Indefinite creation protection being requested, as this article has been recreated several times now, and is purely promotional and always qualifies for
WP:CSD#A7. Wes WolfTalk01:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Upgrade to Semi-protection: Yesterday,
List of Donald Duck universe characters was page-protected to protect against an IP-hopping vandal, as this page is one of its favorite targets to insert
WP:OR commentary (and editwar to preserve said commentary). However, previous experience has repeatedly shown that auto-confirmation does not deter this vandal in the slightest, and it would be much better to upgrade the page-protection to semi-protection, as said vandal operates primarily through IPs.--
Mr Fink (
talk)
14:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Done I've protected the article for a year. The talk page has already been protected till July: let's wait to see what happens with it, because talk pages should not be protected lightly in any case.
Vanamonde (
talk)
09:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Months-long campaign by a bouncing IP to list false revivals for these series with 'a revival is planned for 2017' and appropriate categories; a month is preferable. Nate•(
chatter)01:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – An unregistered user with an agenda (they have only edited this one page) has repeatedly removed valid material opposing his POV.
RobP (
talk)
14:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed: Persistent
sockpuppetry – a history of vandalism and genre warring by MariaJaydHicky. and it didn't take long after the previous page protection was removed for another "new" account to try making the same genre changes also adding the same reference page(s).
Kellymoat (
talk)
01:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done User is still active, this would prevent them from creating their own userpage. Also, the last creation of the page was five months ago. If the user themselves requested it of course it would be granted.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
20:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Constantly vandalised by IPs or single-purpose accounts right after the protection expired, over 25 reverts in 2 days
Snowflake91 (
talk)
22:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined actually, one of thsoe AfDs ended in no consensus and one in keep. It has only been deleted twice, within a span of six years, so there is no reason to assume it will be recreated in a way that is disruptive. SoWhy13:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
SoWhy: the bio was created by a well established Wikipedia user who was using Wikipedia for self promotion. He has recently caught socking and appearently he was using his sock team to gaming the previous AfD's. He has intentions to re-create the bio so I urge that this page be protected to avoid re-creation. --
Saqib (
talk)
17:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Edit-warring and persistent
disruptive editing (deletion of sources)
As already said months ago by an other contributor, the article """needs serious work to clean up the writing, fix up the citations, and remove insufficiently sourced non-neutral statements""".
[2].
Launebee is only trying again to get the article stuck on the version that s/he wrote. This not acceptable, as no consensus has been reached.
XIIIfromTOKYO (
talk)
16:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There looks to be persistent vandalism, but protecting the main page should be done as small as possible. It upholds the principle that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone... since it's on the main page ;-).
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)19:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Seen on Help:Getting started that is auto linked by welcome templates. Lets lock this shortcut no need to change.
Moxy (
talk)
18:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Despite an edit notice, various single-purpose accounts are "fixing" the article in aid of the "get to philosophy" game.
Just plain Bill (
talk)
11:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – the self promotional autobio was created and maintained by a now blocked team of socks who used team of socks to dodge the deletion consensus in some afd's . the subject have plans to re-create it
User_talk:Rachitrali#Deletion_Review so better it be protected.
Saqib (
talk)
15:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP hopper keeps adding questionable edits that also specifically mentions that citations are useless. .
Zhanzhao (
talk)
15:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing - Persistent vandalism, false and unsourced accusations regularly added by multiple IP addresses. Repeated requests for page deletion despite consensus for non-deletion in January 2016, where page was deemed to meet notability requirements. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.216.134.196 (
talk)
Declined A couple of things...
The most recent AfD was in December 2016, and the result was no consensus to delete. Notability was not clearly established.
There are no obvious examples of vandalism in the last two months. I do, however, see some content disputes, which need to be addressed on the talk page.
Much of the recent editing has been done by anonymous editors. Protecting the page will result in collateral damage.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – The same sockpuppeteer, who appears to be indefinitely banned user SchoolcraftT, is back again requesting the same edits to distance that contradict reliable sources (Google Maps, Bing Maps). The user has returned twice after week-long temporary semi-protects. I'd like to ask for a much longer temporary period or permanent semi-protection.
Bitmapped (
talk)
20:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:
I request a semi protection on President
Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed of Somalia due to being a target of spam. Since his election, rivals have been editing this page changing his name,university and much more. If we could come to an agreement that would be great! ((unsigned|Editorguy123098}}
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. (Note: I corrected the header for this entry.) caknuck°needs to be running more often19:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Persistent changes to make Blount a member of some NFL team even though there are no sources saying he has been signed by one.
Jasper Deng(talk)16:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Article requires protection against editor who violated 3RR by adding disputed content with claims of helping against
WP:CRYSTAL; however, edits were introducting CRYSTAL by declaring roles of future films. -- AlexTW01:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: An IP editor in the Cincinnati area, likely the candidate in question or a friend/acquaintance of his, repeatedly attempts to insert a full, article-style bio for a candidate who does not meet Wikipedia's standards to have his own article.
ALPolitico (
talk)
04:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing Anonymous IPs recently have been making quite a few disruptive edits.--
Harout72 (
talk)
00:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IP persistently edit-warring with fraudulent/libelous claim to have created McFarlane's character Spawn. Each of these articles has been temp-protected at least once, with IP returning to this activity after expiration. See also:
this
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Unsourced edits and vandalism from IPs, resuming quickly after previous protection expired.
Simplexity22 (
talk)
21:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I'll request a fortnight's protection here. The page was protected last week after my request here. Repetitive BLP violations have again resumed ("scam entrepreneur" "conman" etc) due to the recent failure of the
Fyre Festival, which the subject organized. I believe this current interest will go down in a fortnight. Thanks.
Lourdes02:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Could we up the protection on this article? For some reason it is attracting persistent vandalism from multiple IP-editors from Illinois/Indiana/Iowa this week.
Shearonink (
talk)
01:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – Can we return this to ECP, please? We have seen a string of disruptive edits, particularly removal of sourced information for which consensus exists, since it was lifted: and many of the editors involved are autoconfirmed. .
Vanamonde (
talk)
12:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of Indefinitely, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is a redirect page that will not need to be a stand alone article. Except for maintenance adjustments on the page, there is no reason this redirect would need to be edited. But, yes, it was vandalism. If anyone thinks indef is too long for its protection, they are welcome to make a request in the section below to have it changed.
— Maile (
talk)
22:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Teahouse seems to be the target of a vandal, switching usernames and editing while logged out. PC protection doesn't need to be for very long, I think. If the person implementing it could add something to the header of the Teahouse as well to indicate why edits are not automatically posted(as it is for new users)
331dot (
talk)
11:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed:Arbitration enforcement – Talk says in the ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES Notice that The article has been protected so that only users with extended confirmed rights can make edits. however right now its semi protected and not extended protected. Flow 234 (Nina)talk10:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Since April 20, a variable IP has repeatedly deleted sourced info and changed info in a way the sources do not support. This has been reverted by 23 editor, Materialscientist, William M. Connolley, IronGargoyle, Murph900, Suonii180, Zoupan, Jim1138, Jdcomix, and myself; but the IP persists.
Edward321 (
talk)
00:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This article is suffering from revert vandalism. An IP editor is reverting a legitimate change, not because he or she has is in a dispute. His/her silly edit summaries read: "Just because you are Canaidan, so I go agree with you!" and "Je vais d’accord avec vous, le canadien guy".
Codename Lisa (
talk)
09:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)reply
P.S. There initially was a dispute with 198.13.187.2 (IP from Canada) but this person seems to have given up his/her position. The vandal uses Chinese IPs: 119.53.118.176, 221.9.12.219, 221.9.22.200. —
Codename Lisa (
talk)
09:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: persistent vandalism was also done to my talk page by same IP-user who is still violation the named
Conviction (2016 TV series)-artcile named above. Needs some protection until this user sees, he/she is just doing disruptive work here.--
Robberey1705 (
talk)
16:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Robberey's page is not being vandalized. The IP has simply responded to the edit war in kind, which Robberey refers to as vandalism (there is a long-term issue with Robbery referring to any edits with which he disagrees as vandalism, and any editor he encounters across multiple pages as a stalker). As above, page protection is inappropriate. --
Drmargi (
talk)
17:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Despite the pending changes protection, there is still a high level of unconfirmed user and IP vandalism. Requesting additional short term semi protection on top of the pending changes to assist with this.
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
18:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Unnecessary move protection, the title has not been debated for a while. I left a message on the protecting admin's talk page and never received a response. . Anarchyte(
work |
talk)14:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Repetitive IP changes. People don't understand how maths works. Other IPs are editing to compare results to last election, not notional results based on boundary changes. (In the SNP section, the seats change should show a net loss of 7. See results table below for clarification or follow the BBC link)
49.200.119.98 (
talk)
07:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: A consensus was reached regarding if the use of "racist" was appropriate in this article. After finding several reliable sources, it was decided it was appropriate usage. However, IPs and new accounts continue to remove "racist" or replace it with "controversial" even after the comments clearly state that if a change wants to be change must be discussed. eg:
[4][5] This page has also been semi-protected twice before for these same reasons.
MasontWang (
talk)
17:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Further repeated vandalism by various IP editors soon after the previous temporary protection measure was lifted about a week ago.
Kind Tennis Fan (
talk)
06:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite Semi-protection: Disruptive editing again, single-purpose account (SPA) vandalism as well as vile language by unregistered user. If a permanent semi protection is not introduced, the article will be vandalized again by unregistered users. For more justification please look at page history which will show the trend of vandalism from the past month or so. The vile language as well as swear words have been removed.
Oliszydlowski,
08:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – First part of a newly released mega movie. All the lowlifes who cannot vandalise the sequel (protected) are resorting to vandalising the first part .
JupitusSmart12:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Jupitus Smart: I rather think that you should refrain from denigrating other users; they vandalise, you report, and the article gets protected. No need for name-calling.
Lectonar (
talk)
16:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Not used that much. TEP is reserved for cases like cleanup, POV, and advert.
KMF (
talk)
22:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined per
this discussion. If anyone needs to edit this template, please say so and the protection level can be considered, but it makes little sense to clog up RFPP dealing with many requests to reduce protection levels on templates no-one wants to edit. ~
Rob13Talk05:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – An editor is continuously warring over an image in the article, which needs to be settled in
WP:FFD. Please full protect it for the timebeing for the sake of the article's stability. This is a
WP:GA. —
IB[
Poke ]03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Beginning 14 November 2016,
[6] an ip user has repeatedly, often using deceptive edit summaries, added the assertion that 'cacciatore was named for Italian poet Antonio Cacciatore'. No such person ever existed.
Dlabtot (
talk)
01:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: A rotating set of IPs is insisting on putting the secondary name for the language in the infobox twice. This has been explained to them to no avail.
MarnetteD|
Talk14:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There was a lot of problem editing in April, but rare recently. If it gets back to the level it was in April, ask again.
MelanieN (
talk)
21:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Repetitive
vandalism on article by fans of
Hamilton (musical). Most are perpetrated by IP's and one-time non-auto-confirmed editors with clearly malicious edits. Page requires protection as traffic has increased in recent years, and multiple acts of vandalism are committed and reverted (often by
ClueBot NG) each month.
Stormy clouds (
talk)
09:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: How long semi protection
does this get me. The longer the better. At the top of my regular talk page I give a link to my alternate talk page, so communicating with me is no problem.
SlightSmile15:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent violations by IP-hopping editor. Talks have been done. The series stays "present" as long as there is no official confirmation by the network ABC. This decisions have been made by other users then me in December 2016, as written in the coment section of the history of the article. Some IP-User does not seem to get this, now goes agains me about an "edit" war he/she/it has started and is just not able to calm down. Article should be protected until May Sweeps are done by ABC in 14 days and the official cancelation is confirmed.--
Robberey1705 (
talk)
16:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Neither editor involved in this slow edit war has made any effort to discuss the edit on the talk page, and both are aggressively warring a semantic hair split. Semi is inappropriate until they use the talk page and resolve using the way the community expects. --
Drmargi (
talk)
16:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@my personal stalker-Margi As you might see, this user does not know how to use a talk page. But I won't use it either, as a discussion has been helt in December 2016 in the comments. It was NOT me who suggested, leaving the series as "present" even tho it is, of course, over. Other useres made the choice, also on the article of
Notorious (2016 TV series) to leave it "present" as long as there is not official confimation on side of ABC. And there isn't. I am just keeping up the given status quo, which is, in fact "present". But as you are able to see: the screeming IP-User does not get this point. Therefore a protection until May Sweeps is the only way to satisfy all. The confirmation about a cancelation will be there in 14 days anyway.--
Robberey1705 (
talk)
16:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Neither do you. "Discussion" does not take place via edit summary. There has been no discussion, you are equally culpable in this edit war, your approach to conflict resolution is to be the one who shouts loudest, and you refuse to work toward consensus, or even acknowledge the process. Page protection is not the answer to the problem; neither is an aggressive message to an IP such as you left on the article talk page after by comments above. --
Drmargi (
talk)
17:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
For the reviewing administrator: it bears mention that this nonsense is also going on at
Notorious (2016 TV series) as well, where there is also an equally aggressive slow edit war. Frankly, the two need a little break to calm down and stop edit warring. --
Drmargi (
talk)
17:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. Each editor gave an edit warring warning to the other before their last reverts, so it's clear they were aware. I'm going to decline page protection for now; if the edit war resumes, please report it to
WP:AN3. Katietalk18:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Walter Görlitz: An AFD for the repeatedly deleted content about the album. I don't see any discussion for this matter. If you are willing to start one I will knock the protection down to ECP. --
NeilNtalk to me15:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, a person keeps using slightly different IP addresses coming from the same area (Thessaloniki, Greece) replacing sales numbers that are official with VGChartz estimations despite explanations of why this is incorrect and repeatedly being reverted. They have been doing this continuously for almost 2 weeks and seem determined to not stop.
ThatPerson903 (
talk)
14:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Vandal activities has been unending amongst many other articles relating to Classical Korean History
Wandrative (
talk)
08:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: An IP, now two, are adding personal opinions and using trivial language that contradict the sources. They use no source to support what they write and they just revert without a summary.
Attar-Aram syria (
talk)
08:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – Requesting additional ECP protection over existing pending changes, as despite the pending changes, there is still a lot of disruptive editing.
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
21:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The article is under attack by a harassment-minded vandal. (He is engaged in
this certain type of vandalism.) Just to clarify, if anyone thinks this is actually a good-faith editor having a dispute, I've been collecting the various IP addresses of this certain malicious person for a couple of years and attaching geolocation data to them. I will provide this info on request to admins. (But of course, if my past requests here is any indication, you guys know this malicious person.).
Codename Lisa (
talk)
04:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – User was indef'd for self-promotion, and had talk page access revoked after posting the same self-promotional material after being blocked. IP editors have now twice posted the same self-promotional material since the user was denied talk page access. Reasonable to assume it is the blocked user editing anonymously to evade the block.
Drm310🍁 (
talk)
05:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – An article about a Hindu religious text either being attacked as non Hindu by various people or another IP hopper .
Doug Wellertalk05:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Multiple IP vandalism is becoming tedious to undo. Suggest protecting for at least a week, possibly two.
GoneIn60 (
talk)
01:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP-hopping vandal is back; has already been blocked this week, but changes IPs. Long-term protection is the only route to protect the article. The Old JacobiteThe '4502:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent misgendering of the subject by unconfirmed users. Also request that an edit warning be inserted to inform editors that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions.
Funcrunch (
talk)
03:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of Indefinite, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Years of vandalism, page blanking, disruptive editing; only slowed down by occasional page protection. I've also left the Admin-required move protection that was already in place.
— Maile (
talk)
01:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: User request. Note that the page is a redirect to my talk page, so don't be surprised if you're redirected there. Please do not protect my talk page. —Gestrid (
talk)
22:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Repeated restoring of unsourced / non-notable alumni - no wiki page - by multiple IPs.
Jim1138 (
talk)
23:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined I had protected this until shortly before 8pm French time; now it is well under control, and the French system of prediction of the result is such that there is virtually no chance that anyone else than Macron is the winner.
Lectonar (
talk)
19:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IPs persistently removing info (some uncontroversial, some potentially controversial) despite invites to discuss on its talk page. Also misleading edit summaries for this, such as 'update' when it's actually just deletion or 'minor'.
Boleyn (
talk)
21:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Target of some obsessed vandal who has a thing for insisting that there should not be any fluff about the macOS version prior to formal release.
Blake Gripling (
talk)
07:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Just give up... I will keep bothering or modifying until you understand that Mac should NOT be listed as platform until the release. AS YOU CAN SEE, BANS AND BLOCKS WON'T STOP ME. AND I WILL CONTINUE FOREVER WITH TROLLING/ EDIT WARS, IF NECESSARY. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.52.13.15 (
talk)
16:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary create protection: This film is not releasing, better to keep as a draft. For now this page needs to be salted. SuperHero ● 👊 ●
★13:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Anons and newly-registered accounts attempting to censor content, sometimes disguised by adding unnecessary citations that say no more than the extant ones. Probably the same person doing it all.
Sitush (
talk)
15:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – If you look at the history of the page, it has been continually edited in a disruptive/vandalism-ish way by
User:GramereC (almost all of their talk page is warnings about that editing). This got onto the
Editor Assistance Noticeboard and I would suggest indefinite protection to make sure that GramereC cannot continue their edits. They last edited on May 4th of this year in the same disruptive fashion, so it is still going on. This may deserve higher protection than I nominated it for (this is the first time I have nominated a page for protection) due to the extent of their disruption.
Nerd1a4i (
talk)
16:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism that reoccurs as soon as the page gets unprotected. This is common with all recent Miss Universe articles.
{ [ ( jjj1238 ) ] }16:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – We have IP's adding new photographs and changing data as the new President elect is about to declared. Should be IP protected till official confirmation arrives.
JupitusSmart18:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined I had protected this until shortly before 8pm French time; now it is well under control, and the French system of prediction of the result is such that there is virtually no chance that anyone else than Macron is the winner.
Lectonar (
talk)
19:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I should have worded it more clearly. I don't doubt that Macron will be winning, but IP editors are removing Hollande's pictures with some replacing it with Le Pen, besides other vandalism. That was the reason for my asking.
JupitusSmart19:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Brough87 provoked an edit warring, so there are no consensus for his edit in talk page and violated 3RR. --
Panam2014 (
talk)
19:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: This was protected back in 2010. The team has been inactive for the past two years, and seems like there is no need for protection.
42.109.162.253 (
talk)
15:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: This protection was put it into place in error due to an edit war that has re-ignited There was no disrupive editing to begin with.
184.14.214.99 (
talk) 09:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: There hadn't been any changes to the article up until January of this year.
184.14.214.99 (
talk)
09:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – A hopping anon is repeatedly inserting poorly sourced content. They're undoing my edits, which suggests they should have seen the edit summary re: my comment about the issue on the talk page. They're been reverted by others, too.
Sitush (
talk)
18:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: this page will be prevent vandalism and disruptive editing. Also this prevent the registered account user and anonymous account user from editing. Thank you. -
Rama Ybrahim (
Talk)
05:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined No-one other than you has ever edited it. Extended protection won't stop confirmed registered users editing it. The only way to do that would be full protection and then only admins would be able to edit it.
GedUK11:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment:@
Ged UK: same request was posted one-two hours ago to this one, which was denied by
NeilN. (This is my first time of tattletale, possibly/hopefully the last one.) I saw this request first, and requested user to update his signature, then I realised he had made same request previously, and Neil had requested him to update his signature too. User
is not much good with English language, and this request gives me doubt if he understands the concept of vandalism. The account is barely 31 days old, and has been granted rollback user-right, and has "IP block exemption." —usernamekiran
(talk)15:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – it had been protected until july 6 2018. but someone changed it to a lesser date. that protection has expired. sock vandals are back.
Kellymoat (
talk)
11:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Move protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Once the official title can be sourced, this can be moved to the appropriate title.
Lectonar (
talk)
18:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: User request as a defense against potential vandalism, as I usually work in anti-vandalism. Note that most of the talk pages are redirects to my base talk page. Do not protect my base talk page, please. The pages that end in ".css" and ".js" are not CSS and JavaScript pages. They are the talk pages for CSS and JavaScript pages and are editable by anyone. Also, I apologize: I did not realize the request would turn out to be this large and that I had so many subpages. —Gestrid (
talk)
16:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: Let me quote the
protection policy....user pages may be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists. I somehow fail to see the need for protection, to be honest. The (sub-)pages may be protected if they are vandalised (but not preemptively), so I'd suggest to ask for protection when vandalism occurs.
Lectonar (
talk)
20:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
Lectonar (
talk)
11:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: (suggested until election date on 8th June) This minor national politician's page was flagged as having COI edits at the last UK general election and now has a couple of new apparent-SPAs adding unsourced or improperly sourced promotional material such as "Craig enjoys visiting local businesses, schools and voluntary organisations and seeing the fantastic work that these do". Perhaps if it's restricted to autoconfirmed users they'll make suggestions on the talk page instead
Dtellett (
talk)
12:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Just the odd occurrence of vandalism; sometimes the article goes completely unedited for days.
Lectonar (
talk)
12:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Three different attempt to change the English air dates even though the cited source states the the series airs on Sunday mornings at 1am. —Farix (
t |
c)
17:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. That's not the role of pending changes; pending changes works fine here, because it prevents the unsourced addition of going "live".
Lectonar (
talk)
09:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Spinout article of
Payrexx which is repeatedly recreated for promo only by several undisclosed COI editor accounts - see
WP:COIN. Widefox;
talk17:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Offending editor is edit-warring over the same content as before the previous one-week protection but in a different format, as soon as it was over, without posting on the talk page any further. -- AlexTW10:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Full protection of what exactly? Because you don't want a line ("has yet to be announced") that is against
Wikipedia:CRYSTAL to be removed therefore locking the thread so no one could edit it? That line is also unsourced to Begin with, so that's another issue. Two editors already said that that line should be removed.
TheVeryHotWikipedian (
talk)
11:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
As can be seen, the offending editor has taken this discussion here as well, unaware that discussions are not a vote, continuing their
WP:OWN behaviour and refusing to discuss properly. -- AlexTW11:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Stop deflecting the real issue by accusing editors of owning the article. Two editors already disagreed with you, and you are the only one who is insisting to keep the line which is unsourced and against
Wikipedia:CRYSTAL.
TheVeryHotWikipedian (
talk)
11:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I have protected again, but I suspect any reoccurrence of such edit-wars when the protection expires will be met with blocks for both parties involved in the edit-war which is frankly over a triviality.
Black Kite (talk)11:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Cheers for that. And agreed that it's a triviality, and yet, the editor insists on removing it continuously. One can only restore the previous version of the
WP:STATUSQUO and
WP:CONSENSUS so many times. -- AlexTW11:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Random pointless edits made by different IP addresses (specifically, adding new lines at the top of the page and removing them). It's not exactly vandalism since I haven't seen them change the article directly, but it fills up the view history and it doesn't help. This has been going on since December of last year.
FosterHaven (
talk)
06:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined This has to be dealt with in another fashion; have a look at
User talk:191.17.73.193 e.g.; filing an SPI would probably be the best course of action, as it permits easier blocks of the (prospective) socks.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
— Maile (
talk)
21:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Might want to protect this talk page from rants that the 'Babylonian' editors here (which means non-Rastafarian) are 'homoes'.
Doug Wellertalk12:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Looks like a troll to me. I see where you're coming from, but protecting a talk page shuts out a whole class of editors from being able to change anything. A block would be better, but the IP appears to be a T-Mobile with probably too much collateral.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Repeated vandalism within the last few days, one user in particular keeps reverting edits to own viewpoint with no reference to support.
BillyBatty (
talk)
15:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. While some IP edits are questionable, others such as
this should be considered good faith. If any particular IP is being obviously disruptive and screwing about, try
WP:AIVRitchie333(talk)(cont)17:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Lectonar: Don't revert the PC just because I said so, if you think the time is right now, then put it in! I just personally preferred to wait a little longer to see if the disruption died down of its own accord.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Ritchie333: We just crossed edits and opinions...I had looked through the article history, and just thought it would be ok to pc-protect....1 month is nothing, and pc is much less intrusive than semi. Admins disgression. All is well :)
Lectonar (
talk)
17:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Ah, okay, I wondered what "I have to patrol it anyway" meant - if you've got it on your watchlist then the good faith edits won't be held up long. And skimming through the past 3 months or so of the article's history, I think most anon edits are good faith, though I frequently bang my head against a desk when IPs add stuff that can be easily sourced but don't bother.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. No more edits for five days. If it starts up again, consider requesting pending protection. SoWhy11:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined no reason to assume that PCP can't keep on handling it. The whole point of it is to allow those good IP edits to be made despite the protection. SoWhy12:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection (suggest until election date 8 June). Repeated (5x in 6hrs) reinsertion of same piece of BLP-violating content by multiple IP editors and new SPAs.
Dtellett (
talk)
09:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Non-logged-in (and chiefly mobile) users have recently been removing content and corrupting the formatting of this page. Multiple such edits have occurred since the beginning of the year, each having been manually reverted by various users.
Rriegs (
talk)
22:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I'm not seeing the level of pervasive disruptive editing that we normally expect when protecting a page.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
04:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent
WP:VANDALISM every few months - all vandalism appears to come from IP addresses and nonconfirmed users. Previous request cannot be parsed per Cyberbot I comment, thus a new one has been created.
Cosmic Clone (
talk)
21:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism by new accounts. People are adding Hindi, Persian to the infobox with no real reason. Blanked twice in the last 24 hours. Changing flag from Tibet to China to Tibet to China (somebody even added both the flags side by side) over the last few days, in the region with significant populations list.
JupitusSmart06:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Company flacks perpetually creating SPAs to try to change article to Maaxis instead of Cheng Shin. Examples:
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continued disruption of IP editor based on their disagreement with the content and critical reviews after previous page protection expired. -- AlexTW22:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This does look like a long term issue. Let's see if three months will drive them off. If not come back and we can extent the PP.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
04:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – As you can see this page's history it's been a hub of lot of ip's to expand un-sourced content on this page without giving proper refs to the content it is here requested from the admins to please protect this page for one month for stopping this un-sourced content addition. Regards,
TKSS (
talk) 18:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC).
TKSS (
talk)
18:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Due to the mention of this character in the hit musical “Hamilton”, vandalism is persistent and the present protection level does not seem adequate since vandalism keeps breaking through unabated. Please set up a similar protection level as with other Hamilton related pages like Peggy Schuyler, Aaron Burr, Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton himself, etc.
Isananni (
talk)
09:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Two edits today, pending protection is plenty to handle that. SoWhy19:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Full protection Yes there is only one editor who is being reverted for last 3 days, but it seems that there is content dispute and before the edit war becomes worse the page should be protected already.
Capitals00 (
talk)
14:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Full protection - An editor keeps removing the numbering of this Nova Scotia premier, despite their being no consensus for doing so. Also, his deletions are disruptive, as all the other NS premiers are numbered.
GoodDay (
talk)
15:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: There seems to a be a huge dispute about if this article should be included as a separate article or not, which has led to multiple counts of
WP:edit_waring and
WP:Blanking, especially for such a new article.
menaechmi (
talk)
20:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Cartoon Network recently unveiled a new way of dividing these seasons and enumerating the various episodes, and the implementation of this information is being reverted by a number of IPs. Here is a small smattering of examples:
[20][21][22][23]--
Gen. Quon(Talk)04:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected. Season 7 has to be indefinitely semi-protected, since everything else has been already tried. By analogy, I also indefinitely semi-protected seasons 8 and 9, though they did not enjoy a similar level of vandalism yet. If someone thinks this is an overkill, they are welcome to adjust the protection.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
09:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection, if the AfD has a consensus to redirect and protect, I will leave that to the closing admin.
Mifter (
talk)
03:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. — There has been numerous edits on the article with no reliable links/sources by IP users in the past weeks.
Haveyouseenthisboy (
talk) 10:58, 13 May 2017 (PST)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page is block evasion edit warring, the page is being vandalized by different IP addresses now, a game of Whack-a-Mole. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
03:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Please reduce the level of protection page is
Coolpad Group,
Coolpad Group in the process of development, the need for more people to understand the objective of cool, I will post one by one in the process of editing and Wikipedia communication, to determine the legal and factual information. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Man888888 (
talk •
contribs)
09:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I think the bot is referring to my request for page protection, which was denied by an admin here due to insufficient recent disruptive activity. My request may have been a bit too brief, causing the admin to only look at one potential sock's single edit. --
Dodi 8238 (
talk)
17:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Repeated rearranging of the main viewpoint character in order to give the impression that a female character is the lead. Quite possibility sockpuppetry by
Nintenchris5963 using IPs. —Farix (
t |
c)
10:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: User is banned, page history is littered with automated warnings that are then reverted. –
Train2104 (
t •
c)
20:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Everyday 3-4 disruptive editing about aired, or upcoming episode. As episodes aired with gap of many days, and with different sequence in episodes. That is leading to disruptive editing from mostly IP users, making it difficult to maintain/stabilise the article. Requesting autoconfirmed protection for at least 30 days. Thanks. —usernamekiran
(talk)17:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Ok, I've removed all of the malformed merge tags where there was no obvious discussion started, and corrected those which had at least some discussion. It was down to the instructions in
Wikipedia:Merging, and some lazy or just bad tagging from a variety of people who did a drive by tag without starting a discussion or checking their work. So, that explains what was going on. The page creation here is explained and innocent (there were around a dozen pages with a big notice telling people to create this talk page). It might still be worth protecting if we expect the same mistakes to repeat themselves. Alternatively, we can fix the template, docs, or both to prevent it.
Murph9000 (
talk)
19:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection:
-->Some content with source has been here for months, Mr rnddude, an editor who has done B-class, GA-class and A-class reviews is backing, at least partially, the inclusion, but XIIfromTokyo is deleting it again and again. --
Launebee (
talk)
17:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – This page has been subjected to persistent vandalism from IPs, which I suspect to be from
User:BlueGreenWhite (who has been blocked). The edits have been trying to move uncited Igbo centric entries to the top, while deleting heavy parts of other entries. Very similar to edits of the linked user. I think this page should be protected for one or two months, and also have the IP range of BlueGreenWhite blocked; I have a feeling the disruptions to the articles are not over.
Jamie Tubers (
talk)
15:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Persistent
vandalism – Revolving IP user (5 IPs beginning 173.67...) is attacking this page and a few others with trivial details about case histories and docket numbers that are not encyclopedic.
Also, frequent mention of George Soros which is a favorite talisman of those harboring extreme political views, this page subject is a member of the Democratic party. As are the others he or she is targeting.
JesseRafe (
talk)
02:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This is the second time that I am bringing this page here. The disruptive POV editing by unregistered users persists. I would like to request a month's semi-protection to let the movement subside.
Kautilya3 (
talk)
12:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – One IP hopping editor insertiung the same teenage fantasy inane commentary over several days and 7 separate edits. VelellaVelella Talk 12:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment:@
Velella: Yes, I reverted few similar edits a few days ago. But I am not sure they are enough to justify protection, I want the protection though. —usernamekiran
(talk)16:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected Indefinite. This article has been protected off and on for vandalism since 2007. It was PC-1 indefinite since 2013 this time. And the vandalism just kept rolling along. I changed it to semi, but left it at indef. If someone disagrees with the indef, they are welcome to request a change in the section below this.
— Maile (
talk)
20:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Multiple IP vandalism over the past two days; it's a waste of time for editors to keep unaccepting revisions; would be nice if the protection can be modified to a semi for three or four days or so. That should be enough.
Lourdes17:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
This was reported here and dealt with earlier today. I asked for semi but got PC, which clearly isn't going to be enough. -
Sitush (
talk)
18:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Apparently dead, according to unconfirmed reports. Needs some protection until clarity sets in.
Crboyer (
talk)
02:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Carlstak keeps removing the Country Bar. By his edits, he is clearly hateful towards this country that my ancestors came from. Please protect this page. He is showing bias and favor towards Spain and belittling Florida.
EastFloridaHistorian (
talk)
14:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. As all users involved are at least autoconfirmed, semi-protection would not be effective.
Lectonar (
talk)
14:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Page has been facing consistent vandalism from both IP's and users for over a month. Just look at page history, for example. Pending changes protection was previously granted for a month but didn't really stop much unfortunately and that has since expired anyway.
Kamalthebest (
talk)
04:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Late to the party (sorry about that), but let's give this another day to calm down.
Lectonar (
talk)
12:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection Persistent vandalism and unencyclopedic additions from unregistered IP's who seem to think Wikipedia is a free self-promotion website. :
-->
Please unprotect SahBabii. He is now notable and I have prepared a draft. He is signed to Warner Brothers Records, on the Billboard charts, write up in NY Times and in radio rotation all over the world. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated.
Kimber0316 (
talk)
18:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
NeilN: Of course it is possible, but after reading the op's talk-page and their help-desk query, I agfed. That's why I pinged RHaworth; I see no problem in lifting the protection of the draft-page. The article is another problem, as the title is blacklisted.
Lectonar (
talk)
18:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – more edit warring. –
S. Rich (
talk)
03:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC) NOTE: I've posted an {{inuse}} template, but would like the RPP to go into effect immediately. Just remove the template when protecting. Thanks. 04:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – User Carlstak has showed extreme bias against the Republic of East Florida. Simply see his last edit and our conversation on the talk page. He doesn't want to "dignify" this nation with a country info bar. WHY!? He is being discriminatory. He will only edit this page if he is putting it down, usually by claiming it was not a real country, discussing slavery, or saying that no one wanted to even rebel against Spain... despite almost ALL of Spain's colonies rebelling within the next two decades!.
EastFloridaHistorian (
talk)
22:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined You might want to take this to
WP:ANEW instead. Content dispute is not vandalism. Also, FYI, Semi-protection allows anyone with a history "at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia", so I think you had something else in mind.
— Maile (
talk)
00:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: The kids TV network IP vandals were using
Universal Kids to dump unsourced shows and schedules on that article even though it's not on the air until September 9 and has literally nothing about it; that's already been protected until Labor Day, but then was rightfully redirected because we have little to nothing about the new channel. Thus, they've moved on to Sprout, which UK is replacing with the same detritus and low-quality sources, thus I'm asking for three months there too to save our sanity during the US summer break. Nate•(
chatter)23:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: ongoing vandalism from anonymous IP address after sister article
2017 GP3 Series was semi-protected because of their actions (I would report them, but I don't know how to report IP vandals).
Prisonermonkeys (
talk)
00:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Full-protection: Ongoing disruption and edit warring. Request protection so that matter can be discussed on talk page in good faith.
Anotherclown (
talk)
05:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Repeated edits by a person or persons who disagree with the use of the term "riot" to describe this event, without offering sources that their preferred term ("massacre") is typically used.
331dot (
talk)
08:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There is an ongoing dispute regarding a
section of the article. Additions and reversions regarding this section have been ongoing for days. Discussions on the article's talk page and elsewhere have been ongoing. These discussions should not take place on the article. The article should be unlocked when this dispute is resolved.
SMP0328. (
talk)
05:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Sure, but you need to stop trying to "tag shame" the article because you didn't get your way. And if you're asking for protection in good faith, then you should have asked for BEFORE you reverted, because otherwise it just looks like you're trying to get admins to protect
your version.
Volunteer Marek (
talk)
05:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
My version would be the one without your section that violates BLP, NPOV, and is clearly a criticism section. Your version is the one that includes that section without my tags. The current version is a middle ground. Locking the article in that middle ground sounds reasonable, as it doesn't have favor either of our favored versions.
SMP0328. (
talk)
05:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I still believe that the article should be locked, until the dispute is resolved. Whether someone is edit-warring is a separate matter.
SMP0328. (
talk)
23:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Semi-protection would not work; this probably needs dispute resolution...
Lectonar (
talk)
08:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I am really urging this, as now the editor is sock-hopping through multiple IP's. I've counted up to five IP's since yesterday, and who knows how many more they'll attempt to create to continue their vandalism. livelikemusictalk!03:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Heavy vandalism? 1 disruptive edit on the 15th, no edits at all before that for 2 days. Have you got the right article?
Lectonar (
talk)
21:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Disruptive editing from unconfirmed users and IP addresses. This is a new page, and there was disruptive editing from accounts changing info that is false.
Musicpoplover12 (
talk)
01:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistant vandalism from various IPs and distruptive accounts. Adding fan content despite several warnings.
Soaper1234 -
talk20:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes:BLP policy violations – There seems to be a lot of reversions of unsourced additions. Looking through the history, I see a lot of content about "court cases", "2017 trial", etc in edit summaries going back to
April 14, 2017 which is when edit activity picked up. I did some research and found out about lots of development in this subject, including Hernandez being acquitted (twice?), him being found hanged in his cell, and rumors of homosexuality. I came here because this was
the 22nd most viewed article in April 2017. There are also BLPs involved, like Hernandez's fianceé, so this is important. @
General Ization was over the revision history reverting edits, so I'm mentioning them (positively, of course) since they likely saw more than I.—Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs)
00:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Persistent edit-warring over the last few weeks. Two SPA editors insist on changing the genre of a real-time-strategy game to a MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) - anyone who has played either of these types know there is a vast difference. I opened up a talk-page discussion and dropped a message directly on on of them. As registered editors semi-prot is insufficient, which is unfortunate as there are good contributions by other IP editors. A few days of full protection might make them engage on the talkpage.
Only in death does duty end (
talk)
12:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
24 hours please, that... or someone who wants to explain to the entirety of the internet the difference between British and American English.
TimothyJosephWood13:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It was at pending changes, but the rate of editing is too high for that to be very effective right now.
clpo13(
talk)18:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Protection expired 2 days ago. Since then there's been 16 edits by 10 users and the only constructive one was MusikBot removing the pp-semi template. This page is a perpetual vandalism magnet. .
EvergreenFir(talk)17:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Can we unprotect this page? Im pretty sure it became protected due to vandalism but i beliebve that issue has long passed
Crewcamel (
talk)
05:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined There's plenty of back-and-forth going on between autoconfirmed editors as it is, so I'm not inclined to unprotect. If another admin thinks differently, they are welcome to do so.
Vanamonde (
talk)
06:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Current insistent recreation of an article from a redirect which already points to an article about the subject
.
Onel5969TT me19:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Repeated removal of multiply-sourced content by IPs and newly-registered single-purpose accounts, e.g.
[30][31][32]. The article relates to a politician who is currently standing for re-election, and has been involved in a controversy. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Recently deceased author, with a controversial news story hitting a number of news outlets in the past 24 hours. Various IP editors are starting to make BLP violations, mostly regarding the article he wrote that is now making the headlines.
Waggie (
talk)
05:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP-hopper persistent removing links to the Bengali language and replacing them by links to to the Hindi language, despite sources saying that Bengali is the most common language. The Bannertalk10:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – One IP was blocked a few hours ago but they've obviously come back using another address. Repeatedly adding unsourced info and removing unsourced.
Sitush (
talk)
16:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Trying again since page has been facing consistent vandalism from both IP's and users for over a month. Just look at page history, for example. Pending changes protection was previously granted for a month but didn't really stop much unfortunately and that has since expired anyway.
Kamalthebest (
talk)
20:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Repeated vandalism from numerous IPs. Has been protected before, but vandalism has resumed after protection expired. --
David Biddulph (
talk)
11:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. I don't think the activity level of the disruption on the article is high enough to justify semi-protection at this time.
Mz7 (
talk)
21:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Unidentified IP user continuously deleted sourced data and modifies the main part of the article
WP:Vandalism is suspected. Please make the article at least semi-protected.
Yatzhek (
talk)
12:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection. Please can you unprotect that page or decrease the time of semi-protection from 3 months to one week, please? I really promise I will not make any disruptive edits to that page, in case I need something important to add that is constructive, that I notice sometimes. Please do it. Thanks,
64.237.236.136 (
talk)
14:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Page is seeing a surge of vandalism edits by both vandalism accounts and vandalism IPs.--
Mr Fink (
talk)
19:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Not eligible for indef semi, because it haas not previously been protected. If vandalism and POV-pushing resumes after this temp protection expires, then indef might be appropriate. 01:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)~
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. Koala15 is autoconfirmed, so semi-protection would not prevent them from editing the article.
Mz7 (
talk)
21:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism by different IPs. Over the last few days, the only edits to the page has been vandalism and the consequent reverts by editors.
JupitusSmart12:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending Changes: There was some "fan-fiction" based edits with his page. This level of protection should reduce the likelihood of some fan-fiction based edits. Also, some editors were changing the profile from Agust D to Suga as he's a member of BTS, same person.
Tibbydibby (
talk)
21:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection — For some reason, this particular UK film has consistently been the subject of jingoistic vandalism by anon IPs who insist that despite
WP:FILM MOS that says only the distributor of the country of origin is listed, the the US distributor must be listed as well. I say jingoistic since no one is insisting the same for other English-language territories such as Australia. --
Tenebrae (
talk)
00:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – It's so bl**dy boring - either everyone thinks they are genuinely the greatest and most original wit in the US or else there's some kind of meme/fashion/whatever ... hey, let's put politicians in as examples of invertebrates! It had a few days protection on 10 May but it's all kicking off again - could it maybe have a tiny bit longer please, this time? Just to give editors a break from the, er, humour. Thanks.
DBaK (
talk)
14:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism or sockpuppetry – Done by one newly registered editor and two IPs within close numeric range. --
George Ho (
talk)
19:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Already done by administrator WOSlinker. in 2013. Note that the cascading protection on the Main Page will prevent editing by anyone other than admins anyway as it is rarely off the main page.
Woody (
talk)
17:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection due to anonymous abuse: see
here (April 11),
here (April 13),
here (April 19), and
here (May 18). Given the persistence of the editor and his willingness to use edit summaries abusively, I respectfully suggest that pending changes protection not be applied and that this be protected for months, not days. Rebbing12:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I again request protection for this target of a long-term abuser who evades their block. It doesn't need to be long at all, but they seem persistent today at least.
331dot (
talk)
12:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Amid his appointment as special counsel to oversee a high profile investigation, protection is needed. —
Fundude99talk to me22:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: Article is being
vandalized by an IP address who keeps adding unsourced genres. When the user sources, his sources come from unreliable sites. The IP in question, despite being rather quiet, is refusing to cease his misconduct (i.e., threatening to "lose it" if his edits are reversed), and may also be a
sockpuppet of one or more
indefinitely blocked users.--
Loyalmoonie (
talk)
17:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Chrisreply
Semi-protection: High level of IP edits on transfer rumour and test edits. One month protection is enough, but until 1 July the transfer window open, better.
Matthew_hktc07:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – Continuous disruptive editing by an IP editor (SPI in the process) over the last weeks which now resumed right after the recent semi expired. —
kashmiriTALK23:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Disruptive dynamic IPv6 edit warring and uncommunicative, this has been going on for the last few months and a longer than normal protect would be appreciated.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
21:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
User:Ebyabe, glancing at the edit history, it looks like there is disagreement about whether redlink items (films, TV shows) such as "At Your Service, Ltd. (TV Series)" can be included in the works listed. That work shows up in IMDB for the actor. None of the items show a reference. Perhaps it should show as a "blacklink", not calling for an article, rather than as a redlink. How is this not a legitimate content dispute? I am not familiar with how this kind of issue works and I am not familiar with this specific situation, I am asking. --
doncram19:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Regardless of the content in question, edit warring is ongoing and discussion is not taking place. I'm hoping that this will get that process moving along...
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)09:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: Well meaning but misinformed IPs continue to try to insert a premiere date for the next episode of the season, based on an Adult Swim website that mentions the "next showing" of any episode on Cartoon Network's schedule; actual schedule listings show that the May 20 date is scheduled for reruns (
http://www.adultswim.com/videos/schedule/). Not a humongous deal but it is tiring to try to correct them all individually, maybe protect it for a little while till the show is in regular season broadcast?
Morty C-137 (
talk)
19:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. You're both edit warring on this article, so I've left a warning on both your user talk pages, and fully protected the article. Please stop edit warring and discuss the dispute before any more changes are made by either of you.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)09:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Harassment from Janagewen's IP sock(s). Jan. has increased his activity level recently (since SPI is so backlogged) and based on past behavior I have no doubt there will be more of the same. Two weeks, please?
Jeh (
talk)
05:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Please protect this page for 30 days until an RFC is completed, because there is being persistent edit-warring even after attempting moderated discussion.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
06:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – Over the last week, this page has only been subject to content warring by IPs about her personal details - her year of birth (which is properly referenced though vandals keep changing that), her ethnicity (no proper references exist and IPs belonging to 2 states have been trying to appropriate her as belonging exclusively from their respective state), the languages she can speak etc. All this has got to do with a recent movie of her's getting a lot of popularity and the content warring will probably stop if IP protected for a while, till the movie frenzy dies down. .
JupitusSmart13:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Pending changes is not working, as is a current Google Doodle - over 175 edits today - Request semi for 24 hours, by when Google will have dropped it -
Arjayay (
talk)
16:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary MOVE full protection: Request temporary MOVE protection, due to repeated moves while page under move discussion. Please take admin action to help move discussion run its course instead of edit warring and disruption instead. Thank you ! .
Sagecandor (
talk)
13:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Looks like both the repeated moves and persistent vandalism have stopped for now, so protection is unnecessary at this time.
Mz7 (
talk)
02:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Though I do see a spike in activity the past few days. Let me know if it persists and we can probably semi-protect the article for a few days.
Mz7 (
talk)
02:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of vandalism by IP users - I am reverting edits on this page almost on a bi-weekly basis.
Wiki.0hlic15:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection Present version of this article is same as what it was more than one year ago.
[39] However article is frequently edit warred this month disruptively by
WP:SPAs.
Capitals00 (
talk)
00:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistant
vandalism from multiple users due to the firing of Brad's wife. This article has been protected many times in the past due to vandalism, but the protection recently expired.
EEllis2002 (
talk)
22:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: or stronger not sure reporting this article for higher protection because it is consistently violating
WP:3RR and if any talking is done its through edit summaries not talk page of the article. ♪♫Alucard16♫♪13:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The page is a target of a habitual block evader(Cebr1979) who will just come back tomorrow with a different IP.
331dot (
talk)
19:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP-hopping vandal persistently blanking the page and replacing it with a childish insult towards Harley-Davidson owners (particularly outlaw clubs).
Blake Gripling (
talk)
14:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
No content dispute that I can see, but extended confirmation would help to prevent future disruption (like what recently happened on the article from an autoconfirmed account).
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
03:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. Two temporary semiprotections have not deterred several IP-editors who are using the page as an unencyclopedic public relations brochure. Unfortunately they seem unfamiliar with WP practices and style, and repeated attempts to reach out to them and engage and educate on the talk page for the article have been ignored. Sugggest indefinite semi-protection.
Samshltn (
talk)
13:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Note:@
NeilN: I was just writing on your own talk page to reach out to you. I do not have a connection with the subject, no. My focus is on maintaining an enclyclopedic style, and that interest has only arisen after stumbling across this page. I apologise for any of my own edits that have been problematic as I learn the ropes. I hope that you agree that I'm clearly keen to engage, learn, and improve our Wikipedia.
Samshltn (
talk)
13:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Note:@
NeilN: I should point out that there are quite a few edits made by the anonymous user that have been just fine, I would have clicked 'thank' if he was only a registered user. I'm not blanket-undoing his edits, I'm trying to co-operate to create an encyclopedic style, but the editor doesn't respond on the talk page. He acts as an autonomous uncooperative editor. If you have suggestions for how I can reach out and try to help this editor maintain an encyclopedic style, your help would be greatly appreciated.
Samshltn (
talk)
14:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – It is still unclear if having this be a redirect to Wiktionary will be a net benefit to our readers. If you just want to keep people from recreating an article of that name, the full protection takes care of that. Suggest that anyone who favors the redirect should make a request at
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. If the close is favorable, an admin can do whatever is necessary. If
User:JamesBWatson wants to take a different action, he can do so.
EdJohnston (
talk)
16:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – This template is already redirected to
Template:STN and both source and target are now covered by template protection. So there doesn't seem to be anything more to do.
EdJohnston (
talk)
16:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: This redirect was protected as a result of a deletion discussion. Since there is now a new article, the protection is neither useful nor appropriate. (The protecting administrator appears to be inactive.).
Modernponderer (
talk)
23:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Semi protection is not correct anyway in most content disputes and there is no try to discuss the matter on the talk page, so you might want to try that first. SoWhy12:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection due to disruptive editing and multiple serious BLP violations by new and anonymous editors. Please note that
Google Knowledge Graph—the sidebar that shows up on many Google searches—does not respect pending changes protection, thus, pending changes protection would not be adequate in this case; see
here for details. Rebbing11:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I understand the problem of PC protection re Google but if we also consider what Google or others do with the content, we can never use PC protection. Regards SoWhy12:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
SoWhy: Google's sidebar is seen by far more people than the Wikipedia page, and it uses information derived from Wikipedia. It's our responsibility to ensure, as best as possible, that that information is not libelous. Additionally, the bug that causes Google to see unaccepted versions of PC-protected pages is in Mediawiki'a API, not Google's code. The subject of this article is currently the subject of media and popular attention, and the page has recently been modified both to report defamatory insinuations and sexually-degrading insults. Pending changes protection remains viable for ordinary vandalism and disruptive editing, but if limiting defamation isn't sufficient reason to use semi-protection for a few days, what is‽ Rebbing13:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Rebbing: I'm willing to accept your logic for now within the requirements of
WP:BLP to err on the side of caution. However, I expect you raise this problem at the relevant Village Pumps to facilitate discussion whether we need to change the proteciton policy in these cases, until the bu in the API is fixed, since the problems I mentioned above exist in many cases, not just this one. Regards SoWhy14:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – A sockfarm
owner is working overtime to remove references that the movie is a remake from this page. He was running one of the oldest hoaxes on Wikipedia earlier. This back and forth game has been ongoing since December last. The admin who had PC protected the page, had semi-protected the page on my request. The sockpuppetry had stopped then. But since semi-protection ended and it went back to PC, the sockpuppetry has continued, with him removing the data and references. The original admin is on a vacation and I don't want to pester her, otherwise I would have asked her again. PC was okay as long as editors were reverting the vandalism. But recently an established editor
accepted the revision, in what I believe was an oversight on his part, as all other editors who had reverted the sockpuppets edits earlier seemed to agree that the removal was wrong. A long/indefinite semi-protection is therefore warranted as I don't believe that any good edits will be made by IPs in the near future.
JupitusSmart12:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Done; I would normally wait for the protecting admin, but given the protection expires in 3 days, and they have not been editing for 3 days, I went ahead and reduced the protection.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
08:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: What appears to be a single purpose account persists in adding description for an entry on the disambiguation page that is not supported by the liked article and refuses to discuss.
older ≠
wiser03:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – User attempting to use article to promote his PhD thesis and to paint it as the authoritative word on subject; is continuing to revert despite repeated efforts to get him to use the talk page.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
05:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continues to be consistently vandalized due to blown lead in Super Bowl, only came off PC around 20 days ago.
WNYY98 (
talk)
02:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Continuous reverting and editing of this article by a Wikipedia user
P199 without any reliable source has resulted in content dispute/edit warring.
Barrera marquez23:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There is a persistent edit to the page for from various IP users, though there is no source to corroborate this (disputed fact) claim. Though, it can equally be assumed to be done under good faith. Nonetheless there are too many edits to same information that have to be reverted in one day. .
Sreeking (
talk)
01:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Repeated IP vandalism with same type of unreferenced content inserted (see recent 71.11.137.150, 107.77.206.36 edits)
Hmlarson (
talk)
19:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent IP edits to include paragraphs from very unreliable sources (anonymous Reddit thread). Edits from the same IPs have been made to the
Rochester Institute of Technology page to remove references to Computer Science Hours. This person has been warned on multiple occasions, and shifting IPs prevents user blocking.
Alexwho314 (
talk)
19:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
No content dispute that I can see, but extended confirmation would help to prevent future disruption (like what recently happened on the article from an autoconfirmed account).
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
03:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. Two temporary semiprotections have not deterred several IP-editors who are using the page as an unencyclopedic public relations brochure. Unfortunately they seem unfamiliar with WP practices and style, and repeated attempts to reach out to them and engage and educate on the talk page for the article have been ignored. Sugggest indefinite semi-protection.
Samshltn (
talk)
13:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Note:@
NeilN: I was just writing on your own talk page to reach out to you. I do not have a connection with the subject, no. My focus is on maintaining an enclyclopedic style, and that interest has only arisen after stumbling across this page. I apologise for any of my own edits that have been problematic as I learn the ropes. I hope that you agree that I'm clearly keen to engage, learn, and improve our Wikipedia.
Samshltn (
talk)
13:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Note:@
NeilN: I should point out that there are quite a few edits made by the anonymous user that have been just fine, I would have clicked 'thank' if he was only a registered user. I'm not blanket-undoing his edits, I'm trying to co-operate to create an encyclopedic style, but the editor doesn't respond on the talk page. He acts as an autonomous uncooperative editor. If you have suggestions for how I can reach out and try to help this editor maintain an encyclopedic style, your help would be greatly appreciated.
Samshltn (
talk)
14:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – It is still unclear if having this be a redirect to Wiktionary will be a net benefit to our readers. If you just want to keep people from recreating an article of that name, the full protection takes care of that. Suggest that anyone who favors the redirect should make a request at
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. If the close is favorable, an admin can do whatever is necessary. If
User:JamesBWatson wants to take a different action, he can do so.
EdJohnston (
talk)
16:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – This template is already redirected to
Template:STN and both source and target are now covered by template protection. So there doesn't seem to be anything more to do.
EdJohnston (
talk)
16:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: This redirect was protected as a result of a deletion discussion. Since there is now a new article, the protection is neither useful nor appropriate. (The protecting administrator appears to be inactive.).
Modernponderer (
talk)
23:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There is evidence that someone is attempting to whitewash the page and has been for years. See the talk page for more info. —Gestrid (
talk)
12:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done Sem-protection would not stop COI edits. There is no evidence an IP has attempted to circumvent the block so semi wouldn't help.
Woody (
talk)
15:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done PC isn't available for templates and I don't think a long-term semi would be appropriate here given the time between edits.
Woody (
talk)
15:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Anon IPs battling at Controversies section of a polarizing figure. I think the Ivanka Trump section is neutral at the moment, but at least one anon IP continually inserts POV language. --
Tenebrae (
talk)
15:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Came off a 2 year semi protection several months ago and majority of edits since then have been either vandalism or its removal.
WNYY98 (
talk)
09:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Article has been on PC for several years, but edit rate too much for PC. Was recently subject to a short-term semi protection. Highly visible and subject to vandalism for obvious reasons.
WNYY98 (
talk)
09:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Significant upcoming changes are occurring with the branding of this television service, would like to avoid edit wars and disruptive editing due to limited information (a similar occurrence happened in July 2016 when two major networks change programming affiliation). Request one week semi-protection. –
Nick Mitchell 98talk09:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – A little help with vandalism please. Just FYI, the next release of Windows, which might bring about something that requires this article to be changed, is no sooner than September this year. So, if you lock it down until September, the world won't end in fire and brimstone.
Codename Lisa (
talk)
10:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing. – Repeated disruptive editing by IP editor(s) which resumes the moment page protection expires (happened already twice in the last two weeks). Third PP requested, this time possibly a longer one. —
kashmiriTALK14:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Ymblanter: The country of Jordan is older than the conflict. Jordan is a high level article and it is not "relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict".
Egypt, for example, is not under this protection.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
11:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Perhaps no one ever requested Egypt be protected, which is the key element in the Arb Com policy. If somebody requests protection, the article receives protection. If no one requests protection, it remains unprotected. As mentioned below, you might want to argue that point directly to Arb Com for clarification.
— Maile (
talk)
13:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I am posting here in response to a request from
Makeandtoss on my talk page. I protected Jordan per a request yesterday, and did it
by-the-book according to clarifications I had recently received regarding
ArbCom decision Palestine-Israel articles. If another admin disagrees, they have the option of changing the protection. I have had no participation or vested interest in Arb Com's case, but I suggest that if Makeandtoss feels Jordon should not be part of the Arb Com decision, then he should address this to Arb Com directly.
— Maile (
talk)
12:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Definitely have some criteria. As is, it depends on a judgement call from any admin, regardless of whether or not that admin has knowledge of the said conflict. Or if an admin has extensive knowledge of the conflict, it's still currently vague as to the interpretation. Criteria would be very helpful.
— Maile (
talk)
13:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Would it be possible for this to happen where it can become an amendment to the Arb Com decision? I just think it's a good idea to have the clarification officially attached to the Arb Com decision. Then the decision could be posted on WT:RPP.
— Maile (
talk)
14:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Since the admin who applied ECP to
Jordan named
WP:ARBPIA3 in their edit summary, they must have thought that their protection was justified by Arbcom authority. So
User:Maile66's protection should be appealable at
WP:Arbitration enforcement. I don't see a need to ask Arbcom directly what to do. Also I don't see a need for a specific set of rules for when to protect. Personally, I wouldn't protect automatically, but I would impose ECP it if there seemed to be a justification. In case of doubt in a particular case, the consensus of admins at AE ought to be sufficient.
EdJohnston (
talk)
17:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
EdJohnston: That was done yesterday with American Politics articles in mind but it's applicable to all DS restrictions. Arbcom has indicated they're discussing and deciding what to do for the issues raised here. --
NeilNtalk to me18:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined - Unprotection is declined, since the protection appears to have the authority of
discretionary sanctions. It can't be lifted without the consent of
User:Maile66 unless you get consensus at a place like
WP:AE. The above discussion suggests ways you could appeal the protection if you believe it is unnecessary.
EdJohnston (
talk)
03:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. There are too many good IP edits and not many overtly disruptive edits.
Woody (
talk)
20:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
2 million transclusions is a lot. On the other hand, I don't think we've had many problems with changing full prot->template prot even on such high use templates. Opinions?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
14:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
(Non-administrator comment) I don't think that's necessary, since the template just calls a Lua module (which is also fully protected) and shouldn't need editing. I think it would be better to lower the protection of the module, since it's harder to break things in the Scribunto editor.
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}} to reply to me14:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I'd disagree, considering that Wikipedia is built around the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors is part of the protection policy.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
08:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) I agree with Jo-Jo Eumerus here. PP stipulates that no more protection should be used than needed and full protection is not needed when template editor protection is not problematic. Regards SoWhy08:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Yet again, this has been
discussed with a conclusion that we shouldn't handle unprotection requests with no rationale beyond the philosophical. If you disagree, you're welcome to handle the dozens of requests we're likely to get en-masse from the couple editors interested in making sure protection levels in the template space are "perfect". This was an actual problem in the past, not some imagined potential issue. Yes, in an ideal world, everything would have the ideal protection level. This is not an ideal world. There are resource constraints. We have few active admins. Why are we wasting what resources we do have discussing these sorts of requests over-and-over when they yield zero tangible benefit to the encyclopedia? ~
Rob13Talk15:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Maybe just accept or decline each request and ask people to avoid mass nominations. "Don't need" is not a strong argument against anything, while "oy, too many requests at once!" is.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
19:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done I'm going to decline this based on the above discussion, plus the fact that a template editor did not make the request. I'd find it much more compelling if a TE asked for the change, but this seems to be changing it for the sake of change. Katietalk02:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Big horse race for this trainer today, vandals hitting with BLP errors, deliberately introducing false data. 24 hours should do .
Montanabw(talk)21:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I won't mind any admin to amend duration of my any semi-protection, provided that admin would watch the article, and step in if disruption resumes after sprotection expiry (I don't watch Ivanka Trump, but I believe vandalism there will not subside for the next 4 years).
Materialscientist (
talk)
05:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I'd like to give IPs a chance to make constructive edits in six months, even if it's likely that they'd be disruptive edits, too. I'm watching it, so I'll amend it accordingly and we'll go from there. (I may have to up it to ec, anyway—we'll see how it goes.) Thanks.
El_C05:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Person acting from many IPs posted some of my personal information on my page and is re-adding it when I remove it.
Alexwho314 (
talk)
02:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Someone has been repeatedly attempting to remove Donald Trump's name as a client. Don't really know why. I was surprised that an article on Gizmodo investigated this. Can you temporarily semi-protect the page? Thanks. --
Smghz (
talk)
21:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism - Can we maybe get a couple month duration or something? Protection expired and anonymous editors immediately started trying to insert faulty information again.
Morty C-137 (
talk)
22:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Reduction to 24 hours / Unprotection: Unnecessary indefinite protection since the file either gets replaced by a new file with a different name or it gets moved to Wikimedia Commons.
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. It is Non-free so won't be moved. Also, discuss it with the admin who protected it as per the page instructions.
Woody (
talk)
16:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. It is Non-free so won't be moved. Also, discuss it with the admin who protected it as per the page instructions.
Woody (
talk)
16:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. It is Non-free so won't be moved. Also, discuss it with the admin who protected it as per the page instructions.
Woody (
talk)
16:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes due to a high level of immature and unconstructive editing. It seems that at least one team, sometimes as many as three, are hit every week because there is a paramater for ownership which is displayed as Owner in the infobox. When a player is instrumental in the defeat of another team, that player is said to "own" the team, at least in American slang. And so the "ownership" of at least one team is changed each weekend.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
04:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
There are more, but the anons are not usually nice enough to leave an edit summary. Since the league is presently 24 teams, any anon can potentially make this change to any team article. Not all competitions happen on weekends. I, or another editor usually catch them, but having more eyes on them will be beneficial in catching this sort of problem behaviour.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
07:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
This page is repeatedly updated with non sanctioned results, as the competition has been dead since the 2011-12 season. The official website has been linked [1], which hasn't been updated in 6 years, since sponsorship of the competition left. I request this page be locked until this competition ever starts up again. Due to the high profile rivalry of the two universities - I feel misinformation as such is detrimental to the overall quality of the rivalry.
Semi 24 hours - Today's Google Doodle. I'm just gonna go ahead and stick this here because if the last dozen or so times we've gone through this is any indication, if I wait until we get to the vandalism-per-minute mark, it's going to be a crap chute for two or three hours before someone actually gets around to protecting it. I figure by the time the RFPP backlog gets to this point the West Coast will have woken up and the page will actually need immediate protecting.
TimothyJosephWood14:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: persistent abuse by writing abusive and harmful comments and edits to the page. Protection would be great!
Editorguy123098 (
talk)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP editor continues to disrupt page. There is an attempt to build a consensus on the talk page which is being ignored and cited content being consistently removed.
Adamgerber80 (
talk)
18:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP editor changes IP and continues to add uncited content on the page. There is an attempt to build consensus on the Talk page which is ignored with no understanding of Reliable sources.
Adamgerber80 (
talk)
18:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Is full protection necessary? Looking at the page history, it appears that this edit war is with mostly IP addresses. Wouldn't semi-protection, preventing IPs from editing the article, be less restrictive and solve the problem without cutting everyone out?
Sunil The Mongoose (
talk)
17:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Question: If the IPs are ban/block evading
WP:LTA users as implied by the edit reasons, then semi protection is warranted. If this is a content dispute with no firmly settled upon consensus, semi protection is not appropriate as it'd be giving logged in users an undue advantage. So, is this an LTA case, disruptive editing or a content dispute?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
19:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined - No answers to questions, and page has not been edited in over a day. Full protection seems unnecessary, as IP addresses were causing the disruption.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)14:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Page should be protected, there are tons of unsourced IP edits and removals. We must do something about it. Ąnαșταη (
ταlκ)09:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Full semi-protection: Any potential vandalism that would occur due to the fact that any high profiles of any US high-ranking officials are potentially targeted.
Saiph121 (
talk)
08:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – persistent disruptive edits by several IPs and "new editors"; need protection so the article can be reviewed and ensure compliance with
WP:BLP. Jack | talk page08:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi protection: Almost immediately after protection was lifted from these pages, an anon IP began making the same non-consensus edits that the pages originally were protected against. When warned, he falsely replied, "
How about you stop. The consensus has been reached a long time ago. Fuck off."
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Obvious sockpuppetry by
Kkjj, though the account is not currently blocked, so I don't know why they're using proxies. Editing style is the exact same: persistence in outright removing valid information rather than trying to improve the article.
Amaury (
talk |
contribs)
02:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – The
Main Page is already fully protected with cascading protection settings turned on, and the Main Page itself is also already transcluded in several cascading protected pages (e.g.
Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/Main Page). While the Main Page is transcluded in this userspace page, a non-administrator will still be unable to modify the Main Page itself due to these protections. Thus, there doesn't appear to be a need to increase the protection level on this page, absent any comments from HJ Mitchell.
Mz7 (
talk)
04:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism, at least twenty instances of it in the last month, with the last one being from a new user that seems to have registered only to vandalize. About half of the edits are of JonTron's name, with a mix of blatant vandalisms and good faith edits. It is coming from wide range of IP users, there are regularly new vandals, a third of the last sixty edits are vandalism and almost another third are reversions, and the subject of the page is
a living person. --
Kallene (
talk)
21:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Constant removal of image unnoticed until some days later every time. --
George Ho (
talk)
00:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from an anonymous vandal abusing either a morphing IP or a number of IPs in order to delete portions of the article for no reason.--
Mr Fink (
talk)
21:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Donereply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This BLP has been heavily vandalized today; it's basically a news thing, and the article has never needed protection before, so a short semi-protection of a few days or a week will likely be sufficient.
Sideways713 (
talk)
22:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
RickinBaltimore: We have discussed it very throughly on the
talk page. What he can't seem to understand is per
WP:HONOR, honorific prefixes aren't not general included in front of an individuals name, and keeps reintroducing it. I've already told him to get consensus before reintroducing it and it seems that he is ignoring me.—
Fundude99talk to me17:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Endless stream of IPs vandalising with a mixture of unsourced, adding random names, adding
Jeremy Corbyn, and generally
WP:CB. Suggest long protection, as WP is being widely ridiculed in the media for this.
[40]Murph9000 (
talk)
20:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Disruptive editing by IP address(es) editor that is also unresponsive to discussion attempts. Thanks, —
PaleoNeonate —
21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes due to a high level of immature and unconstructive editing. It seems that at least one team, sometimes as many as three, are hit every week because there is a paramater for ownership which is displayed as Owner in the infobox. When a player is instrumental in the defeat of another team, that player is said to "own" the team, at least in American slang. And so the "ownership" of at least one team is changed each weekend.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
04:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
There are more, but the anons are not usually nice enough to leave an edit summary. Since the league is presently 24 teams, any anon can potentially make this change to any team article. Not all competitions happen on weekends. I, or another editor usually catch them, but having more eyes on them will be beneficial in catching this sort of problem behaviour.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
07:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
This page is repeatedly updated with non sanctioned results, as the competition has been dead since the 2011-12 season. The official website has been linked [2], which hasn't been updated in 6 years, since sponsorship of the competition left. I request this page be locked until this competition ever starts up again. Due to the high profile rivalry of the two universities - I feel misinformation as such is detrimental to the overall quality of the rivalry.
Semi 24 hours - Today's Google Doodle. I'm just gonna go ahead and stick this here because if the last dozen or so times we've gone through this is any indication, if I wait until we get to the vandalism-per-minute mark, it's going to be a crap chute for two or three hours before someone actually gets around to protecting it. I figure by the time the RFPP backlog gets to this point the West Coast will have woken up and the page will actually need immediate protecting.
TimothyJosephWood14:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism/transfer rumour. After the previous protection was expired, ip edits on adding transfer rumour was back. Request 1 week or 1 month protection
Matthew_hktc17:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Long-running disruptive editing by dynamic-IP anons geolocating to same city, to inflate infobox statistics for a footballer contrary to sources in article, to add unsourced stats, and to add a club for which, according to sources suplied at talk page, subject never played. Still ongoing despite addition of hidden note directing editor(s) to talk page.
Struway2 (
talk)
17:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It has a long protection log with 2 previous periods of PC that didn't stop the vandalism.
Woody (
talk)
16:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is clearly a content dispute and the page is now protected so that discussion can take place on the talk page and not in edit summaries.
Woody (
talk)
16:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The IP editor(s) are back inserting content there is no consensus for. As soon as page protection comes off, they are back. The last administrator who protected the page, Oshwah, seriously blundered by only protecting the page for 48 hours. This page has been protected for 3 months or longer. It is long past time for indefinite. Otherwise I will be back here in a week, month, or whatever as soon as the next temporary protection ends. Since May 1 2015 there have been over 30 edits adding the same trivia to the article that have been reverted by at least five different registered USERs including myself and the page has been protected multiple times during that same time period.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?11:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Requesting at least 6 months protection; steady vandalism starts up again after page is unprotected, with around 1 unconstructive edit every day from IPs and new accounts. QuasarGt-
c11:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: This will be the fourth time that I have had to request that this article be semi-protected, due to frequent and unrelenting disruptive edits from an unregistered editor currently using this IP:
98.25.195.28. He is also using a mobile device and makes edits under mobile IPs, such as this one:
2606:a000:131b:e9:11e6:91ae:7126:8a01, which may qualify as
sockpuppetry. The last semi-protection period for this article was six months in length, but this editor is just going to immediately continue to disruptively edit the moment the protection period ends, as he did with the previous one, so indefinite semi-protection is desirable.
Jackdude101 (
talk)
02:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined I don't see how the edits by
2606:A000:131B:E9:D83:E478:6E96:16C are disruptive. I spot checked their edits to the article, and the user provides references and the edits don't appear to be vandalism. You reverted
this edit, and warned the other IP for vandalism - how is this vandalism? I don't see that there's any disruption going on to justify protection. Can you explain and help me to understand?
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)04:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Oshwah: That's just one of the mobile IPs used by this user. If you observe the article's edit history, all of those other mobile IP edits are him (I can tell, because they all have the same geolocation). The main reasons for why this person's edits are disruptive are due to their inconsistent grammar (I have to grammar check and revise all of his edits accordingly), and the information he posts is often in violation of
Wikipedia:Relevance of content, which are ones that I revert. He also posts with a wall of separate edits each time, which I am concerned he is doing purposely to make reverts of his edits more difficult. He seems to believe that every single piece of related information to the article's subject, no matter how unimportant or trivial, should be added to the article, and the concept of maintaining the quality of the article, which presently has
GA status, is not a priority with him. I have messaged him several times to please address these issues, including in one of the talk pages of one of his other IPs here:
24.88.92.254, but he does not respond to messages. The only times when he is interested in talking are when the article is protected, as you can see on the article's
talk page (he was posting under the 24.88.92.254 IP the last time he posted there). Observe the poor grammar in his posts on the talk page. This is consistent with just about every edit he adds to the article, which requires someone (me) to check the article multiple times a day to make sure the article doesn't read like jibberish. Again, I have addressed this with him, but he never responds to messages when he is able to edit. This editor is a consistent nuisance, and should not be allowed to continue making poor edits to this article. If you want additional information about this editor, simply inquire with @
Sundayclose: or @
SummerPhDv2.0: and they will share the same sentiment regarding this editor.
Jackdude101 (
talk)
05:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Immediately after this page's semi-protection expired the same person committing a high level of IP vandalism (constant disruptive and incorrect edits) that forced me to request it be semi-protected last time began doing it again, again from slightly different IP addresses coming from the same area (Thessaloniki, Greece). They keep replacing sales numbers that are official with VGChartz estimations despite explanations of why this is incorrect and repeatedly being reverted. They are now trying to justify their estimated sales numbers by applying a game's sales split percentage in the UK to its sales split for the entire world which is obviously incorrect to do and estimating, not using official numbers. Before the page was semi-protected they had been doing this every day continuously for 2 weeks and are clearly determined to not stop. They will not stop editing this page to feature incorrect information despite being told why it is incorrect multiple times. If indefinite semi-protection is impossible then at least a multiple-month period of semi-protection is ideal though they would likely return once it was over.
ThatPerson903 (
talk)
07:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – long term vandalism target, but hasnt been protected in several years and likely not active enough for semi-protection.
WNYY98 (
talk)
01:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Again vandalism from unregistered users. Third time this article is being submitted for an indefinite semi-protection. This will keep reoccurring and vividly the article cannot be open for editing by unregistered users. The same unregistered user also made vulgar remarks on personal talk page.
Oliszydlowski00:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Persistent
vandalism – There has been constant vandalism on this page for years, and yet nothing has been done to contain it. Instead of doing a temporary protection as has been done in the past. Please place a permanent protection on this page. .
Nhajivandi (
talk)
20:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done Indefinite full protection is not something we ever do, except for a very few unique pages like the Main Page. ‑
Iridescent20:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent, deliberate misgendering of non-binary subject by unconfirmed editors. (BLP article, should be subjection to discretionary sanctions for gender-related issues.)
Funcrunch (
talk)
17:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Continued removal of cited information by what seems to be company reps both logged in and out. Has been protected once before, edits resumed after it expired.
331dot (
talk)
17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The rate of disruption doesn't seem high enough to justify protection, but I will keep an eye on things and watch for further disruption...
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)18:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – IPs (probably the same person) have been replacing sourced nickname with an unsourced one for several months now.
Dee0316:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. An IP keeps editing warring without even using the talk page on their profile or the page itself.
Nikhilmn2002 (
talk)
19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Technical support scammers are targetting this article again - IPs and new users are repeatedly replacing the contents of the article with something that agrees with the story they tell scam victims over the phone. bonadeacontributionstalk19:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism - persistent changing the atheism in the pie charts into dull colours, opposed to bright colors for religions, thus creating an intentional negative association with irreligon and replace recent data witch sources by old obsolete data by
FrankCesco26 and
JimRenge ~Hazelares~
20:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Election is tomorrow, his opponent,
Greg Gianforte just assaulted a reporter today and it is making international news. Best to do 48 hours semi just to tone down the vandals and drive-bys.
Montanabw(talk)03:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. The same guy, different IPs, and its been a very long time of this, since 27-February. The IP always insist that this is a turkish bread and the word is turkish against all the sources. Then accuse others of racism.--
Attar-Aram syria (
talk)
09:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi - Someone thought it would be a good idea to write an article about their company, and didn't consider that someone else might make a connection between it and a fairly major scandal. ...also... I may have created
Leakgate (India), and I'm getting pretty tired of being pinged every few minutes because someone removed and the readded the wikilink.
TimothyJosephWood10:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Actually, since I woke up to three successive reverts and notifications, and posted this this morning, nothing more has come of it. Unless it crops back up, this can probably just as well be declined.
TimothyJosephWood15:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Too much and too frequent vandalism, and because of that too much work for reviewers, for pending changes protection to be reasonable. - Tom |
Thomas.W talk15:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of Indefinitely, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The disruption seems to have come from new (or new at the time) accounts. Let's start with semi- --
John Reaves17:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: persistent childish vandalism most probably in retaliation for the group's actions in the
Marawi crisis. While I definitely don't support the group, the Maute group could probably care less and it makes it harder for everyone else to make an encyclopedia article.
Hariboneagle927 (
talk)
17:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: There has been quite a bit of vandalism from unregistered users. I'd like some time to clean it up and hopefully remove the Avengers references.
menaechmi (
talk)
15:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, repeat of January 2017 attacks that led to a 30 day block. Single individual is attacking multiple pages in addition to this one with non-sensible "low quality url" deletions.
Thomas H. White (
talk)
10:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Lower to PC protection: Has been semi'd for a few years, so it would probably be a good idea to experiment with PC, without prejudice against reprotection if persistent vandalism resumes. Protecting admin has barely been active this year and has had only a handful of edits in 2017 so is unlikely to give an immediate response.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew11:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Article was previously semi-protected for a week due to additions of unsourced material and disruptive editing. Same disruption and the odd bit of vandalism has reoccurred in the last week or so. Requesting longer period of protection. Wes WolfTalk12:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected one year. After that expires we can evaluate whether indefinite semi-protection is needed. I did, however, extend the pending changes protection to indefinite.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)17:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Creation protectedindefinitely. While I think it's more a case of COI and shameless self-promotion of a NN artist than a hoax, I have salted all three pages. caknuck°needs to be running more often14:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Uncle Roy: Blocks usually work better than salting in cases like this, since we won't have watchlisted whichever title he decides to spam himself at next. The AFD'd version was about a different individual, too, FYI. —
Cryptic15:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't see much evidence that they're using autoconfirmed accounts, so Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)16:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent targeting by promoters - page was previously semi protected but has been unprotected and within days promoters of Mumbai Film School are back
Tip.Stall (
talk)
11:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full-protection: Edit warring/content dispute with both registered/confirmed users and IP editors alike. Requesting full-protection for a temporary period of time (say, one or two weeks) to encourage all parties involved to discuss the issues/problems on the article's talkpage.
172.58.43.252 (
talk)
21:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full-protection: Edit warring/content dispute with both registered/confirmed users and IP editors alike. Requesting full-protection for a temporary period of time (say, one or two weeks) to encourage all parties involved to discuss the issues/problems on the article's talkpage.
172.58.43.252 (
talk)
21:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection.. Thanks for reporting this; it was probably valid at the time, but it's been a while sicne the edit-warring ceased. Please re-report if problem resumes. --
Euryalus (
talk)
06:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: This article is agitating undid revision from unregistered user and it try to edit not uniform discography.
User:Zealous37 (
talk) 1740, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent additions of unverified URLs that are almost certainly scam/phishing sites. I've long held the opinion that articles about dark web-related sites (e.g. Tor hidden services) should be indefinitely semi-protected. So many of them are subject to frequent attempts to change these URLs to scam sites which endanger our readers every time it happens. Tor hidden services, etc. have no central authority like the rest of the web, making hacking, phishing, hijacking, etc. a big problem for a website that wants to ensure the integrity of its content. This article has seen some particularly active editing by a variety of new users (protecting admin may also wish to block this sock farm), and I'm requesting indefinite protection, though I realize standard operating procedure would be to make it temporary... — Rhododendritestalk \\
22:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Not done. No reason given, and anyhow this is not the place to request unprotection of this redirect. Make your request on the talk page of NawlinWiki, the administrator who protected it.
MelanieN (
talk)
22:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done. I see lots of edits by unregistered users at that page, but the vast majority appear to be constructive. --
MelanieN (
talk)
22:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: An IP user with different mac addresses has been reverting my edits to the page. The user removed content from the infobox without leaving an explanation. I have left notes on the talk pages, but didn't get any response.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?01:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Persistent
vandalism – Please refer to recent edits below highlighting vandalism of this wiki page:
(cur | prev) 12:48, 25 May 2017 Beshogur (talk | contribs) . . (22,729 bytes) (-7) . . (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 12:38, 25 May 2017 37.210.245.100 (talk) . . (22,736 bytes) (-74) . . (ended of martial law in mindanao) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:37, 25 May 2017 37.210.245.100 (talk) . . (22,810 bytes) (-18) . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:35, 25 May 2017 37.210.245.100 (talk) . . (22,828 bytes) (+21) . . (philippine army hasbeen surrender) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:34, 25 May 2017 37.210.245.100 (talk) . . (22,807 bytes) (+5) . . (Philippine government surrender) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:33, 25 May 2017 37.210.245.100 (talk) . . (22,802 bytes) (+61) . . (Philippine government surrender) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:25, 25 May 2017 37.210.245.100 (talk) . . (22,741 bytes) (+23) . . (military m113 has been captured by maute group) (undo).
Agila81 (
talk)
13:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined. As a brand-new current event this article is being heavily edited by many users and needs watching, but I don't see a pattern of vandalism sufficient to justify protection. Note that the name of the article has been changed to
Marawi crisis.
MelanieN (
talk)
19:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Reluctant to indefinitely semi-protect, in the spirit of open editing. However, appreciate that the subject will still be notable (and probably a vandalism target) in three months, so please do re-report if the vandalism resumes post-August.
Euryalus (
talk)
01:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Well I've removed an unsourced content, an user keep reverting my edits.
Beshogur (
talk)
19:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IP address keeps on editing the page. Changing what has been set. For example, the IP changes the background color of the cell even there is a color that is set to it. It is annoying that I have to edit it back. I hope you could give protection on the article for IP address edits for 3 months. Thank you very much.
Leo kingston (
talk)
01:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Vandalism and disruptive editing recently by various IP and new registered editors. Some examples are:
[43],
[44],
[45],
[46] and
[47].
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – IPs (probably the same person) have been replacing sourced nickname with an unsourced one for several months now.
Dee0316:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. An IP keeps editing warring without even using the talk page on their profile or the page itself.
Nikhilmn2002 (
talk)
19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Technical support scammers are targetting this article again - IPs and new users are repeatedly replacing the contents of the article with something that agrees with the story they tell scam victims over the phone. bonadeacontributionstalk19:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism - persistent changing the atheism in the pie charts into dull colours, opposed to bright colors for religions, thus creating an intentional negative association with irreligon and replace recent data witch sources by old obsolete data by
FrankCesco26 and
JimRenge ~Hazelares~
20:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Election is tomorrow, his opponent,
Greg Gianforte just assaulted a reporter today and it is making international news. Best to do 48 hours semi just to tone down the vandals and drive-bys.
Montanabw(talk)03:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. The same guy, different IPs, and its been a very long time of this, since 27-February. The IP always insist that this is a turkish bread and the word is turkish against all the sources. Then accuse others of racism.--
Attar-Aram syria (
talk)
09:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi - Someone thought it would be a good idea to write an article about their company, and didn't consider that someone else might make a connection between it and a fairly major scandal. ...also... I may have created
Leakgate (India), and I'm getting pretty tired of being pinged every few minutes because someone removed and the readded the wikilink.
TimothyJosephWood10:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Actually, since I woke up to three successive reverts and notifications, and posted this this morning, nothing more has come of it. Unless it crops back up, this can probably just as well be declined.
TimothyJosephWood15:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Too much and too frequent vandalism, and because of that too much work for reviewers, for pending changes protection to be reasonable. - Tom |
Thomas.W talk15:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of Indefinitely, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The disruption seems to have come from new (or new at the time) accounts. Let's start with semi- --
John Reaves17:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: persistent childish vandalism most probably in retaliation for the group's actions in the
Marawi crisis. While I definitely don't support the group, the Maute group could probably care less and it makes it harder for everyone else to make an encyclopedia article.
Hariboneagle927 (
talk)
17:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Seems to have stopped for now and recent pattern of vandalism isn't enough at this point to justfiy semi-protection.
Acalamari06:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected Indefinite. What happened, is that this article had been semi-protected for 3 years. As soon as that expired, which was March 2017, vandalism resumed. That being the case, I indefed this.
— Maile (
talk)
00:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Just came off protection yesterday, already getting tons of vandalism. This will likely continue throughout Donald Trump's time in office if not protected.
WNYY98 (
talk)
21:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm less convinced that you are that the content/sources are bad, but I semi-protected nonetheless: IP editor needs to discuss.
Drmies (
talk)
20:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Eh... Looks like it was ECd by
User:Maile66 because ArbCom, in their myopic wisdom decided we should indefinitely protect a few dozen thousand articles related to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
TimothyJosephWood10:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, it was because of ArbCom. Prior to this, there had been numerous other protections of the article going back a year. The ArbCom protection on it now is because of this :
originating RPP,
my talk page discussion on this,
RFPP discussion,
Arb discussion. I did it by the book, according to
this from
NeilN. There has been the post-protection argument, "The country of Jordan is older than the conflict. Jordan is a high level article and it is not "relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict", and something along the lines that Jorden just happens to be "a country in the region". For all of those thoughts, please refer to
1948 Arab–Israeli War,
Six-Day War and
Timeline of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (post-mandate period to present day). The article was protected per ArbCom's decision on articles related to countries involved in that conflict, and the historical record puts Jordan as a major player.
— Maile (
talk)
20:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection request for this article which has had numerous IP edits, often with non-English content, with unsourced or weakly sourced material. Suggest 2 days. --
Zefr (
talk)
20:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Not a notable organization. Repeatedly recreated by the users of organization.
Coderzombie (
talk)
16:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Preemptive Request due to this being an ongoing, politically-charged issue. Developments in the issue could trigger vandalism. Thank you! --
Popcrate (
talk)
09:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Popcrate: Not disagreeing that this won't be a target of political vandalism, but as of yet I can't see anything in the recent history which warrants a page protection. We very rarely do
pre-emptive protection, as it prevents people from legitimately editing articles. I've added the article to my watchlist, and will apply page protection when I start seeing vandalism (though please do re-request here!). I'm not declining this request as of yet, and would welcome another administrator to review this request for pre-emptive protection --
There'sNoTime(
to explain)09:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent
vandalism – Page seems to be the target of a person or persons(IP addressses vary) who feel that the number of awards/nominations listed is too low, but they offer no sources for a different number, and tend to resort to personal attacks to make their points.
331dot (
talk)
09:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Block-evading IPs back at it with harassment and borderline personal attacks almost immediately after previous protection for the same reason expired. A longer protection than before should be applied.
Amaury (
talk |
contribs)
07:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – For a couple of days supporters of a fringe researcher have been making false claims in this article. However, today this escalated with a claim that someone who could be identified because their official position was named had made death threat against this researcher. I've rev/del'd this as it was so obvious, but as I've edited the article I don't think I should protect it.
Doug Wellertalk10:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism by people with vested interests who want to change the information one to show things that didn't happen - 4 times today alone. .
NicklausAU (
talk)
05:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent disruption for this
WP:TOOSOON had it deleted. Now it has been restored by a bot as a redirect, which it should be, so it deserves good protection from recreation. Qed237(talk)09:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated vandalism / personal attacks using information that is already present under the personal life section of ht entry.
Kentpollard (
talk)
19:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined I'm personally not sure this comes close enough to the modern Arab-Israeli conflict to be encompassed within the Arb sanctions as its only sourced connection is the remark of a single scholar. As the article has not seen any recent disruption, and has less than 50 edits in nearly five years I am erring on the side of that we are an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit and declining the protection (I also suspect the fact that this request has sat for nearly two days reflects the hesitancy of other patrolling admins to protect the page due to its tenuous connection to the sanctions.)
Mifter (
talk)
04:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism by atleast 4 different IPs, besides two new editors, with a new IP coming up after each warning. .
JupitusSmart06:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: This will be the fourth time that I have had to request that this article be semi-protected, due to frequent and unrelenting disruptive edits from unregistered editors. When semi-protection was last requested, it was due to no sources being cited by these unregistered editors, but now it's mainly unimportant and trivial information coupled with very poor grammar and sources that are not always reliable. Attempts have been made to reason with this person (I believe the edits are coming from the same person, as they all come from the same geolocation), but despite messages to the talk pages in several of this person's IPs and in edit revert summaries, he's not getting the message. It's also difficult because in addition to using non-mobile IPs, he primarily edits with a mobile device, which adds another layer of difficulty with monitoring and messaging him, which is pointless because he never responds to messages anyway. These edits happen sporadically every few days and are also done in such a way that the edits overlap, making them difficult to revert. When you observe the article's history, you'll see a wall of unregistered edits, with a large chunk of them being reverted with similar reasons given for each revert. The article currently has GA status and if he were allowed to continue unimpeded (and someone like me was not here to police him), the article's quality will eventually be downgraded. I don't want that to happen, and I'm tired of having to monitor this article every single day to keep that from happening. The last semi-protection period for this article was six months in length, but this unregistered editor is just going to immediately continue to disruptively edit the moment the protection period ends, as he did with the previous one, so indefinite semi-protection is desirable.
Jackdude101 (
talk)
01:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined. Actually, indef PC seems the ideal protection for this article, which experiences recurrent but infrequent vandalism.
MelanieN (
talk)
23:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Long-term protection requested: IPs repeatedly (as in often several times a day) entering fake higher numbers for GDP etc. - Tom |
Thomas.W talk10:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The article maybe in vandalism period as it is released fresh, maybe for box-office collections, cast names etc. Requested protection for same. SuperHero ● 👊 ●
★16:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Probably needs longer term disruptive editing protection based on history. Seems to be a long running edit war over multiple accounts and IPs. -- Danetalk18:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – List of users and IP addresses that have contributed vandalism to this page, without citing sources:
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. It's possible the article might still need protection because of its prominence, so ask again if vandalism becomes a problem. Right now I don't see much vandalism, and I do see constructive editing from unregistered users.
MelanieN (
talk)
23:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – As soon as the previous page protection expired, a disruptive IP hopper has returned to re-add his original research against the consensus on the talk page.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
19:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done This looks more like a candidate for CSD. The only edit since the user created it in 2011, was a 2012 bot edit.
— Maile (
talk)
22:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Repeat recreations by globally banned user's socks. As per en: Benutzer:Schmitty , Stuart Styron , de: Stuart Styron, simple en: Stuart Styron. Widefox;
talk21:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Repeated attempts to add promotional and unsourced information by recently blocked sock. IP has returned making same edit. As they have proved persistent, protection is to prevent further disruption by this editor.
Ravensfire (
talk)
02:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. All articles semi-protected for a month, except main article, which was already semi-protected thru 6/27. caknuck°needs to be running more often02:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – People keep on vandalizing this article changing her name and not providing a source . HardcoreWrestlingFan 17:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. All articles semi-protected for a month. caknuck°needs to be running more often02:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Looks like some disagreement over images which is being discussed at the talk page.
MelanieN (
talk)
20:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Ongoing, persistent and high level of vandalism from user Qed 237 including the individual players' pages he mentioned above. Reverting sourced stats in the infobox had become as business as usual for him. He wanted to take over the place. Stevie 09:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – There has been a high percentage of inappropriate IP edits for this article for the past few weeks.
Dolotta (
talk)
02:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: I use this wiki page for info on when the next set of Naruto Shippuden episodes are released and I have been using it for several years. See, beginning in January of 2016, Viz Media began releasing a set of ten to twelve episodes every ten weeks, so I have been using this page in order to know when to catch them. Today I logged on and all the dates on this page along with all the dates on Seasons 1 through 20 for the entire show were changed to week intervals. I had to spend about an hour changing it back. I would like them all protected at least until new dates on future episodes need to be added.
LordShozin (
talk)
03:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from IPs. Practically every edit over the past month has been vandalism.
Prefall00:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – It's getting very very boring dealing with the humourists and their incessant Paul Ryan references. It is obviously A Thing - try
this search and you'll see why. Can this article please have a long long break? PP for a few days at a time is not really working. And I just guessed at what to request now so please feel free to change it to something better! Thanks. .
DBaK (
talk)
09:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: - A considerable amount of vandalism in the month of May. The public logs also shows a long history of persistent vandalism.
Kind Tennis Fan (
talk)
20:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There have been a number of recent cases of vandalism to the article, a few of which have not been caught by ClueBot, probably due to Kahoot's prevalence in schools.
Arzg (
talk)
21:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There is the usual sort of heated content disputes and borderline edit warring, but I'm not seeing much in the form of deliberate WP:DE.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
17:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – Inadequately referenced (and often speculative) changes continue even after indefinite semi-protection. If ECP isn't indefinite, then indefinite semi-protection should be restored immediately after ECP ends.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
03:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indef would be going too far. Honestly even EC should not be needed; if newish accounts are adding unsourced content, warn them, and then report them.
Vanamonde (
talk)
04:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I have extended the protection period to 1 month, so that it is beyond the release date of the album. I think we can expect disruptive editing to increase up to that point. I will have another look at the article at some point between the release and the end of that month and change the protection back to indefinite semi.
Yaris678 (
talk)
08:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IPs adding questionable or false material, a persistent problem on all of the "(future year) in film" articles.
Trivialist (
talk)
10:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Excuse me but I'll let you know I was trying to help the page article and correct it's errors and mistakes. Please, do not put the blame on me as I'm only helping and contributing to the article. The auto-confirmed user that kept making changes to the article and changes all of the group's awards to won was not made by me it was made by another user that's unidentified. So, please learn who you are calling out the next time you point the finger at someone! As you can see I already made a complaint about the craziness of the changes to the page. If you want to semi-protect it that's fine but don't blame me for the vandalism. Thank you! What's up everybody and welcome to my page!
So then who is the user responsible for the vandalism? I see your username along with another IP but none of the edits have the changes where I can just revert them. I am trying to get this article to GA status but these edits won't help do that at all. It would be helpful to know who is the user messing around with this page.
User:WelcometothenewmilleniumDe88 (
talk)
OK I've semi protected the article for 24 hrs. The edit warring needs to stop. Take this discussion to the talk page and make sure to ping all involved parties. If there is deliberate vandalism that can be handled at AIV. (FYI I am traveling so I may not respond quickly to any messages directed to me.) -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
19:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I understand your concern but don't blame or point fingers until you actually know who did the vandalizing. If you caught on to my IP address edits those were errors I was trying to fix in the article and then not long after I edited the page another user came and un did everything. So, everyone's edits were changed as you can see. I was only trying to help it not create havoc. Unfortunately, I cannot identify the person as the address is not clear and unknown. I wish I knew who it was and if I do happen to know I will most definitely notify you. I only help articles not break them. Going back to your complaint about it being semi-protected or going to GA status. I feel as though it should be left up to a vote. Everyone should make that decision not just one person. That's all thanks for your concern.
Welcometothenewmillennium14:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
By the way, I hope your happy because I did your homework for you. I tracked down the user and found it's IP address. User talk:177.72.193.205 -- That's the user you need to contront not me. No need to do so anyway because the user has already been confronted and told no and been warned if it happens again their account will be terminated. ---
WeLcOmEtOtHenEwMiLlEnIuM(
Talk) 15:18, 30 May 2017 (CST)
Request Indefinite Semi-protection: Repeated
disruptive edits by anonymous user (or users) regarding a
false and unverifiable AFC recipient named Jay Fracek-Rubin since Aug. 2015. Repeated deletions of the
false recipient only sees them returned or undone. False information is always accompanied by a broken-link citation. Anonymous users have also attempted to delete
talk page discussions regarding the false information.
Heavydpj (
talk)
12:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Player is currently the subject of increasing transfer speculation and is attracting regular attention from IP users.
Kosack (
talk)
12:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined. It appears that the vast majority of edits to the FA Cup article by IPs are productive, and vandalism does not appear to be an enormous problem.
MelanieN (
talk)
20:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This applies to all the player articles except Gareth Barry. That article is under indefinite PC protection which appears to be doing the job.
MelanieN (
talk)
20:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks, bot. Yes, I know. It can be confusing when I put more than one action on a page. Don't worry about it, go ahead and archive. Good bot. --
MelanieN (
talk)
00:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection.. There was a fair bit of activity away back on May 10 and before, but apparently only one edit since then. However, please re-report if more active vandalism resumes - sports player articles can be a magnet for these things.
Euryalus (
talk)
01:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Disruption from IP address after warning given to user PerfectlyIrrational. Likely logged-out user and or sockpuppet of user PerfectlyIrrational as form of socking. .
Sagecandor (
talk)
15:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There is an
edit war that has been taking place since May 24 and has recently picked up quite a bit within the last 48 hours. The edit war is between two users and an I.P., none of which have taken it to the talk page as one suggested. Users edit warring are:
I.P. 24.131.53.212,
KillerFrosty, and
SeminoleNation. Please fully protect this article until they can use the talk page to obtain a
consensus. Corkythehornetfan (ping me)
20:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism from 10.77.*.* (
AT&T Mobility LLC). Previous protection has only just expired. Needs a longer period of protection, and/or a range block of the IPs.
Murph9000 (
talk)
21:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I looked into a rangeblock over the individual IP blocks placed by
Zzuuzz but there's too much collateral – pretty dynamic range. Katietalk21:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: This article seems to be under indefinite semi-protection. I am asking if it can be downgraded to pending changes. It appears that the article could use help from unregistered users.
Kautilya3 (
talk)
09:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Retain the protection please to avoid edit wars and possible vandalism on a sensitive topic. We would rather invite unregistered members to come onboard and do editing after they understand Wiki protocols.
Devopam (
talk)
10:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined As the protecting admin does not reply....the long list of protections, including some full protections, and a after re-read of the talk-page archives...I conclude that in this case the bad would outweigh the good; the topic is simply too contentious. Should any other admin want to downgrade to pending-changes, go ahead.
Lectonar (
talk)
15:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: It might be worth it to try de-protecting this article, given that the incidents which caused the original protection are "long over" in Internet terms.
Izno (
talk)
22:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Lots of unsourced or personal opinions added by IP and low-ranking users.
TropicAces (
talk)
11:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)tropicacesreply
Lectonar like users with only a few dozen edits and don't have a set up page. A lot of the time their edits are more distributive than not. Maybe there's a term for it, besides someone who isn't an "extended confirmed user", just my observations...
TropicAces (
talk)
17:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)tropicAcesreply
@
TropicAces:...yes, the term is "inexperienced"; and disruptive they might appear, but many are just a little clueless and hopelessly lost in the jungle of Wikipedia. So..a little dose of
assuming good faith might not be amiss. Regards.
Lectonar (
talk)
17:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)reply
temporary full-protection: - Currently many heated emotions concerning this person. Vandalism from user accounts. --
BabbaQ (
talk)
13:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The protection log may be long, but before the 3 days semiprotection in April 2017, the last protection was in 2010(!)
Lectonar (
talk)
15:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Content dispute - IPs changing the number of seasons the series has had against consensus, and there has been no communication on the talk page from these IPs explaining their reasoning. The dispute has been discussed on the talk page before,
Talk:Mako: Island of Secrets#Labeling Season 2B?, regarding how Netflix numbered the seasons of this series, and current consensus identifies there are three seasons, despite Netflix showing four. (Netflix's labeling of seasons 2 and 3 has been considered as just season 2.).
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
01:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: After being semi-protected for 3 months, IPs connected to
Yaysmay15 started to re-add non-notable events again in the article. While a few edits are helpful, most edits restored sensationalist events and non-notable events.
TagaSanPedroAko (
talk)
15:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – WP:BLP concerns. In the US news for controversial photo of a comedian holding a prop of a severed head. Recent slew of edits from apparent SPAs etc.
Shearonink (
talk)
02:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Page was previously semi-protected due to persistent addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content. As soon as the protection expired on 30 May, the disruptive editing resumed. Extended semi-protection needed.
Bennv3771 (
talk)
06:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I did not consent for this page to be created in the first place and it's been persistently vandalized ever since. Please protect back to the original editor's truth or delete the page. –
CharlesFloate (
talk)
00:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Removal of sourced content and addition of anti-Semitic content by IP-hopper. Use of conspiracy theorist
Jeff Rense's website as source. See
diffJim1138 (
talk)
02:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Also, it's the same person. With IPv6 addresses, it's normal for the last four IP groups to change like that. If the first four IP groups stay the same, then we can block (in this example, 2605:6000:f508:d800::/64) and it will fully block that person.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)22:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined. Since it's just one user, I've
warned them about edit warring. Let me know if they continue and I will block the IP.
Mz7 (
talk)
22:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Different people are making the same kinds of edits without knowing that they'll eventually be reverted based on the Talk page discussion.
Greggens (
talk)
19:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Page protection is normally only applied in response to sustained high intensity disruptive editing. Four edits spread out over more than a month doesn't meet that standard.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
19:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply