in IP vandalism due to the Peruvian "National Pisco Sour Day" celebrations held on the first Saturday of February.--
MarshalN20✉🕊23:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Following the previous week-long SPP, the same IPs have returned to make the same edits, namely adding contentious content to the lead which is under discussion at the article talk page.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
13:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – This article has been protected several times over the last few years. Every time protection expires, a new rash of IP vandalism starts. The subject is a polarizing public figure and will continually be in the news, which is why I'm asking for indefinite protection. We can revisit the issue in a few years' time. PC1 would prevent vandalism from being immediately visible while still allowing constructive IP editing. Chris Troutman (
talk)16:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – page has now been moved three times to Nor cheese (its Turkish name), and has been returned to Anari as all the sources listed use that name.
IdreamofJeanie (
talk)
11:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: One recent edit by IP was reverted. It's more of an opinion about the article subject itself. Past reverts are more likely vandalism or unreasonable removals, although they have happened once or twice a month.
George Ho (
talk)
07:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Many people have been editing the key personnel section in the Infobox of late. The folks editing this have added random names, those absolutely in no way shape or form associated with Jio. The kind of edits done almost amount to vandalism. Request protection for this page for at least the next few months. Thanks!
FlyingBlueDream (
talk)
07:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Beall's website is down and we have IP editors and editors with few edits bombing the page claiming that it was hacked. Please at least temporarily semi-protect but ideally fully protect for say 3 days after which time the site should be back up or there should be reliable sources saying what is happening.
Jytdog (
talk)
22:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Dynamic IP keeps re-adding a genre based on an unreliable source (a WordPress blog post that does not meet
WP:SPS). —Farix (
t |
c)
23:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: 9 months of rev-del'ed personal attacks from an IP hopper. I think this is still the original IP editor getting back at us for his blocks. Not much we can do since he waits for the protection to end on this page, and comes back from whatever his current IP is.
Meters (
talk)
06:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Protection as close to forever as possible, for obvious reasons, this dab page is a target for a lot of kiddie vandalism and patrolling is a waste of editor resources.
Montanabw(talk)01:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent
vandalism – 10-day ECP has recently expired after disruption from autoconfirmed-but-not-yet-extended-confirmed users following New Year's Eve performance, and had previously been indefinitely semi-protected since 2010 after a long history of vandalism. Let's not take the risk of more autoconfirmed-but-not-yet-extended-confirmed disruption.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
01:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
On the contrary, admin
Samsara said to bring this back to RPP or let him/her know once ECP had expired if it wasn't already re-protected. Pending changes are also useless to begin with because they don't stop disruption.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
02:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Tunisian schoolkid keeps creating a page on himself with attempts starting in September last year using various accounts - also on his website Fozbal. Has offered on the talk page to pay money to keep it, so seems pretty determined to keep trying.
Blythwood (
talk)
03:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary upload protection: Consistent attempts to upload an incorrect version of the poster for O.J.: Made in America. Guidelines for both the TV and Film projects recommend the initial release poster be used, not subsequent reissues or new ones for created after release, which users have been attempting to upload. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
20:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: What the? This was only created once.
KATMAKROFAN (
talk) 04:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@
JamesBWatson: This does look odd, the log indicates an
WP:LTA user was involved somehow but I'm not seeing it, paging protecting admin in case there is something less obvious going on.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
04:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Offensive name – Protecting because any recreation attempt, no matter what the content, will be deleted or moved without leaving a redirect, because of the offensive name. Also blacklist any title containing "Twinkle Twinkle Little Sperm".
Luis150902 (
talk |
contribs)
15:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined I don't see a reason to create protect this. It was a vandal move 8+ years ago with no further activity. There's an essentially infinite number of possible offensive names a vandal could move a page like this to.. --
ferret (
talk)
15:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Doesn't seem to be a lot of traffic, primary recent vandal has been blocked. --
ferret (
talk)
19:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 18 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Sorry to disagree with you ferret. I was looking at it already when you declined it. There is a long history of vandalism on this article. While the recent vandalism hasn't been massive, there hasn't been many recent edits at all. A very high proportion of the edits over the last few months have been vandalism or reverting vandalism.
Yaris678 (
talk)
19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
There was an unopposed proposal to merge {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse}} as well, but it has not been done yet. If it's not necessary to full-protect these, I would leave them as is. It seems highly unlikely that a template editor is going to do something destructive to MediaWiki:Protect-text, which is really just a quite simple template that isn't in Template namespace. The protection of that MediaWiki-namespace page is there seemingly because the content is WP:OFFICE controlled, but this doesn't seem to have anything to do with templates (like Collapse top) that it uses as utilities. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Reopening request. @
Samsara: This is a valid request since the template is not cascade-protected and since per the instructions in this section, the protecting admin does not need to be notified for full protection to template protection downgrade requests. (Unless someone wants to place this template on
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items, if that's technically possible ...
Mr. Stradivarius?)
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm confused by your seemingly contradictory argument. I'm sure if you were to argue that you have specific improvements you want to make to this template, we would allow you to do that. Otherwise, I'm not sure why we're having this discussion. A request for lowering protection can be made at any time, and template editors know where to do so.
Samsara (
talk)
19:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Samsara: That's okay, since I'm confused on what you are trying to tell me as well, or why you are telling me this. Would it be a bit clearer if I state that I am, in a nutshell, requesting this template have its protection level downgraded, or would it help if I say ... that cascading protection supersedes template protection if both are applied to a page?
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Linking to it from
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items will make it fully protected, which is the opposite of lowering it to TP. Now you seem to be saying that you would like its protection to be lowered, but is that because you want to edit it, or because you're wikilawyering about a matter of principle? We had a discussion recently where we concluded that we would not honour random requests for lowering protection unless a good reason was given - see the talk page for that. So if you have specific changes in mind, we would probably lower the protection to allow those to be made. If you don't have any at this time, no change is needed as you can request the lowering of protection when you are ready to edit, and it will be granted within a short time. Note that the proposed change mentioned by SMcCandlish can be made right now - both {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse}} are editable by template editors right now.
Samsara (
talk)
19:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Okay, I see where the confusion lies now. For one, cascading protection and full protection are not technically the same thing. Also, what I was actually providing were two different paths to resolve this: One is to cascade protect this page, and the other is to lower its protection level to template protection. In its current state, I believe that the page should by default have its protection level lowered to template protection since it is a page in the template namespace and ... again, by default ... should have its protection level lowered to template protection. The creation of the template editor right was to allow editors with the right to edit all templates ... with the exception of those with cascading protection. In fact, I do agree with you that the fact that this has essentially turned into some sort of "wiki lawyering"-ish discussion is rather disturbing as well; the IP made a simple, within consensus established policy request, and now here we are debating the validity of the whole ordeal. If there was a discussion that established consensus otherwise, a link to that information should be added to
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading ASAP. Without that information ... In a nutshell, in my opinion, the fact that
Mr. Stradivarius raised the protection level of this page from template protection to full protection was
WP:IAR and the fact that you denied the IP's request to downgrade it again is also
WP:IAR.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Sooooooo... in a
previous discussion, I pretty much volunteered for going through highly transcluded templates and ensuring they have the correct protection values, but we kind of got stuck on what cut-off value to use and whether to enact such protection at all. If I have a clear mandate, I will go through them and fix them, but it makes the most sense to me to change them in either direction, both lowering and elevating as needed. The protection policy provides no guidance on when a protection should be increased, however, other than vague relative terms. But honestly, if I have to have the finger pointed at me for relaying consensus from previous discussions to you because you haven't read them, I'd rather walk my dog.
Samsara (
talk)
19:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Samsara: Nah, I'm just not the biggest fan of being told to look at a talk page that has several pages of archives, leaving me with no real clue of how to find the exact discussion I'm being directed to find... And that linked discussion has nothing to do with my concerns...It seems that I have a rather strong disagreement with the way that linked discussion turned out, but I'll leave any concerns I have with that discussion to be stated at a later time since I'm sure we are both getting exhausted dealing with this here at this specific juncture (a random page protect request.) Either way, if I were an admin, I would have also volunteered to do what you volunteered to do as well, considering I'm a bit of a consistency and
M&P stickler; makes Wikipedia easier to navigate and edit for good-faith editors, so I very muchly agree with your take on the whole ordeal. Anyways, with that being said, thanks for the information (as well as your take on the matter), and I will reactivate the "denied" template for the bot.Steel1943 (
talk)
20:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, turns out that I was mistaken that I was pointed to this discussion.
Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection has 9 archive pages, so trying to find whatever consensus was formed for what I see to be
WP:IAR upgrades (upgrade template protection to full protection without proof of
template editors editing in violation of the template editor editing guideline) and denials (deny downgrading full protection to template protection) for "Template:" namespace pages is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. And I've seen quite a few of such upgrades and denials when it seems quite clear as stated in
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading that these requests for downgrading should have no controversy and shouldn't be reverted unless the template page has or gets cascading protection (or the obvious case of template protection not working due to template editors not following the template editor guideline themselves while the page is template protected.) So, at this point, I am a bit troubled by the fact that I was directed to some sort of consensus ... but where is proof of that consensus located? This question seems to be bringing up more additional questions than answers. And, honestly, any such drastic change to neuter the permissions granted by the template editor user right really needs to be a discussion that is advertised via a
WP:RFC since it is such a big change.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Eh, never mind for now. I just realized how many community resources may be wasted by discussing this here on this page, as well as the fact that it may drive volunteers away from fulfilling these requests if they see this big wall of text. I'll copy my concerns somewhere (probably in my user space) and probably start a more structured discussion later. Anyways, I'm going to reactivate the decline tag now for the bot. If anyone has the desire to continue on this discussion, probably best to do so on
this page's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Template editor for proper exposure.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Additionally, the edits back in September and the most recent revert appear to be by autoconfirmed editors, so PC and SP wouldn't stop them. --
ferret (
talk)
14:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The article has come under attack from new SPA accounts trying to whitewash it, ranging from making minor comments about the accusations not being proven to repeated attempts to replace the entire article with marketing material from Onecoin. - Tom |
Thomas.W talk13:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Major vandalism/possible edit warring between IP addresses. Requesting at least ten days to let this thing die down. It appears to have been going on for a while.
UNSC Luke 1021 (
talk)
14:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: an IP editor is sitting on the page, reverting edits that they disagree with and insisting that the article must be consistent with previous articles (ie,
Mercedes F1 W07 Hybrid). Although they have made some effort to learn from their mistakes, such as including references when requested, much of the content that they restore is regarded as inappropriate for inclusion, as per long-standing consensus at
WP:F1 (ie, launch dates unnecessary and fail
WP:NOTNEWS). Their attitude also needs work; they are dismissive of the need to reference content.
Prisonermonkeys (
talk)
02:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Request for indefinite long-term semi protection as the sock is continue to make disruptive editing by adding unsourced content. Seems the sock will not stop although have been given repeated warnings before.
Molecule Extraction (
talk)
09:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – There are a bunch of disruptive SPAs and IPs (with possible conflict of interest) trying to add badly sourced information. I also suspect sockpuppetry here. They are even removing templates from the talk page
[28] (this strikes me as bizarre because it is not the article COI template). I would suggest semi or extended confirmed protection for a month or so.
Lemongirl942 (
talk)
06:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Only two recent reverts is not enough justification to raise protection from indef semiprot to extended confirmed. --
ferret (
talk)
01:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
My talk page was vandalised See
here by troll from He:wiki. also in Commons The text on summary editsis in Hebrew and it is abussive in Hebrew and need to be hide. This is
User:יעל י That was blocked globally on Meta see
here for abusing users on Hebrew wiki and Commons. She has a lot of Sockpuppets some of them were record in commons in
Category:Sockpuppets of יעל י. also here
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/יעל י/Archive My talk page was protected because of her before, see
here. I am asking now for indefinite protection, because she will reture in the future and it will happen again. I am an Administrator in Hebrew Wikipedia an OTRS volunteer and an active user in commons, and Meta-wiki. And it will happen again. Thanks.
Hanay (
talk)
20:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined We only protect user talk pages in exceptionally serious cases of vandalism, and then only for short periods (see
the protection policy). This page has only had two vandal edits recently, from the same user who has now been blocked. I suspect the reason your talk page was protected previously is because at that time it was just a redirect to somewhere else. Hut 8.522:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Hanay: - Looking at your talkpage history - this vandal has edited your talkpage twice in the last 30 days. Unfortunately, I don't believe that we would be able to semi-protect your talkpage for such minor disruption at this time.
SQLQuery me!01:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Likely collateral damage given positive contributions from IPs. Additionally, protection during an AfD is problematic.
Samsara (
talk)
20:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected Has never been unprotected since 2007, and I think for good reason. There are certain high-profile articles that will inevitably attract IP vandalism. The reason you don't see it is because they're blocked from doing it.
King of♥♦♣ ♠
05:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Various IPs making edits due to the current political situation in The Gambia. Could do with a very short period of semi-protection, maybe 24 hours.
CMD (
talk)
09:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. User keeps reverting to include content that is subjective opinion/questionable about a living person. Also keeps reverting to include a line that is unsourced.
All recent reverts have been near-instantaneous. I don't see the value proposition of PC in this situation. Second opinions welcome.
Samsara (
talk)
12:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
IMO no protection needed. Vandalism is not frequent enough for semi, plus IPs do seem to make constructive edits at times. PC could be appropriate, but probably not needed. Next admin up gets to make the call! --
MelanieN (
talk)
04:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Looks like that's me. :) With no activity in the last week, I think the best thing is to watchlist the page and hit it with semi if it gets as busy again as it was at times in September and November.
Samsara (
talk)
05:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: After revert edits stopped between two users (who were told to stop), while a dispute resolution procedure was made and while the conflict was being discussed in the Talk Page, waiting for a possible resolution this weekend, another user made a revert edit. .
Fulgery (
talk)
04:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The discussion didn't end, and he want to Leave his version (the controversial version) of the page. It's more appropriate to protect the version which was before the debate until the problem is resolved. As it will mislead the readers of the page. --
Aṭlas (
talk)
04:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Nothing is misleading or controversial in the current version. Before the appearance of another user, the edits had stopped in the current version (the version before a dispute resolution request was made) and the question was discussed in the Talk page. The problem could be resolved this weekend by unbiaised users hopefully, but until then I think the article should be protected.
Fulgery (
talk)
05:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I am that other user. I find the edits controversial and very misleading, and reversed them. Your edits are not supported by the sources you cite - you evidently have not read them or have not understood them. Moreover, you are not even trying to address the multitude of secondary sources contradicting your edits others have produced in the talk page. You have engaged in edit-warring on this page, violated
WP:3RR, and are now trying to solidify your version with page protection? I see you only registered three days ago, and have contributed nothing else but edit-warred on this. May I ask that you take a breather, gather your argument, and address the evidence, rather than going around forum-shopping? If you're concerned about other readers seeing your edits, you can provide diffs. The page itself should be as it was before your controversial edits.
Walrasiad (
talk)
09:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
My edits are supported by my reliable and authoritative sources. I responded multiple times in the Talk Page to the objections. I have not violated
WP:3RR and the page should be in the version preceding your rekindling of the fire by your edits, while the edits had stopped and the problem was being discussed.
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is getting very disruptive, but all editors here have Autoconfirmed rights. Even though I recognize that this dispute is not entirely symmetric, I have to ask you to sort it out on the talk page.
Vanamonde (
talk)
10:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – This BLP has been under attack by a host of SPAs who continually insert massive amounts of promotional language about their non-notable punk band beginning around 2009 and continuing today. The article subject himself has even attempted to revert this and been edit warred with. The accounts in question have edited virtually nothing but this article and a "now redirected" article about their own band and have nothing constructive to add. Please protect this BLP.
The Master---)Vote Saxon(---01:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: The following IPs keep adding the Monarchist Flag of Brazil to the Article as a "Variant Flag": 187.101.92.131, 191.255.157.2, 189.47.231.246. By Law, Brazil has no "official" Variant flag and neither are Monarchist movements relevant enough in the Political Scenario to be featured like that in the Infobox. I'm always trying to revert their Vandalism, but they always end up doing it again.
2804:14C:B385:69E5:E473:3F45:CD9C:1510 (
talk)
05:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP image deletions. The title card in the infobox has been deleted around fifteen times in the past four months without edit summaries or talk page discussion, including five times in the past three weeks since I started a talk page discussion at
Talk:Dill Mill Gayye#Infobox image. While this could be numerous IP addresses, it seems more likely to be one editor IP hopping without using edit summaries or joining the talk page discussion.
Aspects (
talk)
06:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Persistent edit warring. Unsourced editing for the articles about Kelantan Football Association
Shafiqabu (
talk)
17:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism from School IP. The IP has been block multiple times so unsure if better to block the School IP or protect the frequently vandalized page.
Apriestofgix (
talk)
22:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Jewish woman says Jews will promote multiculturalism. Cue anti-semitic conspiracy theories that she's the smoking gun who's revealed a zionist conspiracy for white genocide. .
Brustopher (
talk)
23:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Reliably sourced, referenced and correctly cited information has been removed on four occasions during the last 48hrs, by IP editors and Single Purpose Accounts. .
Exemplo347 (
talk)
23:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Disruptive editing has continued as well as POV-pushing edits since the protection fell off; likely related to their recent appearance in the news. -- Danetalk01:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Clearly not a sufficient length of time. (Why five hours? Was 15 minutes not an option?) The vandalism resumed immediately after the protection ended. —
MShabazzTalk/Stalk13:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary protection: Persistent edit warring. The film had its first release anywhere in the world in Europe last month, which by Wikipedia policy, makes it a 2016 film. Numerous IPs have either changed the date to 2017 or removed the earlier Europe release dates.
Crboyer (
talk)
16:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Administrator note Before I saw this request, I had already protected the article for two years. It had previously been blocked numerous times for periods of either a week or a month, but that was ineffective, as the unacceptable editing just came back each time. However, considering how long the problem has been going on, and the high likelihood that it will continue, I am borderline for whether to accept
EvergreenFir's suggestion of indefinite semi-protection or not, so I am leaving this request open, to let another administrator can decide on that question, if any administrator chooses to. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
19:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – A user keeps putting in the same information of the kermit's performers in the "voice actors" section of the infobox, I've told the user countless times that they are already listed in the infobox and they don't need to be listed in there twice in a row, but the user keeps on doing it no matter how many times I explained it to him. Can some please protect the article indefinite, please.
174.192.18.219 (
talk)
01:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Whoops! Thanks for clarifying that. As of right now, I'm not sure what to do here. I would defer to another administrator's judgment.Mz7 (
talk)
02:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Y'know, I would consider protecting this page; at least 3 IP's (including the one who reported this) have removed the content without discussion. If you do protect this page, though, make it temporary.
JudgeRM(talk to me)01:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Page is vandalized once a day by anonymous IPs using similar edits. I'm hoping a temporary protection would discourage the vandal.
KNHaw(talk)21:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. An anonymous editor seem to think the series is science fiction. Request to protect for a week or so.
Jdavi333 (
talk)
23:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: This is perhaps pre-emptive, but this article has attracted high levels of IP vandalism as well as well-meaning but unhelpful editing in the past. Baird announced his resignation today, effective next week, and already a few IPs have made both well meaning but unhelpful edits as well as another vandalising. Requesting protection for a week or two.
Melcous (
talk)
23:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Multiple IPs adding the same non-notable person to the school alumni list (five times now, and once to a different school). It's likely the same editor using multiple IPs, and based on the latest edit summary
[29] likely the alumnus in question making the edits.
Meters (
talk)
23:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection or PC: Massive edit warring involving multiple IPs. Page history shows huge (15,000+) addition and removal of content.
Laurdecltalk00:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Requesting temporary full protection; massive edit war going on over what photo to use in the infobox. .
MelanieN (
talk)
01:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent IP-hopping and one new account all inserting the same fake band member. Thanks for checking into this.
Chill-- (
talk) (
c)
05:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The editing level on the page is not enough to justify indefinite semi-protection, but since there appears to be a pattern of repeated additions of unsourced content to a
biography of a living person, I've placed pending changes on the page temporarily.
Mz7 (
talk)
14:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – There have been attempts by an unregistered user who changes the 'total population' persistently, located in the infobox section. The current figure of 1,964,300 derives from a source with false and/or unreliable data. The real figure should be something like 46,000 Buddhists according to the 2010 census, for which I have a link. Whenever I change it back to the 46,000 number, it gets reverted back to 1,964,300. Can you please semi-protect this page?.
Agila81 (
talk)
10:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. The previous protection has expired in November 2016, and since December 2016 there is constant edit war with few IPs which edited revision and activity seems to be related to the previous socks by
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov (see
Talk:Dulo clan#December 2016 - January 2017). Article needs prolonged protection (previous was 3 months), and some admin should check these IPs (83.228.2.103, 198.245.63.142, 85.187.110.237, 82.137.86.40) if they are related to PavelStaykov. --
JoyceWood (
talk)
13:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined No rationale provided for lowering protection. Consensus at
WT:PERM is not to re-evaluate the protection levels of templates without a specific rationale for doing so. ~
Rob13Talk00:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
BU Rob13: Can you expand on your comment to address the following? 1.
WT:PERM relates to permisions, and so does not appear directly relevent to protection. 2. The IP does indicate a rational - it is useful because it allows more people to edit; it doesn't introduce undue risks because of the low number of links (I assume the IP means transclusions). Is this not specific enough?
Yaris678 (
talk)
13:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Yaris678: Sorry, typo. Meant to type
WP:RFPP. Due to recent mass requests to lower protection, it was decided not to consider these requests here unless there's evidence that more people actually want/need to edit the template. In this case, there have been no edits needed at all for quite some time, so there's no such evidence. We don't have the personnel to consider potentially thousands of requests to lower protection on templates that will never actually need to be edited. ~
Rob13Talk15:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
OK. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
219.79.180.148, unless you know of a template editor that wants to change that template, or specific changes that need doing, it will stay at full protection.
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I will monitor to see if things die down after that or if further protection is needed. Thanks.--Mojo Hand(
talk)16:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is one of the first pages people would target for vandalism if it were not protected. This is a case of semi-protection working, not a reason for reducing it. ~
Rob13Talk03:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Requesting PC for only a few days because of the recent disruptive editing on the article. The article is really high profile at the minute because of the election being called and a few days of protection would stop any more disruptive editing.
st170e10:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Semi-protection tends to be the better solution for this kind of disruptive editing rather than pending changes. If the disruption continues after a week or so, pending changes might be a better solution. —
Tom Morris (
talk)
11:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Vandalism was left earlier today for seven hours. I have reverted it. I've seen other vandalism to the Falcons' page. NFL team pages during their playoff runs are sometimes protected, including the Falcons during their last run to the NFC Championship in 2012-13. Protect until the Super Bowl is over.
68.228.254.131 (
talk)
00:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent attempts by anon IP editor to push POV and change description of the subject of the page since 17th Jan.
Shimlaites (
talk)
11:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
You've urged me via my talk page to look into this, but as I am not particularly familiar with this subject, I have trouble seeing if this is a dispute or something else. I have previously been told that
Sitush can give second opinions on this region. Sitush, if you have time, what would be your assessment here? Thank you.
Samsara (
talk)
12:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
It looks right now like I won't have a lot of time for this (or perhaps much else) today, either, and since we haven't heard back from Sitush, anyone should feel free to take another look and make a decision on this. Cheers!
Samsara (
talk)
16:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
They're back. I was going to add this, not knowing it had already been listed and declined. Should it be relisted, or is there a way to get it reconsidered? --
Ronz (
talk)
23:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP-hopper (a well-known IP-hopper geolocating to Chengdu, Sichuan, China, who regularly makes this type of edits on various articles...) repeatedly removing sources and making unexplained and unsourced changes to dates in the article (see
[32]). - Tom |
Thomas.W talk20:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Callmemirela looking out for me! Thank you! However, given the nature of the page, I think it should be an indefinite extended confirmed protection to keep potential accounts away as well, and the page it redirects to should be upgraded to indefinite as before AO changed the protection to extended confirmed, Rob had it on indefinite semi-protection.
Amaury (
talk |
contribs)
20:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IPv6 user (same /64 but rest of address is different, and three different addresses have been logged in the past few hours) has been adding a false credit (actor and non-existent character) to the cast list of this movie article.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
22:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Given that this is an on-going event, a temporary lock on this page would be wise to prevent disruptive edits. I have warned 2 anon editors already, but there could be more later. Bluesphere11:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – An IP is vandalizing the article, he was reverted by two established editors and a section was opened on the talk page, but the IP is unwilling to discuss the case and keeps reverting. Please revert the article to the last stable revision and protect it.
Kouhi (
talk)
18:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Article discussing film currently being screened in theatres is being consistently vandalised. Requesting temporary page protection.
RoCo(talk)16:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Some editors and I have agreed that protection is needed for this page (see
here), because of the poor referencing, grammar and editors are too quick to add in information (which turns out to be false). It's completely disruptive, and I'm requesting PC protection so edits can be reviewed before they are implemented. This page was semi-protected before, but it needs further protection (and I would argue indefinite, but it's only a list of terrorist incidents for January).
st170e13:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Why are you constantly trying to get these protected? Several admins have already declined these in the past, and they have explained why they were declined to you...
73.96.114.238 (
talk)
22:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
You're right I should have phrased it better. I agree with the previous declining admin who saw no justification for increasing the level of protection. These are not templates that never need editing. The syntax is not overly complicated. There aren't any high profile swimming/tennis/volleyball events to increase their risk from autoconfirmed sockpuppets. There's nothing to indicate the risk to these templates has increased. --
zzuuzz(talk)07:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Long term edit war. User logging out and edit warring as multiple IPs to try to get a file deleted against our rules. Making this request here as an administrator since I could be seen as involved.
Magog the Ogre (
t •
c)
18:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done That certainly puts the "long" in long-term. Page is only edited about every four months, and any vandalism seems to be taken care of quickly. Honestly it just doesn't look like enough of an issue to merit protection.
Primefac (
talk)
04:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Why are you constantly trying to get these protected? Several admins have already declined these in the past, and they have explained why they were declined to you...
73.96.114.238 (
talk)
22:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Zzuuzz: The reason is High-risk template, not persistent vandalism. It links to a certain amount of article, there is a need to increase the protection level to prevent vandalism that affect a large amount of article. --
219.79.127.74 (
talk)
02:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Why are you constantly trying to get these protected? Several admins have already declined these in the past, and they have explained why they were declined to you...
73.96.114.238 (
talk)
22:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Zzuuzz: The reason is High-risk template, not persistent vandalism. It links to a certain amount of article, there is a need to increase the protection level to prevent vandalism that affect a large amount of article. --
219.79.127.74 (
talk)
02:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done I went back through two months of editing and with the exception of a few blanking edits picked up by ClueBot I don't see any obvious vandalism, and the page hasn't been edited since 9 Jan. If re-requesting, maybe provide diffs?
Primefac (
talk)
01:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Believe it or not, I went to put in a request for page protection and it was declined because there was already a pending request. LOL
The reporting user is an IP hopping vandal that just had 7 accounts blocked earlier today. And I will also be filing a report to have the IP ranges blocked.
However, to set the record straight - I did not violate 3RR, they must have gotten confused between this and the other pages they vandalized that caused them to get blocked.
Kellymoat (
talk)
18:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism as the species is named after Donald Trump's hair. Might be worth giving it a week or so of semi-protection and see if it needs more long-term protection to see if it settles down after the inauguration.
Kingofaces43 (
talk)
20:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: "High level of IP vandalism."
Comment: Over the last year alone, there has been constant inaccurate number changes (dates, sums etc.), unexplained content removals or changes (by both IP and new users with a few edits) and an extremely high level of IP vandalism. 9 controversial edits in this month alone. Majority of edits in its history of the article are largely vandalized edits to the point where I have to backtrack every edit from now to indefinitely back to restore its accuracy according to what was sourced. Many of these edits are also happening in bunches, in relation to other articles such as
History of Haiti etc.; to their extent is unknown at this time. I am preparing to do some very tedious work. Thank you kindly.
Savvyjack23 (
talk)
22:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – While many IP edits to the article are generally helpful. Over the last few weeks, there have been a sudden increase of IPs removing plot details on the pretense that they are "spoilers", contrary to Wikipedia's
guidelines on the matter. —Farix (
t |
c)
00:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page needs permanent semi-protection, looking at edits over a year, nearly all edits by new or IP editors have been vandalism, ongoing waste of editor resources.
Montanabw(talk)21:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Do I have to do that? Is it not sufficient to invite the warrior to do so? If the guy isn't reading edit comments, are they any more likely to read a talk page? Is there a policy or guideline to answer this point? — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
15:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
OK, I see it there now. But please don't think I was warring unacceptably. May I refer you to
WP:3RRNO#4: "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." Now go check the offensive language you just locked me out of reverting. Hey, this problem is yours now, I'm outta here. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
15:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
(ec) In all disputes reported to RfPP and responded to by me, I have consistently required people to be pro-active in offering talk page discussion. In all other cases, you are doing no better than the other person (objectively, you're both edit warriors). Compounding that, in this particular dispute, you are an established editor and the other person may be a newcomer. So for either one of those reasons alone, and certainly both of them combined, I expect more from you if you expect anything more than a neutral decision, which is what you got.
Samsara (
talk)
15:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I would expect neutrality to respect
WP:3RRNO, not to ignore it. You might like to think about that, but really, I have moved on and post this only for your reflection. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
16:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Well slap me round the face with a wet kipper, I'm back. Because the IP warrior has created an account and sent me a very polite PM asking what the problem is. I have replied
here and
here. Don't worry about me, but it would be a courtesy to them to lift the full protection, so I am now reversing my original request. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
18:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Full-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Nowadays the page is a tool of political fight. There are many trolls writing jokes on the website for political reasons and then some newspapers are sharing these things on facebook. I suggest to block page from editing and return the state of things on the website to the state of 4 January 20.58 which is politicaly neutral.
95.103.142.84 (
talk)
16:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Already stopped. Please only request protection of user talk page for particularly egregious or persistent vandalism, as all other requests are usually declined. Two IPs generally wouldn't float the boat. ~
Rob13Talk07:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Constant removal of critical info like proper release date and removal/addition of spoiler material.
TropicAces (
talk)
16:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)tropicAcesreply
Note: I'm not sure I agree with high level of vandalism. Definitely some back and forth editing, and a few disruptive edits, but in bulk it seems to mostly be good faith with several solid contributions from IPs in the last week. On the fence, but might consider PC1. Anyone else? --
ferret (
talk)
18:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Numerous poorly sourced and unreferenced contents were added to that page by IP vandals. They said that the site will shut down in June 2017 but there is no proof that it will shut down.
TTCTransportationFan4644 (
talk)
18:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: No disruptive editing afterwared. This page should be unprotected so as to let other editors discuss about the issues of the article, especially the article is being protected.
219.79.180.57 (
talk)
10:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – 2 IP addresses 89.160.219.247 and 82.148.70.9 keep edit warring (Possibly same person) on this article and would like a temporary page protection.
D Eaketts (
talk)
17:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – An anonymous user is trying to add a claim this article without providing a reliable source for it, all he is providing is just some local unreliable source in Turkish language, I opened a section on the talk page to discuss the case, but he doesn't participate in the discussion constructively, he keeps reverting and adding his POV to the article while the discussion is still ongoing and a consensus is not reached, please revert the article to the last stable revision and protect the page.
Kouhi (
talk)
18:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection except move protection: The doc subpage should not be protected if the main template is protected unless it was being vandalised. This doc page has been protected for 7 years, and there is no more vandalism. It should be umprotected.
219.76.15.12 (
talk)
05:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
That's enough now. If you continue to post such frivolous requests, I will start reverting them as clear disruption. Please read
WP:PP to familiarise yourself with the effect protection has.
Samsara (
talk)
13:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Some semi-protection: An IP editor continues to add questionable content. He/she has been reverted by 4 different editors and will not discuss the proposed addition at the article's talk page.
We hope (
talk)
11:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
There is a discussion of this on the talk page where the IP editor can participate. There is also a longer history of varied disruption, by many participants, of this article's editing.
Samsara (
talk)
13:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Full-protection: Persistent IP edit and Registered user edit warring to add inflammatory claims about a living person. I am going to go a head and mention this is appears to be "Trump protest related".
Mark Miller (
talk)
06:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. It's a brand new Google doodle with a rather unfortunate cartoon graphic of a wheelchair-bound Roberts using a breathing apparatus, and it's attracting far more than the usual amount of vandalism.
184.96.140.48 (
talk)
05:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: vandalism.
14.2.34.140 (
talk)
17:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
A few users have attempted to mark this article as "to be Deleted" but there excuse for doing this is slanderous and based on no creditable information
when genuine reliable sources can be found in the article for example TV.com which isnt user generated and must be verified played in cinemas.
ALSO note that the following articles seem to have been accepted by wikipeida despite having low to near poor referances, no visisubl support at all in
internet searching, contain totally dead links or a google book which could have been uploaded by a student:
/info/en/?search=Orion_(film)
this film was accepted on two references one which is IMDB(told not acceptable as user generated much like Wikipedia)
this film also cannot be found anywhere on the internet!
/info/en/?search=Edward_Jeffries
is in violation of copywrite, has dead links and the only link working refers to google books which anyone can add too.reply
this is not very acceptable and seems totally discrimination if the article is deleated or not protected from this type of vandalism.
Looking at the edit summaries of the article and the above statements, I suspect that sometime later this article and possibly the AfD that I just opened will need semi-protection for reasons other than the ones stated above. --
Gogo Dodo (
talk)
18:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I'd rather the page wasn't protected. Unregistered users are still adding good content and the occasional revertable vandalism isn't huge trouble.
Sam Walton (
talk)
20:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Agree with Sam. IPs are mostly adding good content. For a normal page with this proportion of good and bad edits we would apply PC, but currently the rate of edits is too high to consider that. --
King of♥♦♣ ♠
21:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Borderline case, I'm seeing long-term vandalism since previous protection ended in November. However, I see some constructive edits from IPs. -- LuK3(Talk)02:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: A large amount of vandalism recently in the month of January. A view of the logs also shows that this high-profile article has suffered from considerable vandalism.
Kind Tennis Fan (
talk)
02:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Both versions are unreferenced, so until a reference is added, it's technically a dispute, and dispute resolution will be recommended.
Samsara (
talk)
18:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Just like in
Template:Philippine Senate election, 2001, a variable IP keeps on adding inaccuracies. As this election happened 15 years ago, and that the terms of office of the people elected here have ended, possibly no more updates are to be needed unless something major comes up. Either pending changes or semi-protection is requested, although the former would suffice. –HTD01:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended-protection : I think that the article page
Melania Trump, should have the same protection level as the article page
Donald Trump. I am sorta new to Wikipedia, (read a few Wikipedia rules while I was off from editing for 6 months). I was surprised by a blue lock that I have never seen before on any article, and clicked on it. I learned about the "Extended Enhanced page protection". However, when I went to
Melania Trump's page, it was only a gray one, learned that it was semi-protected and less secured.& I think that it would be a good idea to put the same "Extended Enhanced page protection" on
Melania Trump's article, if one thinks about it, vandals and
protesters, would be able to attack there.
Also, the fact that she is a
First Lady and the wife of the
President of The United States of America, should be reasonable enough to conclude the need for a greater protection on the page. The reason why I think the blue lock was placed on
Donald Trump's article, was that he is now the President of The United States.
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Not enough recent disruptive editing and the one IP has been blocked. Come back if the problem persists.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
15:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
There has been no recent flurry of IP edits and no disruption that I can see. As I've been slightly involved in trying to improve the article, I won't make a decision on the request for page protection. But rest assured I do have admin eyes on the article and will happily intervene if any obvious vandalism occurs.
Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)12:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm not altogether sure what's going on here but there has been a flurry of what I can best describe as suspicious editing by new editors and IPs. I have posted a note at WP:MILITARY requesting review by someone more familiar with the subject. If additional protection is required just ping me or drop a line on my talk page.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
15:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Create protection ("salting"); Page has been recreated multiple times by the same author after speedy deletion (CSD A7), without any consensus. If it is deleted again, it probably makes sense to salt the page.
MereTechnicality (
talk)
17:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Likely to be even more aggressive this week as the finale is taking place for the show. Please protect the page from IP edits.
AkshayAnandTalk!05:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: High-profile controversial politician. Almost all IP-edits in the last 12 months had to be reverted: repeated additions of vandalism, personal commentary and BLP-violating OR.
GermanJoe (
talk)
07:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Since the last temporary protection was lifted in November 2016, there has continued to be considerable vandalism and BLP violations over the last couple of months.
Kind Tennis Fan (
talk)
02:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: No disruptive editing afterwared. This page should be unprotected so as to let other editors discuss about the issues of the article.
219.79.227.218 (
talk)
13:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Protected under arbcom provision. Please do not nominate pages for unprotection that have been protected under arbitration committee provisions.
Samsara (
talk)
13:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: No disruptive editing afterwared. This page should be unprotected so as to let other editors discuss about the issues of the article, especially the article is being protected.
219.79.227.218 (
talk)
13:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Only three obvious IP reverts in the past year, and there appears to be a regular IP that contributions positively. --
ferret (
talk)
18:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – previously requested & agreed temporary protection against IPs adding unsourced, disruptive and fancruft appears to have ended early. Needs to be until 31/1 please.
Leaky Caldron22:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Several temporary protections failed to stop IP-hoppers/sockpuppets' disruptive edits. This article is targeted by them since 2013. So I request a indefinite or long-term semi-protection.
Wario-Man (
talk)
17:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Last several edits have been reverted as unconstructive or vandalism; as the NFL commissioner, it may continue as the Super Bowl gets closer.
331dot (
talk)
17:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment as protecting admin. I oppose any change in protection level at this time. This season, pending changes has worked well here, so one day of slightly higher activity shouldn't force a change just yet. If it continues, that could change, though. ~
Rob13Talk00:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: The topic of this article makes it a long-running spam magnet for web development shops placing EL adverts here. No other solution seems practical.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
11:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing from range of IP addresses, including removal of improvement templates and insertion of copyright material with edit summaries that don't adequately reflect the changes being made.
Drchriswilliams (
talk)
14:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
There are also IP numbers that have been disruptively editing the article. I made the request before the other individual began to sabotage the article, because of those IP numbers.
Snooganssnoogans (
talk)
00:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – these editors could keep remove pictures quality from 480i SDTV should not confirm as said before also 480i made used on the television shows not a 1080i HDTV should not confirm on GMA HD.
Oripaypaykim(talk)08:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent additions of unsourced/poorly sourced content - Saltalamacchia's contract with Toronto is pending a physical and team confirmation.
Trut-h-urts man (
T •
C)
22:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The vox populis is consistent in their opinion of Ted Cruz being some sort of higher-up in Deadspin. (read: more!! vandalism!!).
ɯɐɔ💬05:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Slow edit war, predominently IPs and new users but a few old hands (myself included) are involved, so full protection might be an option too. A discussion is underway on the talkpage but it looks as though the page isn't going to remain stable while that's concluded.
Yunshui雲水13:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined This seems more like a situation where a block would be appropriate than where page protection would be helpful. If another revert occurs, I'll block. ~
Rob13Talk00:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Will possibly become moot after the TfD, so no sense in discussing this now. Feel free to return if the TfD closes as something other than delete. ~
Rob13Talk00:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection - article about author of a bunch of fake news has been regularly getting fake news or promotional content added. Please semi protect for one month.
Jytdog (
talk)
23:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Very light activity, recent two IP edits appear to be good faith, not vandalism. --
ferret (
talk)
16:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined This was filed under requested for reducing protection, but the page was not protected at the time. A separate request above for semiprotection has been fulfilled. --
ferret (
talk)
14:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I only see a few clear reverts right now, and most of current work at the article (Appears to be converted from list to table since last month) is being done by IPs.--
ferret (
talk)
14:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Until the 89th Academy Awards ceremony is held. Several IPs have vandalized the list, the Oscars bit in particular.
FrB.TG (
talk)
16:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Continued reverts, removing material which has been reliably referenced, but failing to justify this on the talk page despite requests to do so. -
Meticulo (
talk)
10:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There's an IP involve here (and editing many articles) who comes back periodically, making what appears to be good faith but unsourced edits. I've applied PC1 for a month. It's slow moving, and a short semiprot likely wouldn't accomplish much. --
ferret (
talk)
16:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Jemele Hill and Michael Smith recently appeared on a popular (though not relevant to their articles) podcast. Today alone there have been several unconstructive edits relate to this fact.
Mizike (
talk)
16:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Michael Smith and Jemele Hill recently appeared on a popular (though not relevant to their articles) podcast. Today alone there have been several unconstructive edits relate to this fact.
Mizike (
talk)
16:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IPs think they need to censor this article from spoilers. Over the last two months they have made edits like that every day or two. Since this is a recent film, I suggest a month of semi-protection.
Debresser (
talk)
13:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This article has been subject to these nonsense edits for almost as long as the page has existed, there's no reason to believe they will ever stop without protection.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
14:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Previous PC1 for a year, everything during which was reverted it looks like. I've set 1 year, but if someone wants to make it indef, no argument from me. --
ferret (
talk)
14:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-Protection: Disruptive editing. There's been a lot of back and forth over Chris O'Dowd's placement in the cast list. Users have kept switching his name between the "Peculiar Adults" and "Non-Peculiar Adults" sections. Another user pointed out, with evidence from the film, that his character should be listed as "Non-Peculiar Adult;" the switching still continues. It's mainly a wide range of IPs that initiates the switching so temporary protection should calm the page down.
Crboyer (
talk)
00:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Dynamic IP constantly adding unsourced and unverified voice credits to article despite being reverted every time by a number of editors . I count 18 such edits on this article alone this month. Shows no desire to discuss or prove they should be listed. Their last edit to the article saw them misusing a source I had just added on the article that didn't back up their claims.See also
Doraemon (1979 anime).
SephyTheThird (
talk)
08:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Page-move vandalism – Recent history of page move vandalism, no reason page needs to be moved in near future.
BilCat (
talk)
08:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Edit-warring. HighnessAtharva is pushing a bloated in-universe summary of OR and synthesis that is poorly formatted and written. Also claims to not be the IP whose only edits were also to undo reversion of HighnessAtharva's contributions. AlexTheWhovian very patiently explained and detailed the reason's why on HA's talk page, but the advice seems to have been unheeded.
JesseRafe (
talk)
14:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection Persistent
vandalism - The page is under full protection until 30 January, 2017. I am requesting an extension of the protection, at least in semi-protection format. The page was vandalized is being from multiple IPs and sockpuppets.
Messiaindarain (
talk)
08:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I couldn't find any BLP violations or persistent vandalism upon looking through the page history.
Mz7 (
talk)
04:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Repeated removal of referenced detail by editor (Nicosmith23 ) who has identified himself as the former singer in the band. He disagrees with the official statement released by the band, and is just intent on constantly removing it when it is relevant to the article. He has personally attacked me in edit summaries ("You fucking weird bitter cunt") and tried to add a photograph that he didn't have the rights to use. This has been going on since May last year (using previous user name Nicky smith23777 and IP 81.104.252.77), and obviously required protection for an extended period of time.
Jimmygotyback (
talk)
16:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
(Non-administrator comment) I think this issue is best handled by the two users in question discussing the issue on the article's talk page, rather than edit warring back and forth or resorting to page protection to lock out one of the editors. I've asked both editors to use the article's talk page.
Deli nk (
talk)
17:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
No - there is a conflict of interest here. I am merely keeping reference to an official press release in the article. The other user is a single use account to remove information they don't like. What discussion is there to be had? There's no reason to not quote the reason given for the band splitting up.
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There's an edit war ongoing in the "Rosters" section of this article. A temporary lock would lead to a discussion. –HTD10:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – I have never made such a request, so forgive me if these circumstances don't quite warrant protection. Nevertheless, someone is modifying the page to express their opinions of the results of a race by creating a section that does not constitute an appropriate statement for Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards.
Sonoflamont (
talk)
10:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Repeatedly abuse info in the page. To much abusive cause can't undo. And affected the genuine information about the page. Almost everyday I have to undo the vandalism.
Shafiqabu (
talk)
16:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: I'm not an experienced editor and don't claim to know much about protection protocol, but this article seems to keep getting vandalized by people of all kinds of political reasons. I just removed an irrelevant reference to LaRouche in the article's intro, and the talk page here seems to indicate this is a pattern.
108.179.174.179 (
talk)
19:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending changes protection, please, due to persistent inaccurate changes to the subject's surname (albeit in good faith, but based on historical misunderstanding) ...
richi(
hello)18:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection This page has been a victim of high level of IP Vandalism for a long time but I came to notice this only recently. As it can be seen from this page's history, the number of edits made by IPs far exceeds that of edits made by registered users and most of those IPs don't make constructive contributions to the article. Most of them are playing with the page. One of many idiotic edits I noticed was that of
24.184.20.208 who made his only edit of Wikipedia on this page by changing length of one of three runways of airport in infobox from 3,810 m to 88 m. Isn't it offensive ? No one noticed this foolish edit for 12 days. This page needs immediate and indefinite semi-protection.
Vibhss (
talk)
08:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent BLP violations by ip's and SPA's regarding comments in a recent panel discussion on how Trump could be removed from office. No responses on Talk page. --
Ronz (
talk)
17:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page has had recent vandalism from one specific user without an account. I attempted to add a protection template using the "tag page with protection template" button on this page but I saw no result.
RobP (
talk)
05:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: persistent repeated IP additions of unattributed copied material and/or copyright violations, going back more than two years – there've been several removals of this material, but it just keeps on coming; edit-warring, too. Pending changes might work here too. .
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
10:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: High level of IP edit warring over the date of death. There have been two statements with conflicting information, and an edit war has developed. I opened a talk page thread to which no-one has commented, preferring to continue the warring. This should be temporary, as I suspect clarity will come to the situation in the next day or two. Thanks.
The Bounder (
talk)
13:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Sudden spurt of vandalism in the past wekk. Given that the time is approaching, a month-long duration till the end of Feb should be enough.
Ugog Nizdast (
talk)
02:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent
vandalism – Non Registered users are constantly removing chinese flag from Al-Khalid MBT origin on Line 279 in spite of accurate source provided. Requesting protection because this third time flag is removed. The source provided is same as used in main article of MBT itself.
Source:
http://www.dawn.com/news/1217909
Please refer to paragraph 5 in "The MBT" section for required information. Aman 21:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Single individual is attacking multiple pages in addition to this one with non-sensible "bad url" messages.
Thomas H. White (
talk)
23:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi protection: For several days, anon IPs have all made the same uncited personal-life claim at this article. They change the birth year, without explanation, from 1972 as given by two cited RS sources, including
Biography.com, to 1970. --
Tenebrae (
talk)
21:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Consistent attempts by a dynamic IP to create this article, after consensus per an AfD discussion determined an article for this character was unnecessary at this time.
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
21:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Samsara Ooops looks like we cross posted. I did PC for six months given the long track record of vandalism and frequent PP that didn't seem to be working. Feel free to remove if you disagree. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
18:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
My assessment here is that it probably will need semi at times in the future, just not right now - it makes sense to keep it open when there isn't current ongoing disruption. It also has a relatively high edit rate, which is why I wouldn't reach for PC in this case. I'm aware that interpretations of "high edit rate" vary - perhaps we have to work on that. So there's nothing wrong with PC here (and it's a BLP, which might strengthen that case), but it also doesn't quite address the problem imo, and it's likely looking at the prot log that we'll be reaching for semi again before too long. Hope that makes my perspective clear. Cheers,
Samsara19:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection - anonymous attempts to put a POV on the article. As I have edited the article and have a strong opinion on Trump (to put it mildly), another admin needs to do this.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely.. I'm not a big fan of perma PP but in this case it appears to be justified. This article has been a persistent target of disruptive editing for a long time and pending changes wasn't stopping it. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
18:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Well meaning but ill-informed drive-by editors keep "correcting" the number of Trump executive orders that have been issued, failing to note the distinction between executive orders and presidential memoranda. The media reports have contributed to this confusion. Because it's different editors each time, I have not been successful in engaging in talk page discussion.
Gigs (
talk)
08:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Most editors involved are autoconfirmed. There's some back and forth edits but disruption appears light and talk page discussions on going. --
ferret (
talk)
17:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Having written this page at least 6 times, it is being constantly hacked to destruction.
I do not want to be disrupted from editing this page, which should have been finished by now.
I do not want to have unwanted requests to talk. Nor do I want to see Bots on the page that are unhelpful.
Please Block all attacks on this page, and by request, I shall finish it once and for all!
. Justin Grant Duff 16:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – THis user is currently embroiled in controvery in india.
I suspect this to be the reason for so many vandal edits to this page. I suggest maybe a moth of protection.
Arkhaminsanity (
talk)
17:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I see a few positive contributions from IPs, including some attempts to cleanup the unsourced additions. Trying a longer PC1. --
ferret (
talk)
17:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: An anonymous user using/abusing multiple IPs or a morphing IP is constantly deleting sourced information with no discussion and very cryptic explanations, if any explanations are given at all. Has repeatedly ignored pleas to discuss on talkpage.--
Mr Fink (
talk)
17:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Please increase the protection level of this article - recent vandalism by multiple accounts (just now an IP after a named account that had passed "pending changes" was blocked).
Shearonink (
talk)
16:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
24 hours Pending - Subject of today's Google Doodle. There are still some constructive contributions from anons and newbies, so semi would not be appropriate, but given the attention of the day, there is an increased risk that even short-lived vandalism will be viewed before it is reverted.
TimothyJosephWood17:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Logged-in editor and an IP repeatedly reverting each other as to which 'official language is more important in India. Complete trivia: but this has actually been going on for
a week...
O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi.14:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. This is already semi-protected indefinitely.
— Maile (
talk)
13:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Also, just as a note, they don't require 365 days and 1,000 edits. The guidelines for granting are important, but not the be-all, end-all. More importantly, that's one of the PERM pages where we tend to invite community comments, so I would want to preserve the ability for non-extendedconfirmed editors to comment on requests. ~
Rob13Talk01:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Edits do not constitute vandalism, but rather are part of a content dispute between autoconfirmed users. Some agreements appear to have been reached, so I am holding off of protection at the moment. Please note that vandalism from an account, rather than hopping IPs, should generally be reported to AIV.
Vanamonde (
talk)
08:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: I know I've asked for this not to be protected before, but here I am changing my mind. Too much vandalism. .
Sro23 (
talk)
04:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – 174.51.213.28 has repeatedly deleted valid material and added uncited information with a clearly biased POV.
RobP (
talk)
04:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary Extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism even after pending changes page protection. Reverting pending change, and some reversion of even new user changes, can be seen in 100 edits view on page history. This continuous reversions and undoing, makes the history look all jumbled up. At this rate it would be pretty obvious that vandals would create a new account to just vandalize.
Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (
talk)
04:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism from (mostly anonymous) users seeking to remove sourced material that's unfavorable to the subject of the article. The page has been vandalized 4-5 times in the last month and a half-- as far as I can tell, all by different people.
OmgItsTheSmartGuy (
talk)
04:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism. It has received temporary protection several times but vandalism has continued to occur and has required many reversions. Most of the vandalism seems to come from unregistered users so hopefully extended confirmed protection will remove this problem.--
Josephus37 (
talk)
05:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: IPs that are currently reported for sockpuppetry edit warring, abusing people in edit summaries and insisting they will continue being disruptive by removing whatever they see fit:
[35],
[36],
[37],
[38] (this is the same IP, as they also edit the same topics as each other). Edit: Still warring, attacking other editors in summaries:
[39]Ss11213:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Disclaimer note: As far as I can tell, Armenian genocide is not yet under any arbcom ECP provision (these arbcom documents really need to be formatted better imo).
Samsara15:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Long term semi-protection: Page is a regular target of the
Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal. Has been protected four times previously for similar abuse--the vandalism resumed literally one minute after the expiration of the most recent three-month period of semi-protection. --
Finngalltalk05:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Based on all non-confirmed edits for December and January appearing to have been reverted. No issue from me if someone wants to lower to PC1. --
ferret (
talk)
15:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
BU Rob13: Well, he only made minor modifications like changing the dashes into en dash. Since the teams' articles actually uses en dashes, I will say that that edit is productive. The editor seems to be new to Wikipedia so I think he might be toying around with the edit summary box. Babymissfortune01:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Constant addition of unsourced content and trivia by IP's after it had already been removed several times. Originally left out of the request to protect
Doraemon (1979 anime) and
Doraemon (2005 anime) (both now protected) because the problem was perceived to be of a lower level. However clearly there is an issue as there have been a number of unhelpful IP edits on this page in the time since those articles were protected.
SephyTheThird (
talk)
21:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Constant vandalism by IPs & non-autoconfirmed (vandalism-only) accounts. (Note: This page has already been protected twice before, only for high levels of vandalism to resume once the page protection expires.)
Blurp92 (
talk)
18:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – 'Controversies' section keeps being deleted though it is well sourced. The matter was raised in Talk but the editor hasn't been forthcoming.
RightSaidFred (
talk)
09:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism.– Without a justification, and in this respect, although it is the department of etymology, To ignore this part and to use wikipedia for various purposes and to edit war. Editors violates its
neutrality policy by trying to bring an ethnicity to the forefront.--
88.251.8.23 (
talk)
12:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism on BLP article. Changing of team names, player names and fans seem to be using the page today specifically to slag each other off. Robvanvee16:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Last protected for the six months up to October 2016, this article has a constant stream of poor edits from anons and new accounts. It's a timesink and every occasion when it comes off protection, the rubbish starts again. Let them propose changes on the talk page - that will reduce some of the load because a lot wouldn't bother, whereas PC would not reduce the load at all.
Sitush (
talk)
17:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
A borderline case, as PC was enabled and is principally working in terms of the frequency of disruption; however, I've granted brief semi as there have been no recent constructive edits from non-autoncofirmeds.
Samsara18:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. No reverts for vandalism since 23 Jan, no reverts of anyfind since 26 Jan. -
GBfan13:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Long term history of vandalism, although there are a few constructive edits here and there, so it would probably be a better idea to try PC first, then raise to semi if it proves ineffective.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew08:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi - No reason to waste everyone's time on pending. Every time a new piece of gossip comes out there is a deluge of fanboys adding unsourced information. My first inclination was just to remove it from my watchlist because I'm tired of seeing it, but this seems like the more responsible thing to do.
TimothyJosephWood13:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Man, you're asking someone to protect 42 different articles? Does any admin here know of some sort of automated tool for this? I know that if I did this manually, it would take hours. Is there an alternative solution? ~
Anachronist (
talk)
05:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Samsara and
Hut 8.5: I've created
User:Vanamonde93/sandbox/Temp for the purpose of this protection, but I cannot figure out how to do protect the bunch: is it cascading protection? Isn't that just for transclusions? Also, it seems to me that a couple of these pages would be protected pre-emptively: how do we feel about that?
Vanamonde (
talk)
14:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:PP says that cascading protection isn't available for semi, and isn't supposed to be used in this way. It's also not available for PC, but I wonder if PC isn't preferable here. I'm currently undecided about protecting this entire group of articles. If there isn't any pattern to which ones are affected, we also need to consider that new titles in this series may provide new cannon fodder when/if they are created without protection.
Samsara15:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
What we'd need to correctly resolve this per the cascading proposal is the ability to have semi-protection (or PC) cascade from a fully protected page. This type of cascading afaik has not been implemented or enabled yet.
Samsara16:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Anachronist,
Hut 8.5, and
Vanamonde93: Any objections to me going through the list and protecting on a case-by-case basis as needed (and watchlisting any unprotecteds)? I see no reason why we shouldn't at least do that. We can then still continue the discussion of whether some sort of blanket protection should be applied based on expected behaviour of the vandal. Vanamonde, if you were hoping to do this, feel free.
Samsara17:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Samsara: I have no objection, and I agree this shouldn't be indef, but something shorter term, starting with a month. The problem is, if we find ourselves needing to escalate the protection period, I am concerned that doing it manually one by one will waste a lot of someone's time, so doing it in an automated way would be preferable. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
17:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I've gone through about half of them at this point and found one clear case meriting longer term protection; I'm still hovering over a few others as I learn more about what kinds of insertions are being made, and on what schedule. Will continue going through them as I find time today.
Samsara13:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Andy Dingley,
General Ization, and
Sro23: Did you discuss these edits anywhere, in the sense of developing consensus that football players should not be included? I found them to be routinely included in the corresponding articles for France, Italy, and Turkey.
Samsara02:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Man, is this a mess.
Samsara, if you've done a cursory look and gotten the obvious ones, I'd recommend closing/archiving this. If further attention is needed, an editor can nominate a single page and make the case for semi-protection. It's very difficult to review a mass-nom like this for page protection, since page protection is highly individual to each page. ~
Rob13Talk01:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
A mess indeed. There's about ten or so left that I've yet to look at in detail, but I can do that without keeping this thread open.
Samsara15:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – no good edits for a long time. I say indefinite because page has been protected many times but they keep vandalizing it.
DashyGames (
talk)
01:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent and unconstructive contributions, as well as persistent copyright violations. This page is additionally a Featured List candidate and needs to remain stable.
DARTHBOTTOtalk•
cont23:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: The page was only created once and is a bit stale at this point (since December 2016). Since this hasn't strictly speaking been "repeatedly" recreated, this would normally be declined. However, given that this is an active user and that there is no reasonable expectation that a "Sro23" will become notable in the future, I wouldn't object too loudly if we invoked
WP:IAR here. I will defer to the judgment of the next administrator.
Mz7 (
talk)
05:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Creation protected Indefinitely. Mz7 is correct, IMO, and this is a valid application of IAR. The likelihood of a legitimate page being created here is virtually nil, and can be addressed if that situation arises.
Vanamonde (
talk)
06:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: From the little I got told, this page got fully protected in the middle of a move war sometime ago. I tried to discuss this with the admin who protected the page, but the idea that I wish to move the page too was stuck in his mind, so the discussion went nowhere, no matter what I said.
The original page that started everything is move protected for quite sometime now, so I can't see why this is a issue anymore.
Bertdrunk (
talk)
22:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Bertdrunk: What's the benefit of unprotecting this given that there's no consensus to move anything to this page (at least as far as I see)? I'm not a fan of considering unprotection requests when there are no edits needed by those being restricted from editing the page, given constraints on admin time/resources. ~
Rob13Talk01:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
>>I DON'T WANT TO MOVE ANYTHING<<. In the page I linked there's a long discussion in which I keep repeating that to no avail. How can this still popup? Even if someone tries the other pages are move locked, so that won't be a problem. If somehow that's still a problem, move-protect this one too.
Bertdrunk (
talk)
01:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
This title wound up being full protected as a redirect due to
an edit war that was first reported in July, 2016. It continued in early September, 2016 as you can see from the history of
Anglo-Spanish War (1779–83). There appear to be two groups of people, those who want the fighting in North America to be described in
Spain and the American Revolutionary War and those who want the material to stay in
Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783). From time to time, someone comes forward and just wants the redirect unprotected but they don't explain whether they intend to copy the existing material from the other article. In my view, the redirect should stay protected until someone will explain how a two-article solution would work and how they propose the material be arranged. And, they should get consensus. If you don't like the idea of a
WP:RM then please explain what form of discussion you would set up. See
Talk:Spain and the American Revolutionary War#Redirect for the prior discussion that led to the status quo.
EdJohnston (
talk)
05:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
You say consensus but fully-protected a page cause a guy asked you, that's all the "consensus" that exist. There's nothing beyond you ignoring whatever is said and sitting over the top of this. What I propose is that you should pick whatever problems you ever had with any editor and take it to them. Then you should stop pretending that everyone else would do exactly the same thing for whatever reason it may be. And why you keep insisting on a RM is really beyond my comprehension.
Bertdrunk (
talk)
07:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Seems like a punishment for someone else's fault, a rationale for an article was never discussed, so it was never decided either (beyond what the guy above decided alone of course). But anyway, have a nice day.
Bertdrunk (
talk)
00:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done. The article is under Pending Changes protection which seems adequate for now. When there is a burst of vandalism, request temporary semi-protection.
MelanieN (
talk)
00:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent
vandalism – There's a "let's vandalize the notable people section" edit war going on between a few people; it's exhaustive to have to revert it all, and more effective to simply protect the page (especially if more people get involved). .
ɯɐɔ💬02:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Pending changes not viable. Not a single constructive edit from an IP or new user in the past 2 weeks (or ever for that matter).
Lizard (
talk)
03:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite Semi-protection: Third time requesting semi-protection. The previous two stints of temporary semi-protection have both been followed immediately by (and indeed proceeded by) vandalism, and hardly anything aside from vandalism.
Reil (
talk)
00:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Full-blown edit war over the inclusion of a ranking. Looks like a
WP:3RR breach for both parties.
clpo13(
talk)22:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism from multiple unregistered users.
Mfarazbaig
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Low activity, no past protections. See if the current burst passes, if not suggest a longer PC1. --
ferret (
talk)
22:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply