Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated IP edits where they add "Melon" as his nickname, and "best teeth in the f*cking game" as a his slogan, among other things. The page is frequented by his fans who want to troll. I don't know if "indefinite" is appropriate but there definitely should be some type of protection...
Jennica✿ / talk11:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: It's the holiday today (2017-07-01) and is featured in Google Doodle across Canada and on Wikipedia's On This day on English Wikipedia. Likely subject to vandalism by IP users
Ryan (
talk)
05:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'd expected like three days or so possibly until end of Canada day long weekend since Monday 2017-07-03 is an extra statutory holiday.
Ryan (
talk)
05:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IPs/new users persistently and prematurely adding Germany and/or Taiwan to the list of countries where same-sex marriage is legal, even though it isn't legal in those two countries yet.
Bennv3771 (
talk)
06:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IP users are adamant that this poisonous substance cures cancer and "big pharma" or "the government" is covering it up (unfortunately, due to the cover up, there are never any sources to support these claims). Examples from only the past 10 days:
[1][2][3][4][5][6] --
ChiveFungi (
talk)
01:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Back in May, a 'Public Perceptions' section
was added based on original research and blog posts. Another user and myself have removed the content for those reasons, and I
left a message on the talk page explaining the removal and invited the editor(s) to respond. Since adding the message, different IP editors have restored the content three times (
[7][8][9]), with their only response on the talk page being
a personal attack. Based on the latter message, it looks like it may be one person utilizing multiple IP addresses to push this. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs05:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed:BLP policy violations – every time another propaganda report surfaces about the subject allegedly dying less experienced editors rush in and declare him dead. They ignore the talk page. It takes a lot of cleanup in various parts of the article. One user just announced an edit war in an edit summary. .
Legacypac (
talk)
18:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined. Seems to have been prompted by a current event, should die down no. Otherwise not enough recent activity to justify protection.
Fvasconcellos (
t·
c)
23:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Due to controversy over his recent actions, and resultant vandalism, protection is needed. Grognard Extraordinaire
Chess(talk) Ping when replying
00:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. The IP is blocked for disruptive editing. The user appears to be editing in good faith, so I'm not taking action there. If disruption continues by other users, let me know.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)21:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined I only see 4 IP edits over the last four days. If it's only IPs causing the disruption, it's not occurring to the point that protection is justified right now.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)18:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Has been indefinitely semi'd since 2010, would probably be a good idea to experiment with pending changes given the franchise isn't as popular or visible as it used to. No prejudice against re-upping if excessive vandalism resumes. If the level of vandalism is low after a few months, it would probably then be a good idea to fully unprotect the article. Protecting admin has not edited since May 2017.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew14:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IPs are deleting large amounts of sourced material and replacing with falsities (e.g claiming that African-Americans are really Native Americans or Hebrews who have been tricked into thinking they are from Africa) this may well be a single user who is socking.
Tornado chaser (
talk)
16:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing by an IP user in the last week (appears to be motivated by national rivalry). As the editor changes IP, the person cannot be effectively blocked.
Hzh (
talk)
13:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Requesting a few days PC protection for the page. IP editors are insistent on adding routes that are ad-hoc charters (i.e. not scheduled routes) and are not paying heed to the edits.
st170e12:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Self-promotional page which keeps being recreated - deleted 4 times in 2 years.
Boleyn (
talk)
06:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from sockpuppet user with multiple IP addresses and accounts. Page has recently been semi-protected twice, but they have returned again after protection expired.
Nqr9 (
talk)
11:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Returning and repeated additions to all Meghan Trainor articles by IP sock of indeffed MaranoFan. Am asking for this kind of protection for all Trainor articles as these are favored by this persistent returning sock. -- ψλ ●
✉18:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed:BLP policy violations – Semi-protection not working to stop editors from adding unofficial transaction.
WNYY98 (
talk)
23:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Please could somebody take a look at the history and decide whether semi-protection would be justified. The input from IPs over the course of its edit history has been predominantly unhelpful - but I don't know whether it reaches the threshold that would justify deterring potential bona fide anon edits. Thanks. --
Money money tickle parsnip (
talk)
09:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I would request please protect the page to avoid repeatedly vandalism going on article
WittyFeed, an article created through AFC. A newly registered user possibly a sock trying to vandalise article and repeatedly placing speedy deletion tag. The new user seems, have created account with one purpose is to delete the article. Please look at the case and protect the article to avoid such vandalism in future.
2405:204:2105:EEE4:5B01:2219:57B4:F77E (
talk)
07:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined This is a single IP. No need to protect a page for that. They have been given a level 4 warning. If they start up again take it to AIV or ping me and I will block them.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
01:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Long term vandalism target - just came off yearlong semi-protection and unconstructive ip edits quickly resumed, leading to reprotection.
WNYY98 (
talk)
18:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Returning and repeated additions to all Meghan Trainor articles by IP sock of indeffed MaranoFan. Am asking for this kind of protection for all articles this persistent sock has edited. -- ψλ ●
✉18:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I'm seeing some dicey edits here and there but not the kind of pervasive disruptive editing we need to justify protection.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
22:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – 2 IP vandals in the last 24 hours, seems like the same person, digging up old posts from ARBPIA where I am not even all that active anymore.
Seraphim System(
talk)20:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Same user created accounts to link spam across 3 different Confederations Cup articles, including this one.
jd22292(Jalen D. Folf)23:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Same user created accounts to link spam across 3 different Confederations Cup articles, including this one.
jd22292(Jalen D. Folf)23:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Same user created accounts to link spam across 3 different Confederations Cup articles, including this one.
jd22292(Jalen D. Folf)23:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: An IP and new user (I think they are the same) are repeatedly blanking sourced information, trying to AFD and CSD the page, without giving helpful ES, using the talk page, or otherwise responding to attempts to communicate with them. I believe they are doing it with GF, so I'm not going to AIV yet. Could someone try and reason with them, and failing that, protect the page until they communciate? Thanks, .
L3X1(distænt write))evidence(17:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing –
IP keeps removing content unexplained. Has been warned and reverted by several users. Requesting either page protection or IP block. Corkythehornetfan (ping me)
15:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I've looked into this; it's an IPv6 IP-hopper that has been massively edit-warring on the article and changing correct information since February. Unfortunately there is also at least one good IP editor on the article. Perhaps indefinite pending changes protection would be best.
Softlavender (
talk)
13:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 4 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Long history of disruptive editing and multiple page protections. Enough is enough. Page is protected until he has been potentially out of office for six months-ish.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
22:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: persistent vandalism by changing entries for Vietnam and Tunisia to false information. Done by IPs and newly registered usernames.
Twofortnights (
talk)
09:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent
vandalism – David Toscano is a politician. An official party member from his precinct continues to remove unflattering details from the page, all of which are very well cited, and presented in an unbiased way.
OrwellianLocksmith (
talk)
12:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. On Sunday Milan time the club announced the player will have a medical on Monday and MAY be signed. So far no further announcement regarding the player as of Monday 6pm Milan time, so it is so
WP:Crystal to say he is a AC Milan player. Request to protect for another day, or until 12:00pm UTC Tuesday.
Matthew_hktc16:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Full-protection: Despite an active discussion on the talk page, blind reverts by user 'Maestro2016', please protect the page, so it can not be tempered with till the discussion is on.
SoniaKovind (
talk)
14:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Per
Talk:Harley-Davidson#Mention of HD Clubs - a certain editor has been involved in a dispute with Dennis Bratland over the notability of a Prague-based motorcycle club. I think locking the page down briefly to allow for a consensus wouldn't hurt.
Blake Gripling (
talk)
00:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There has been a recent act of vandalism frequently changing the article without providing any reference. (to be exact, on the matter of "invasion" or seizing back the control").
ArminHP (
talk)
06:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Permanent semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from IP users. This page is in need of significant revision and the vandalism from various IP users complicates this effort. --
Theropod (
talk)
04:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed:BLP policy violations – I am uncertain that this is the correct type of protection to be requesting, so please feel free to consider other types if the requested type seems incorrect. I am an OTRS agent and we have a longstanding ticket by Mr. Quaid (
VRTS ticket #
2017062610021476 in which Mr. Quaid has repeatedly asked that his name in this article be shown as "Randy Randall Rudy Quaid", which is his birth name. However, a number of other editors (not IP users, but users with logged in accounts) insist on changing it to "Randall Rudy Quaid" (as though "Randy" was short for "Randall"). This has caused Mr. Quaid a fair amount of frustration and stress, and even the leaving of notes within the article instructing editors NOT to change the name away from "Randy Randall Rudy Quaid" have been ignored on more than one occasion. I am not interested in protecting the content of the entire article, I am only interested in protecting the lead sentence, but I understand that this cannot be done. Instead, I have to ask for some more general kind of protection, but one that will not allow even logged in editors to change the content of the article at will so that the subject's name cannot be changed again. We have seen ample evidence at OTRS that his name is Randy Randall Rudy Quaid, and it would be nice if the article could finally and more or less permanently reflect that. Thanks.
KDS4444 (
talk)
21:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – adding unofficially confirmed signing to article (will not be official until july 8 at earliest).
WNYY98 (
talk)
03:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Transfer rumour. It was announced that he will under a medical check on Monday Milan time. AFTER a pass in medical he MAY be signed. Current time in Milan is midnight, so it is so
Wikipedia:crystal to say he is a A.C. Milan new player.
Matthew_hktc23:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Transfer rumour. A medical check and then not yet happened, no press release no contract signing, but attracted lots of unhelpful edit.
Matthew_hktc22:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The vandalism started again as soon as pp was removed. Perhaps the ip should also be blocked for 3 extreme vandalism edits.
Atlantic306 (
talk)
15:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Going back to the beginning of the year I am only see a handful of obvious vandalism edits. The IP has received a level 4 warning. If they do anything again we can protect the page and block them. But permanent pp would be serious overkill.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
17:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Long term semi-protection: Edit warring and extreme uncivility by socks of blocked user Nate Speed. One sock was just blocked, another's just started, others will likely follow once this one is blocked.
Crboyer (
talk)
18:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Hopefully the disruptive ip editor will get discouraged and go away if they can't make their disruptive changes for a time.
Onel5969TT me13:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined This is not vandalism. There have only been three IP edits since April 2017, all of them from India. The issue is American spelling/English vs. how everybody else in the world spells and uses the English language.
— Maile (
talk)
14:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Especially after the success of the hit musical “Hamilton”, vandalism is persistent and it has resurfaced as soon as the previous protection has expired on June, 30, one of several attempts to protect this historical article.
Could we not keep this page under permanent protection as is the case of his opponent Alexander Hamilton and all other Founding Fathers like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson just to mention a few?
Isananni (
talk)
17:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Various IPs (presumably one editor) trying to insert an unsourced nationality against consensus and with no effort to resolve on talk. Already been reverted by multiple editors a number of times. —
Jon C.ॐ14:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Disruptive editing and/or vandalism from IP address and unconfirmed users of adding false episode spoilers considering these episode have yet to be released.
Musicpoplover12 (
talk)
03:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Especially after the success of the hit musical “Hamilton”, vandalism is persistent and it has resurfaced as soon as the previous protection has expired on June, 30, one of several attempts to protect a historical article. Could we not keep this page under permanent protection as is the case of his opponent
Alexander Hamilton and all other Founding Fathers like
George Washington or
Thomas Jefferson just to mention a few?
Isananni (
talk)
11:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: A named account was recently blocked for edit warring over this, and a series of IPs are restoring the edits
Meters (
talk)
04:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP-hopping editor is repeatedly adding promotional material about a nonnotable artist. The IPs can be blocked, but only page protection will bring this to a stop. The Old JacobiteThe '4502:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)reply
@
TheOldJacobite: Just an FYI, when you see IPs like that spamming a page with similar starting numbers (e.g. 1.1.1.2, 1.1.1.5, 1.1.1.203, etc.), feel free to message me. I can perform a range block to knock out the whole lot of IPs at once. That wouldn't require page protection and is usually quite effective. ~
Rob13Talk04:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Remove Create Protection: It has been around 6 months since the article was last deleted. Has improved and become much more notable since then and probably merits an article going by the wealth of references in
Draft:Guru Randhawa.
JupitusSmart11:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Nihonjoe:, As I mentioned before, the draft was rejected 6 months ago. The new draft satisfies all the notability conditions according to me and I was about to accept it when the AFCH script mentioned that it is create protected and I would have to request un-protection before accepting. So you have put me in a Catch 22 situation wherein I cannot accept the draft because it is create protected and create protection won't be removed till the draft is accepted. Hope you will reconsider.
JupitusSmart04:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Continued block evasion by MariaJaydHicky, restoring unsourced genres. Was last protected in April, but said protection only lasted for two weeks. This is an on-and-off target for the user, who has used IPs and registered accounts on the article. Blocking one of their IPs will not work, as they will just use another, or register an account. Ss11223:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Highly persistent IP editor engaging in vandalism and actionable BLP violations (for nearly a year on some of these articles). Repeated temporary protection has failed as a deterrent. This person has been nursing this particular libel for more than 30 years... he isn't going to stop adding it to WP just because he has to wait a little while for protection to expire again. -
Jason A. Quest (
talk)
23:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: I have protected Todd McFarlane. The rest either do not have enough history of disruptive editing to justify protection or are already protected.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
01:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Please look at the overall pattern. When one of these articles has been temp-protected, he turns to the others, so that isn't a deterrent. Protecting just one of them is still enabling and encouraging him. -
Jason A. Quest (
talk)
12:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
If the vandal does start targeting those articles again, you'll have no trouble getting protection applied. I also just looked through them and there's not much there.
Enigmamsg19:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done This is one of those cases where I think the article would get created under a slightly different name to evade the protection (it's already been speedied 4 times). Instead I have sent the article to AfD, if (or, rather, when) it gets deleted we can then speedy + salt every other iteration per G4.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temp semi-protection. Article is the focus of a single anon editor obsessed with the subject's height being different from that given in the cited source. Unfortunately the editor is on a dynamic IP. They've been blocked at a couple of IP addresses (see
User talk:115.189.80.31), but it makes no difference.
Struway2 (
talk)
13:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent, long-term addition of unsourced and/or unreliably sourced content by several sockpuppets and IP users. snapsnap(
talk)16:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Anon user(s) have continued to ignore multiple user requests to discuss changes and address concerns on the article talk page and anon users talk page(s).
BarkeepChat04:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP-hopping user who hasn't gotten support for a disputed addition in
Talk:Ottoman_Empire#Ottomans_and_Turkish_identity has stopped participating in the discussion but seems intent on edit warring. This is getting out of hand, with other IP users reverting them and then operators of anti-vandalism tools inadvertently contributing to the disruption, all with no participation in the discussion. Please semi-protect to make the new users use the talk page.
Eperoton (
talk)
14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotected Lacking a response from the 2010 protecting admin, I unprotected it for edits, but left it move protected. It can always be edit protected again if need be.
— Maile (
talk)
21:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – This page is already indefinately semiprotected, yet fresh inexperienced account do a lot of edit warring (two got blocked for 24 hours yesterday) and if you look at the article history this article is a very good article for the 30/500 protection. Qed237(talk)12:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, it's you who is engaging in vandalism, removing good chunks of the article despite several warnings. You also provide no explanation for your removals (the only few claims you'd made I've debunked in the edit summaries). So it's who you should be blocked. --
DraKyry (
talk)
08:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Repeated, persistent vandalism of BLP - repeated attempts to turn profiled individual's name into slur, even after prior protection periods.
Erskiji (
talk)
00:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Page has been repeatedly vandalized by various IPs over the past several days (at least). (I'm not sure if it's been a problem before then.)
V2Blast (
talk)
22:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP-hopping vandal persistently vandalizing article; appears to be from the same range.
jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
22:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Posted in the wrong section and you requested the wrong kind of protection. I'm doing what should've been the request.
Enigmamsg00:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Editor keeps changing Europe's result in the navbox citing a "Bias," when the change contradicts what is described in a paragraph. Semi-protection doesn't appear to be enough in the matter.
jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
19:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined It isn't at a state that full protection is needed. If an editor reverts too many times, WP:AN3 would be the right venue. Since it is only one editor, protection isn't the answer.
Dennis Brown -
2¢23:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continual insertion, without reason, of incorrect state information by IP's or unregistered users. All seem to be in the Dublin area.
David J Johnson (
talk)
22:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi: An editor from India, using a number of IPs, insists that "neighbors" should be spelled "neighbours" for this American movie, despite being informed about
WP:ENGVAR on the talk pages of each of the IPs. Five instances in the past 3 days.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
04:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The idiotic campaign to get the name Ryan Ross into this article has resumed since the protection expired. I have
reported all the socks I can find but semi-protection for a longer period would probably also help.
DanielRigal (
talk)
22:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Review: Someone came to my talk to ask for this to be protected. I don't have time for a detailed look at this right now - at a quick glance, it seems to need some balanced judgement of positive vs. "silly" contributions from new users and IPs. Thanks to whoever fills this request.
Samsara19:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP range "119.56.xxx.xxx" as disruptive editing it shows was ongoing the aired through translate Japanese and English. These editors can keep translate Japanese and English by using edit war in many times.
Oripaypaykim(talk)11:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temp semi-protection. Article is the focus of a single anon editor obsessed with the subject's height being different from that given in the cited source. Unfortunately the editor is on a dynamic IP. They've been blocked at a couple of IP addresses (see
User talk:115.189.80.31), but it makes no difference.
Struway2 (
talk)
13:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent, long-term addition of unsourced and/or unreliably sourced content by several sockpuppets and IP users. snapsnap(
talk)16:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism by IPs resumed shortly after the previous temporary semi-protection expired.
Dee0314:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Please do ask again if this picks up or warn the IP address but right now between the logs and relatively small number of edits this is ok for now.
PanydThe muffin is not subtle16:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: edit war. I have now restored the version before the edit war commenced but it doesn't look like the article is stable without protection.
Twofortnights (
talk)
19:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing. I realize that a request within the last 8 days was previously declined, but when it was declined, an admin declined it w/o any reason, and there has been more disruptive activity since it was previously declined. Therefore, may this be reconsidered? Thanks, and regards.
172.58.46.162 (
talk)
19:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – lets see if protecting the page will get these two editors talking.
Moxy (
talk)
18:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection, preferably longer than the last protection. The IP socks who've plagued the article are back in full effect.
Cúchullaint/
c13:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)reply
That's bizarre, it shows in the history as being changed to semi-protected. I just updated it to what (I think) RHaworth intended, though please undo if I'm wrong.
GorillaWarfare(talk)18:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Can neither of you read the log? I applied admin-only protection for moves only. User:GorillaWarfare changed it and then reverted to my setting. Zzuuzz came along and changed the pending changes setting - I think that change had no effect whatsoever - the edit protection means that new and unregistered uses cannot edit anyway. —
RHaworth (
talk·contribs)
19:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't know what happened with the earlier stuff. Removing PC has the beneficial effect of removing the additional log displayed to editors, the weird highlighting in the history, and lots of PC review tags and logs. --
zzuuzz(talk)19:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Pending changes are not working, being targeted by these massive series of IPs disrupting it. Fully semi-protect it now. . —
IB[
Poke ]16:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Lots of BLP violating text added by IP6 addresses from Alpharetta, Georgia, US, where Tresvant family members are residing.
Binksternet (
talk)
03:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – A marketing executive from the subject firm continually uses the article to be a company directory. Despite numerous requests to discuss (via article talk page, editor talk page and edit summary), the IP employee persists.
Niteshift36 (
talk)
13:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Multiple IPs fabricating a death date that hasn't even arrived yet. Should be protected for longer than before this time.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
21:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. Tried talking on talk page, tried talking on their talk page. No response. Seems to be primarily focused on this single article from mobile IP. Has been going on for weeks.
Andrzejbanas (
talk)
16:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes:BLP policy violations – Unsourced/improperly sourced, salacious and potentially defamatory claims concerning reasons for the subject's firing from his employment as a radio personality. General IzationTalk 20:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Persistent
vandalism – This has been going on for months, with myriad IP address by obviously the same individual. All of the blocks achieve nothing but block-ducking.
JesseRafe (
talk)
20:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: The person is a notable musical artist in India, I have enough content with sources about the musical artist to create a mainspace article, Please unprotect it the artist had become very notable in recent times. Thanks
Anoptimistix (
talk)
15:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Anoptimistix I have no opinion on this YouTube artist or whether or not it should be unprotected. The article was deleted 6 times either for notability or sourcing. I think it would be helpful to your request for other admins to see the article you are developing in your
sandbox.
— Maile (
talk)
21:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Fairly steady edit warring and vandalism over the past week, and likely to continue at a high level over the remainder of the Wimbledon fortnight. .
QueenCake (
talk)
15:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Three different, related IPs, in 152.246.0.0/16 or 152.247.0.0/16, persistently making similar disruptive edits to the article by adding a fake credit to the film's cast.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
15:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Last protection was 6 months. The current disruption has been ongoing for a while.
— Maile (
talk)
21:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Long term Semi-protection: various anon IPs and new accounts regularly modify her birth date or remove the citation needed tag. This has been going on for months. It was previously protected but same issue has occurred.
LibStar (
talk)
10:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – A combination of making unsourced changes to sales and certification data and changing chart peak positions for this album by IPs in the last week. I was hesitant to file this as I don't know if this is excessively disruptive, but I'm afraid IPs will just keep persistently making changes to the sales data without providing an updated source to back up their claims.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
16:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – The original putlocker site has been offline due to law enforcemnet activitiy. There are apparently at least two sites claiming to be the "official" successor but there are differing claims as to which is real and also claims that at least one potential successor has used the name to host malware. IP addresses keep adding and changing url's for the site without discussion despite pending changes. .
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)12:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Did you mean a different article? A lot of the CNN articles have been taking a beating, but this one hasn't been touched. --
Bongwarrior (
talk)
06:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined - The article is protected, so the corresponding talk page should be left unprotected unless it becomes unmanageable. I don't think the disruption there is close to the level that would be required to protect them both. --
Bongwarrior (
talk)
07:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I was originally on the fence with protecting, but the fact that this article is about a conflict between countries over the Mid East and looks to be over religion, this might be argued to be within a topic under
discretionary sanctions (still reading and will verify for sure). Because of this, I decided to proceed with the full protection for two days.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)11:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Repeated unexplained deletions by anon IP geolocating to Buenos Aires, at least since 8 June. IP previously warned on their Talk page. No response.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
08:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
+1 I just come here to request the same. He is far from a living person (d 1967) but there is persistent vandalism
Jytdog (
talk)
06:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: ongoing IP vandalism by 98.116.72.122 adding false information about programs that were broadscast by both networks owned by Viacom, and added false years aired. --
181.140.217.212 (
talk)
01:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Controversial political topic that has been vandalized or had sneaky, unsourced facts added several times. Temporary because I believe this event will not be relevant in a few years, but given that it affects the current presidential term, 4 years/indefinite could be fine.
ZarosFlok (
talk)
03:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed:BLP policy violations – Immediate return of defamation of living person within 1 day of end of last page protection period.
Dennis Bratland (
talk)
19:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Promotional article deleted 4 times in 2 months at this title, but was also deleted at other titles (
rince Boyar Debbarma). Recreated despite blocks on the sockpuppets.
Boleyn (
talk)
14:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IPs and newbies are constantly removing the image, I've explained to footsmudge what to do however with all due respect I'm not explaining this to every person who removes so for now protection is best, Thanks,. –
Davey2010Talk10:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:71.208.0.0/16 had been vandalizing these articles for 3 weeks, I asked
WP:AVI to block them but they didn't want to block a /16 and suggested I request page protection, I applied for semi-protection (
[31]), it was granted. Now that the protection has expired, they're back again. They just edited several of these articles from
71.208.214.2. Their main purpose in life is to change the Google Chrome logo (and the Chrome OS logo, and the Chromium logo) back to how it was a few years ago. Why? They said they thought the old logo looked better. --
ChiveFungi (
talk)
12:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: The very same day that the previous protection template was removed, the persistent disruptive editing/vandalism from IP immediately started again. This needs to be stopped.
Wikicontributor12 (
talk)
01:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Continuous sockpuppetry. The only IP edits on this page for a long time has been removal of referenced information for POV interests. The sockpuppet waits for a while before removing the referenced information again, due to which admins decline RPP citing lack of problematic edits of late. Semi protection is essential, as PCR does not seem to deter the sockpuppet, and many a times editors inadvertently accept problematic revisions while making other edits.
JupitusSmart12:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indefinite off the back of a 1 month protection would be too much. We'll see if 3 months deters them. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)13:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed:Arbitration enforcement – Unsure as to notability or what the current consensus is towards Israel-Palestine articles created by non-EC accounts, but this is an article about a day celebrating
Yitzhak Rabin, who was
assassinated largely due to his role in the conflict, so ECP makes sense until we can sort out what to do with it. .
TonyBallioni (
talk)
21:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism by IP's all from India. All sources clearly state it was created in Peshawar, Pakistan. The website of the creator of the dish states so clearly. I'd request it be protected as I have left it, so Indian trolls stop changing the origin to Delhi. My edits are created on my account, all the indian vandals do so via IP's and are clearly biased as all of their IP locations are in India. It would be greatly appreciated as it is vandalized daily. Here's the source from the owner:
http://motimahal.in/about-us/.
Hman101 (
talk)
04:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done. Warned the two most recent IPs with {{uw-3rr}}. No edits have been made since 70.31.137.119 said to look at the talk page, if it continues then protection may be required. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)05:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – The article of the art of singing is a subject to global interest ,however contributors are adding their respected nations popular singers images.
Anoptimistix (
talk)
03:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I don't see any edit warring or content disputes. There's the occasional reverted edit but nothing that warrants full/semi. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)03:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: For two days now,
vandalism, i.e. persistent changes to topic's name and other detrimental changes by a variety of unregistered editors (and even some newly registered users, but I think semi-protection is sufficient). ---
Sluzzelintalk08:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Continual insertion of
WP:OR and
WP:POV. First IP used by this person was blocked. Appearance of new IP shows that they intend to keep disrupting the article.
MarnetteD|
Talk02:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. 2 days will hopefully be enough to deter the disruptive edits from continuing, if not, then a longer protection will be warranted. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)04:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done Not yet, I've got the article on my watchlist but I'd want to see a couple more bad edits before protecting again. Please feel free to re-report when this happens, or ping me directly on the article's talk page --
There'sNoTime(
to explain)19:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Recently deceased figure. The birth date, and at least on one instance death age, keeps on getting changed without reliable sourcing.
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk)
20:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent changes to cited content and addition of unsourced content which contradicts cited source by IP hopper.- possible vandalism.
BilCat (
talk)
20:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: most of the edits for the past year have been vandalism from IP addresses and reverts. One of the IPs involved reverted vandalism to
Lindsay Independent School District, and several geolocate to Texas, so my guess is that some schoolkids in Texas are being sent to read this article and stuff happens.
Wnt (
talk)
14:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Reduction in protection level: BLP of a prominent politician with a very poor and unacceptably sourced (one tabloid, one citation that doesn't support the claim made at all) lede locked in for a week to attempt to resolve a brief but apparently acrimonious edit war (which FWIW I had no involvement in). Page protected by @
CambridgeBayWeather: which had the unfortunate effect of preserving the unacceptable lede. @
Richie333: commented the lock seemed a long one at the time
[32]
If administrators think it's too early to reopen, I suggest reverting the lede to a stable earlier version (e.g the brief lede here
[33] ) for the week: this might be too short but at least it's uncontentious.
Dtellett (
talk)
20:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I am restoring the earlier trimmed-down lead without unprotecting. I don't know if unprotection is justified, but it shouldn't be left in the state it was.
Enigmamsg23:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed:BLP policy violations – New account shows up to disruptively edit a contentious BLP without discussion. Article has a long history of attacks by partisans intent on discrediting the article subject.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
21:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – There have been 8 reverts in 25 hours, I have made 5 of the 8, myself. All but 2 reverts are from edits made by IP editors. No one is willing to post sources for the information they are adding - which includes a page move because of a new title to the movie. .
Kellymoat (
talk)
14:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)reply
No further edit-warring has occurred, after I ceased to prevent anything more disastrous; however, when attempting to discuss the issue, I was personally attacked by the editor who's declared they've left, so realistically, I've no idea what to do here anyways. -- AlexTW10:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: Future Now Tour semi protected. Also blocked the IP. The others don't have enough recent disruptive editing for protection.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
16:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Make semi-protected so I can revert the undiscussed redirection of the template. The editor who performed the redirect has not yet responded to my request last month for unprotection I made
here.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
19:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
The redirect was part of a longer discussion and I see no reason to undo it. The template serves all the functionality of the older two templates combined with the added benefit of easier maintenance. I will comment further on the talk page. No rationale has been given here at all. A restoral would lead to two templates that were exact copies in everything but name.
I regret having missed your response on my talk page
UnitedStatesian, but I would appreciate if you withdrew this request — and instead commented on why you wish to restore an exact copy of the template under a different name. If there is any missing functionality, that can be quickly resolved.
Not unprotected This is a highly visible template and you have made no adequate case to lower it from TE. If you want to make an edit, propose it and get consensus, then make a request of a template editor. Katietalk23:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism by IPs trying to spread a YouTube phenomenon around. Requesting indefinite until the craze dies.
jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
23:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Repeated occurrences of IP users removing a sentence from the lead, despite there being a note. High-profile album needing extended, perhaps indefinite, protection.
Jennica✿ / talk00:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The article
Immanuel Kant was repeatedly vandalized by IP editors, then semi-protected. Vandalism resumed immediately after the last semi-protection expired, and article now needs protecting again.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk)
22:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism from multiple IP users. This article was previously protected less than two weeks ago after many IP users edited the article saying that Stefán had died, which was false. However, the protection expired a few days ago, and vandalism resumed.
EEllis2002 (
talk)
22:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: More reports of death. Wikipedia should not be first place to declare #1 wanted terrorist dead. .
Legacypac (
talk)
15:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Article is already EC Protected. Full Protection would be too disruptive given that this person is currently in the news. Sorry but this is just something that will have to be dealt with by reverting as needed on a case by case basis for now.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
15:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – For whatever reason, we've had an ongoing trend of IPs claiming the subject is dead, with no sourcing provided. Rather than continue to revert, let's disallow IPs and see what happens. Chris Troutman (
talk)20:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent edit-warring and disruptive editing by one IP and its newly registered editor or a sock.
Jingiby (
talk)
12:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Ad Orientem, is 4 days really sufficient? I thought we generally aim for escalating restrictions? The past restrictions have been all over the map, but the last one was for 3 months, and the disruption resumed as soon as it was over. (I am not
watching this page, so please
ping me if you want my attention.) --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk)
19:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: persistent
WP:BLP,
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:TENNIS violations. Every time a tennis player is projected to become the new world No. 1 in the future (on Monday), an army of inexperienced, ignorant (typically anonymous IP ) editors always come here presenting the future as history (e.g. saying that "she became No. 1 on July 17", when it's July 11, updating the infoboxes with future dates). As always, protection is the only option (to protect both the article and the good, experienced editors who always risk being mistakenly blocked for 3RR violation when they keep reverting the disruptive edits). Please semi-protect till Monday 17 July.—
J. M. (
talk)
18:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Past several days, a number of IP editors have added and then shortly removed a Steam profile link to one of the sites owners. I have no idea why they are doing this but the action keeps jumping IPs and need semi prot. for some time to stop it.
MASEM (
t)
18:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Permanent Semi-protection: As per
WP:RPP this article has "endemic and endless vandalism problems which multiple increasing periods of temporary semi-protection or pending changes have failed to stop." This is due to the page relating to a popular political conspiracy theory.
Jobrot (
talk)
16:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Full protection:
Edit wars, removal of references, no communication or discussion on the talk page. Temporarily restrict the editing on the page till a consensus is reached upon. Thanks.
Badri2017 (
talk)
11:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Permanent semi-protection due to ongoing, long-term anonymous vandalism of the troll variety, the low rate of legitimate edits, and the unsurprising failure of a previous run of pending changes protection to abate the problem. Rebbing12:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There have been edits by a user that is believed to be associated with the company. They are removing factual information to try and ensure the page provides a positive, rather than a neutral, view of the company.
I believe a temporary block on editing would help deter them in the short term. Possible further action may be required as they have persistently edited the page over a prolonged period time.
BritishGuy (
talk)
13:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Dear usernamekiran, SubhasiniIyer has disrupted the pages again without arriving at a consensus over here.--Abrahmad111 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@CambridgeBayWeather: this is right, Abrahmad111 did not edit the article at all. As I know nothing about the the poet/subject; I dont know how his edts are. @Abrahmad111: Do you think SubhashiniIyer's edits are uncontroversial? —usernamekiran(talk) 07:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I realise that Abrahmad111 didn't edit the article and that is good that they didn't revert. But they also need to stop going on at each other. That's why they should use the dispute resolution. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Abrahmad111 (
talk •
contribs)
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Urgent extended confirmed protection required for this article lot of unsourced negative contents were added , I reverted all those.
Anoptimistix (
talk)
10:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Pending changes are also not working as daily the article is being targeted. Semi-protect it please but for a very long duration. —
IB[
Poke ]04:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – After temporary semi-protection expired, the vandalism and addition of unsourced material continued. Pending changes is still not enough.
jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
06:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Article was deleted 7 times, I don't see this sandbox as being markedly better. Since there is a submit banner on the sandbox, suggest user implements it - if AfC passes the article then they can request unprotection.
Ronhjones (Talk)21:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continuous addition of unsourced and negative content by IPs. Perhaps pending changes maybe in order, or as longterm temporary protection as possible. ‖
Ebyabetalk -
Inspector General ‖
23:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – New to RPP (surprising after all these years!) so hope this is okay -- an anonymous editor continues to add detail that is not obviously sourced while refusing to give any explanation or engage in discussion about those edits.
Ian Rose (
talk)
23:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. The article is currently an FLC and this IP user keep on adding un-sourced material in the stage tables. The descriptions in the Notes column is completely un-sourced and he keep reverting me. Please Help.
Krish |
Talk17:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IPs adding questionable and unsourced material; began again right after previous one-month protection expired.
Trivialist (
talk)
23:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: If you fail to put in a title this is the default page name. It's a useless name. Way better for the system to reject the default title which will prompt the user to create some useful title .
Legacypac (
talk)
09:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – It seems pending changes is not enough here to fight the ongoing vandalism by new users and IPs.
jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
15:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: This page displays all the information about National Institute of Textile Engineering and Research. We do not want people other than those of NITER administration committee to edit it. cyber.ghost 15:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Temporary Semi-protection — This article seems to regularly be vandalized, as just occurred again. No recent activity occurs except vandalism. Thank you, —
PaleoNeonate -
18:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent IP vandalism following football transfer; page has only just come off semi-protection.
OZOO13:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Having this unprotected is obviously a really bad idea. Please restore PC protection for whatever length you see fit (preferably a long period of time). Thank you!.
Majora (
talk)
20:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This is the 2nd time in 4 days that I ask for protection of this page.
see this. Last time the culprit was blocked, however, that is of virtually no help, as they have a 2001. address which they can change in seconds. This article is clearly under
WP:ARBPIA3, please protect it. Thanks, .
Huldra (
talk)
20:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected Indef. All the disruptive edits come from the same ISP in the same part of the world. However, I don't know that a range block would be that effective for how long here.
— Maile (
talk)
21:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Most of it happened a couple of days ago. The vandalism has passed. Re-report if it picks back up again. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)15:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – An - as of yet - non-notable actor. Repeatedly recreated, including with slight spelling variations to avoid scrutiny. So please as protect
Ashish bisht. The Bannertalk19:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent disruption - was semi-protected four times in June 2017 - the same disruption (Timetable contrary to
WP:NOTTIMETABLE + probable copyvio of
[34], and removal of sourced material) restarted the same day the last protection expired -
Arjayay (
talk)
12:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – User:Bozalegenda is making disruptive edits because it is in his opinion that the information added (specifically 3x3 basketball career history info) should not be. Although he said they shouldn't be on the career, he gave no citation or link to a Wikipedia article about it, and other wikipedia pages such as
Marko Savić (basketball),
Dušan Domović Bulut and most notably
Danilo Mijatović who has played both normal basketball and 3x3 basketball yet both are listed under his carrer. It might be mentioned that he technically had retired, but then the besiktas team should be deleted as well and so with every other nba player who "retired" and then played again (see MJ).
I don't know if he's doing it in good or bad faith, hence I assume it's in good faith neither way the information isn't less accurate nor is it less important. It might be important to note, i'm not the first complaining about his disruptive edits behaviour, but who am I to judge?.
Remi1771 (
talk)
03:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done I suggest you explain your position on the articles talk page and discuss it with the user who disagrees. Don't continue to edit war, but if the user doesn't respond to your message on the talk page you can revert him/her and say "see talk page" in the edit summary. If the other user responds on the talk page, keep discussing it and try to reach a consensus.
If the other user is not discussing it, but continues to revert your edits, I suggest taking it to the
edit warring notice board.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continuous IP user and sock of banned user Naivaidyamishra causing disruption, adding chunk of original analysis texts, false book names etc. —
IB[
Poke ]04:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Feel free to re-request if disruption becomes unmanageable.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)14:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Clearly this has been a long term problem. If this doesn't work then I think we will have to consider indefinite protection.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
00:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined PC is working fine. The article isn't edited too often and semi would be a step too far. PC is getting rid of all the vandalism that comes its way while also allowing good-faith users to edit it. If it gets worse then maybe. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)16:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Classicwiki: Not sure if you always want to be pinged. Anyway, it's more than just the last few days, been through several rounds of protection before, so I'm gonna go a bit longer now.
Samsara20:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: very persistent vandalism by various IPs and suspicious logged-in users. For some reason, this group wants to give Chris Blue more bonuses than he actually had on the show (see references on my edition).
Phill ad (
talk)
13:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: very persistent vandalism by various IPs and suspicious logged-in users. Same problems as requested above.
Phill ad (
talk)
13:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done Pending changes is doing its job fine. The article occasionally gets a hit by a bit of vandalism, like what happened recently, but semi is unnecessary and would stop good faith edits from new users from occurring. Out of the last 50 edits, only 5 have been declined (and spans back to March). Anarchyte (
work |
talk)11:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: After a few months of silence, this page is getting vandalized with identical edits by a sock master. The increased protection levels provided a good deterrent before, so I request such measures again.
DARTHBOTTOtalk•
cont09:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:WP:EW happening right now. Both sides prefer to fight rather than discuss and then make the changes. Protecting the page for a while will calm things down and force people to concentrate on reaching a consensus first.
Coltsfan (
talk)
02:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done for now since they seem to have come to an agreement, but without prejudice to re-requesting full protection if the edit warring resumes.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)03:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent changing of air dates contrary of the source given. Adult Swim's schedule shows that the series airs on Sundays at 1am, however, IP editor keeps changing the dates to Saturday. —Farix (
t |
c)
02:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There is no point trying to talk to the IP. He's torpedoing every discussion on the talk page with bad faith accusations and continuing to edit war. protect, rangeblock....something
.
John from Idegon (
talk)
01:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Get consensus on the talk page for one version or another, with or without the IP's participation. If he disrupts the discussion he can be blocked for disruptive editing.Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)03:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I take that back, some of their comments on the talk page are reprehensible enough that I'm going to rangeblock now.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)03:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I trust you have watchlisted the talk page,
Ks0stm. He has used a regular IP along with the IPv6. Thank you. I was not going to participate in that toxic environment, but I will now go to the talk page and start a new discussion, pinging the other involved editors. Thanks for the revdel.
John from Idegon (
talk)
04:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Ks0stm: You forgot to put the {{anonblock}} template! I was not going to do it, because it would imply that I made the block, which cannot be the case, because I am not an admin, but I am just reminding you that you forgot to put this on the IP's talk page.
UpsandDowns1234 (
🗨)
05:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Some IP editor has major personal issues with the person this article is about and is still vandalizing this article. Now with demeaning photographs.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
00:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – For about a month now, IP addresses have been changing Japanese names to English prior to their English airing which does not follow Wikipedia's anime policy. Also, this has occurred before. Semi protection for multiple weeks should be recommended, then take it to a month and then see what we'll do from there if this disruptive editing persists.
Cosmic Clone (
talk)
02:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Two anon editors have repeatedly added the same POV-content characterized by attack-adjectives even though this content has been reverted by at least three other editors - myself,
Telfordbuck, &
Timothyjosephwood. I have attempted some discussion - posted queries on the article's talkpage and also on both IP's talkpages - this editor/editors refuse to discuss any issues and instead revert to their wanted content all the while repeating the same types of edit-summaries. Please protect this
WP:BLP in the hopes that this editor/editors will engage in some meaningful discussion.
Shearonink (
talk)
00:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Frequent target of IPs whose ranges are documented at
User:Certes/Western. No IP contribution to the article since March has been constructive, and all (since June 12) have been at the hands of the so-called "Western film vandal" - persistently inserting false information into the plot (synopsis) and cast sections of the article. The two previous semiprotections to the article have come about as a result of the same vandalism by the same IP range(s).
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
23:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism - Disgruntled individual, possibly individuals, continue to modify the page with selective information and accusations against founder.
UNIacyr (
talk)
19:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Linked with a move away from Norwich so attracting lots of vandalism both from IP's and one registered user.
Thepersoncalledme (
talk)
14:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Constant need to revert spam, repetitive filler and hyperbole (I know I requested protection for this page yesterday but it's gotten more prevalent in last 12 hours)...
TropicAces (
talk)
13:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAcesreply
Indefinite semi-protection: This page continues to get edits from new users making test edits. The WMF strategy doesn't need input from new users, so let's just protect the page to halt the vandalism. Chris Troutman (
talk)16:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. I also edited the page, so if anybody thinks there is COI on my side, pls free to revert.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
06:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. I will be willing to upgrade to ec but for the time being I do not see disruptive edits of autoconfirmed users.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
06:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Ever since semi-protection has expired, the page continues to be spammed by sockpuppets and IP users with unsourced and/or unreliably sourced content. snapsnap(
talk)05:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined I see some back and forth on singles and writers, but no one seems to be using sources, but that isn't
WP:VANDALism. Singling out IPs is just giving registered users and unfair advantage in what seems to be a content dispute.
Dennis Brown -
2¢01:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) I've protected the talk pages somewhat reluctantly on a short term basis. We really don't like to do that, especially given that the articles are mostly protected. But sometime ya just gotta do what ya gotta do. This was getting out of hand. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
03:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Declaired city employee has choose socking to edit page after multiple warnings/notes about coi, has made edit request on talk, then created a sock to further edit. - FlightTime (
open channel)19:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Yes, some of the IPs are putting in a bit of hyperbole, likely from being newbies, but the editing is in good faith and most of it is acceptable, so I can't shut them out.
Dennis Brown -
2¢23:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – As this is a current ongoing reality series, the article has been repeatedly edited by multiple IP-only and/or unregistered users who have been adding false information and/or unsourced content and making frequent changes without edit summaries. This results in the article being in constant flux especially on the nights the episodes air. .
SanAnMan (
talk)
02:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined It is busy, but most of the new editors are making productive edits, even if some disagree with them. ECP would be massive overkill here.
Dennis Brown -
2¢22:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – It's time for them to take this edit war to the talk page.
Classicwiki (
talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages)
19:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined This is a slow edit war, but an edit war nonetheless. You need to start an RFC on the talk page and stop reverting for a bit. The editor in the minority does seem to be editing in good faith, as are you, and he is adding sources which you revert out. I don't see a good guy/bad guy, just differing opinions. Start the RFC on the content, then there is something to enforce, administratively.
Dennis Brown -
2¢23:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: One month after PC protection ended, there have been reverted vandalisms. I think PC reviewers are needed. --
George Ho (
talk)
01:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Disruption by IPs and new users. Tried yesterday, and was denied as one user was blocked. They've continued using an IP today. Ss11223:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. IPs are the majority of editors on this article, many of whom have made good edits. One IP in particular during July has added numerous credible content/edits.
— Maile (
talk)
12:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Looks like pending changes protection is doing its job just fine as-is. The disruption doesn't appear to be at a high enough rate to justify semi-protection. Doing so would bar good edits from being made anonymously (which looks to be occasionally happening as well).
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Continual addition of unsourced and promo from editor. I don't think a block is appropriate, although, as they have done useful work (ie create the page itself).
RileyBugz会話投稿記録23:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Persistent additions of an end date for the series despite there being no official announcement that the series is over. In the absence of an official announcement from the network or the showrunner, we must wait one year from the last episode that aired before adding an end date. Until then, anything is possible.
Amaury (
talk |
contribs)
04:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Often vandalized, especially this month. The latest edit was reverted as "good-faith", but translate the reverted changes with either Bing Translator or Google Translator, and you'll get the message. --
George Ho (
talk)
16:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and edit warring due to one user (66.26.189.91). The page was protected a while ago, but the user won't stop adding unconfirmed information (unsourced air dates, assuming the episode orders with no evidence, etc.) even after that protection period ended.
2601:8D:8901:A150:51B6:1F32:1E4F:38FB (
talk)
20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 12 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Resolve this issue on the article's talk page, and do not make edits or revert one another, even after the protection expires - it will result in blocking.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)21:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict - I was also going to ask for page protection for this page) I'm unsure what the appropriate remedy is for the page, because IP numbers are both making helpful edits but also repeatedly and persistently vandalizing this page. The event that the page covers is currently on-going, so the vandalism is extremely annoying and disruptive. I hope the admins can help.
Snooganssnoogans (
talk)
20:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 31 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since the event occurs today hopefully things will cool off in 31 hours. If the disruption continues, please request again. Malinaccier (
talk)21:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Reduce from full protection to semi-protection. There was a high level of IP vandanlism on both pages. @
Ks0stm: put full protection of the article for five days. 1. This doesn't solve the problem. Its likely that the IP will be back in 5 days. 2. This is not needed for editors who just want to normally edit the article. If you need to, place both articles under
Discretionary sanctions, but this is not a good remedy.
Casprings (
talk)
12:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I'm not seeing any vandalism here, in fact many of the IP edits have been useful (adding {{cn}} tags, for example). Anarchyte (
work |
talk)11:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – User keeps vandalising his talk page after being blocked, accusing multiple good faith, long standing editors of vandalism, sock puppetry and psychological instability; he reverts and accuses me of bullying when I revert.
65HCA712:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – As expected for an article of this nature, it receives a steady stream of vandalism (
often in the form of possible BLP violations). Almost every non-autoconfirmed edit is reverted. — QuasarG.10:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. We rarely jump immediately to indefinite protection, but as this has been going on for a while, I've protected it for 1 weeks off the bat (almost every reverted revision I looked at was vandalism, spanning back months). I hope we're not back here in a week, but I feel as though we may. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)11:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. New season is premiering tonight and further IP vandalism/unhelpful edits is guaranteed to continue.
Drovethrughosts (
talk)
12:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: This event has been a target for vandalism for a while. That's typical of UFC PPVs, but this one has more hyped bouts and it will only get worse. I suggest protecting it until August 1, three days after the event. Thanks.
Gsfelipe94 (
talk)
14:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
There were apparently near-simultaneous determinations here. Since Anarchyte's comment was posted before mine, I will defer to his judgement. I have therefore unprotected the page.
Biblio (
talk)
15:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending changes protection: spurious but constant efforts by IPs to associate this David Irving with
David Irving, the holocaust denier. See
[50],
[51],
[52],
[53]. Whether intentional or not, given the latter's reputation I think pending changes is warranted to avoid libel.
Lizard (
talk)
05:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:: Persistent vandalism. Semi-protection worked very well last time. But since it expired, IP/Users vandalism again.
A675974811 (
talk) 13:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC+8)
If it's fully protected then no one involved can edit it, which forces discussion. If it were semi'd then logged in users could continue to edit it, indicating that the protecting admin has somewhat sided with the logged in users. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)05:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Vandalism and BLP violations continued after previous protection period expired.
jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
14:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. @
Citobun: All of these look to be content disputes between you and various IP editors. Protecting these articles is unwarranted at the moment, and you should consider talking to them on the talk pages of the various hospital articles to try to come to a conclusion. Also, indefinite protection is almost never the first length of time of protection; we work up to indefinite following consecutive shorter periods of time. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)15:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I have tried to open a discussion, i.e. here:
User talk:203.145.95.1. The user kept at it despite my messages, so realistically I don't see what difference it would make to leave messages on all the hospital articles also. Secondly I am not the only user that has questioned IP's edits here. Citobun (
talk)
15:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Citobun: Would you be able to link the other user's attempts to contact the IPs? I can't see it on the talk page you've listed, or on the talk page of any of the hospital articles. I'm fine with reconsidering, and
Biblioworm has already protected one of them for 1 month. @
Oshwah and
KrakatoaKatie: what do you think? Anarchyte (
work |
talk)15:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Content dispute aside, just looking at the rate of editing on the article's history page shows that there definitely isn't enough persistent disruption (let alone edits) to justify protection of any kind here. There have been only 10 edits made to this article in the last three months - only two of which were made this month. I agree with
Anarchyte and his decision to decline this request. There may be other articles where this is a difference case and that protection is warranted, but this article isn't one of them and we don't protect articles preemptively.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)15:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Adding to my response: I do see that the IP mentioned in this report (203.145.95.1) also edited
Tuen Mun Hospital, an article that has been edited a significant number of times in the past week alone. I haven't looked into the edits in-depth yet nor have I determined if the article should be protected, but it is worth a look to see if it does.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)15:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
BTW, sorry to all for opening a slew of these in a row – I just noticed afterward that there is a procedure for nominating multiple articles at once. Citobun (
talk)
16:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined I don't see any recent persistent vandalism? I do see some made on July 11, but the edits made by anonymous users afterward seems to be good-faith changes.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)20:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Permanent full protection: Persistent edit wars,
vandalism,
disruptive editing, BLP violations, promotional editing and peacocktry. The article is being monitored by both hate blogs and fan blogs of Simms on Tumblr regarding her membership within Scientology and an altercation on a flight last year with her husband--the hate blogs want to keep the information on the grounds that she is an abuser, the fan blogs on the grounds that she is not. The article has has substantial conflict and I believe full protection is needed, especially if Tumblr is going to use it as a grounds for a fan war.
Syd Highwind (
talk)
00:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Among the "It's Everyday Bro" spam that continued and quickly dispersed after protection expired, other disruption occurred, more recently a series of test edits.
jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
23:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Full protection: A glance at the edit history and talk page will show that the current semiprotection is not enough to stop the edit-warring over whether she should be described as "Iranian", "Iranian-American", or some other way. I'm too involved to take action myself. She just died, so interest is high now, but that probably means that a few days will be enough to let this settle down. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
19:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of poorly sourced content and
unreliable charts by the same IP user who changes IPs at least four times a day. They were asked not to re-add them, then warned, and have continued restoring them. A quick look at the history over the last two days shows blocking one IP would not work. Ss11211:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed:BLP policy violations – A recent news story about an unrelated person of the same name (Minneapolis police) means that highly defamatory content is already appearing here. (see histories).
Andy Dingley (
talk)
19:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not seeing the vandalism from autoconfirmed users to justify EC. Can just block any that appear.
Courcelles (
talk)
19:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Benito Juárez(
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)Reduction in protection level: I recently translated part of this page to the Icelandic Wikipedia (
[54]), however I've been unable to link that page to the article in other languages due to its protection level. I request that either the protection level be reduced so I can link the page or that an admin links it.
TKSnaevarr (
talk)
23:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Looking at the Icelandic article, it seems to have now linked to 58 other language Wikipedias for this article. Maybe it just took time for the links to happen?
— Maile (
talk)
11:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I believe the admin above fixed it. When I had tried to link it to the other language versions I'd gotten a message that I didn't have permission because it was create-protected. Anyway, thanks, that's all I wanted to do.
TKSnaevarr (
talk)
17:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Page vandalized again just a few days after month-long protection removed. Suggest protection through the end of October to coincide with end of the 2017 MLB season.
TM13:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Flood of rumour. Previous 1 week protection on 29 May 2017 is insufficient, nearly a month and still rumoured to join Manchester United and still without any official confirmation, so still waiting.
Matthew_hktc15:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Indian President's election started today. This person is contesting as India's President. Please protect this page till the results are declared. . MarvellousSpider-Man17:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: A bunch of Indian universities continue being hit with cellphone number spam. MelanieN dealt with this before
[55] but she's on holiday ATM. Could someone please attend to the two named above? I'll then likely come bother that person once any of those pages currently still on semi come off protection (and are presuma bly hit again immediately). --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
14:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Frequently vandalized in an attempt to defame the institution, including changing the name to "Commission on Criminal Rights" and throughout the page.
Thehamsammich (
talk)
09:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Not yet. I agree that this article will probably soon see a high level of disruption, but it's not occurring at this time. Keep an eye on the article, and message me on my talk page if disruption begins to skyrocket - I'll be happy to jump on it and take another look.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)08:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: - Multiple IPs adding unsourced rape and other sexual accusations. May need to consider rev-del of recent edits as well. -
Arjayay (
talk)
11:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – This page has been created three times by the same autoconfirmed editor, meaning the current semi-protection won't actually prevent them from recreating it. .
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
20:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. If there were supposed to be multiple pages nominated I only see the one and I'm seeing nothing that would justify protection.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
02:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Just a move protection will do nothing, since there's no actual moving involved. This should be protected regularly and not just from moves.
SkyWarrior16:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Eh, maybe not yet. There are eight edits to the page and seven distinct editors; the amount of reverts total two, maybe three, all by different editors. I think this should be closed as no action taken, at least for now until (and if) more action happens.
SkyWarrior18:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – This page, and others but this is the most prominent work of theirs, will never not be a target for disruptive editing over the gender/sexual identity of the filmmakers. The persistent problem and its undoing account for probably 60-80% of all edits, this should be given an indefinite protection. Notes in the editing space are completely ineffectual in combating the changes to "Sisters" etc and the disruptive edits resume as soon as the temporary protection is lifted.
JesseRafe (
talk)
14:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – People keep adding that it's known as the 'so and so' shuffle. And the name keeps getting changed. Someone was reverting the addition, but then it ended up staying. And a substantial paragraph was also added. I think some protection would be warranted, considering the various IPs at work.
‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peadorᐁT₳LKᐃ15:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done Most of the edits on this article have been non-confirmed editors, IPs in particular. Many of those conflicting edits seem to be over specific details that only someone familiar with the subject matter could sort out what is (if any) vandalism, and what is constructive. Better to discuss this at the
WP:ANEW.
— Maile (
talk)
11:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Certain editors (under an IP) keep making disruptive edits. For example, changing things like 'at least 2,000' to '2,000+', and changing 'and' to '&'. There are many more. Persistently adding ordinals to dates is one. As they edit under IPs, it is difficult to warn them. I have tried with a couple. I must say, I suspect that it is the same person (or certainly the same group of people), as the edits are so similar. As it is, I have made sure the page is MoS-compliant. Somebody (maybe me, when I have enough time) needs to check the references. This will take an hour or two. Thank you.
Sb2001talk page13:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: I note with interest the many "undo" and "redo" on this page ever since the person in question expressed interest in running for President of Singapore. Could we semi-protect this for a week and wait for things to calm down a little?
Sue (
talk)
14:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Indefinite or for at least a month or two, as this has been going on for a good while, and I don't think that it will stop. In addition, there isn't really a good reason to edit this page at this point.
RileyBugz会話投稿記録14:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
HJ Mitchell: This may interest you. I've protected it for two months, but I assume that we're going to need to reinstate the indefinite again when the end of the two months rolls around. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)12:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: IP repeatedly re-adding copyright material, claiming he owns the copyright, and repeatedly removing the copyvio rev-del request -
Arjayay (
talk)
12:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Has now left the rev-del request, but the versions to be rev-delled are now incorrect as the page now includes the copyvio -
Arjayay (
talk)
12:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I have reverted to the non-copyvio version of the plot section, and left a message on the talk page. Anyone who claims to be the copyright holder needs to read that and contact Wikimedia on the links given therein.
— Maile (
talk)
14:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected The last person to give it a "soft" redirect is administrator
Tavix. The editor he reverted in a long time editor who recommended it for Speedy Deletion. This seems to be an ongoing edit war disputing the importance of whether or not it should be an article, or a definition in Wiktionary.
— Maile (
talk)
23:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
It had already been a soft redirect when I stopped by. I restored the page (incorrectly deleted as "vandalism") and declined the CSDs (redirects aren't articles, the A prefix doesn't apply). Perhaps it's time for an
WP:RFD though... --
Tavix(
talk)00:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and disruption. Especially after the success of the hit musical “Hamilton”, vandalism is persistent and it has resurfaced as soon as the previous protection has expired a few days ago, one of several attempts to protect this historical article.
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Repeated adding of same content. IP editor does not discuss on talk page where consensus has begun to emerge that the change is incorrect.
meamemg (
talk)
21:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: IP editor keeps changing to current businees at that location (I think), but can't leave edit warning because IP keeps changing. Please take a look. •
Sbmeirow •
Talk •
23:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: E! News reported a rumor that Mindy Kaling may be pregnant. There is no attributed source, and no confirmation from the actress or her representatives. Anon IPs predictably have been coming to the page to present the rumor as encyclopedic fact, in violation of
WP:TABLOID, and especially
WP:GOSSIP. This is a typical pattern when celebrity rumors surface. Requesting a week semi-protection for interest in the rumor to die down. --
Tenebrae (
talk)
22:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – As soon as the protection was lifted, there have been numerous vandalizing edits, whether intentional or accidental, there have been no edits that have actually lasted on this page since the protection was lifted, therefore this page should be protected again to avoid continued vandalism.
Wikipediauser123456 (
talk)
03:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – On monday night raw tonight it was revealed that Kurt angle has a son(kayfabe) who is Jason Jordan,since then in the past few mins,(
Kayfabe meaning fake or not real in wrestling ) there has been vandalism and disruptive editing on both pages. I will be doing a rpp on that page but on this one, I am asking that this page be semi protected for at least a few days, no more then a week, afterwords this should die down, thank you.
Nhajivandi (
talk)
02:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection and/or range blocking: Highly persistent IP editor engaging in long-term vandalism and fraud, including BLP issues. Haphazard short-term protection of individual articles in this group, and short-term blocks of individual IPs, have proven ineffective as a deterrent. These articles – along with the following articles (some of which are currently protected) – constitute a collective target: if any of them is left unprotected he will continue to vandalize it. Most of these are infrequently-edited articles where any negative side-effects of blocking this vandal's IP ranges and/or of indefinite protection from IP editing altogether, would be minimal.
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Recreated 4 times in the past 2 days - speedy deleted 4 times in the past 2 days. —
Chevvin00:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: After PC protection expired in October of last year, there have been reverts of edits, mostly vandalism and/or BLP violations. --
George Ho (
talk)
17:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Regular and long-term addition of promotional content, much of it from an IP registered to the company itself (under its old name). I have given the IP a final warning but I think protecting it from the temptation to add spam might be the kindest thing. If indefinite is overkill then I'd suggest a month or more.
DanielRigal (
talk)
18:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined This appears to be a single IP so protection is not warranted given the potential collateral damage. Additionally the IP has not editied since receiving a Final Warning. If they resume I suggest taking this to AIV or ANI.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
21:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Now that the film's being released, a wave of IP disruption has finally come. It'll only get worse, so the article needs to be protected. –
Cognissonance (
talk)
20:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I suspect that eventually the article will end up being protected, but I am seeing surprisingly little vandalism so far.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
21:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism has restarted after the page was last protected, mostly from an IP-hopper making the same edit over and over again. — QuasarG.10:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm not seeing an immediate need for EC. If semi isn't cutting it come back and we can up the protection.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
03:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Reports of a forthcoming trade have influenced several individuals to jump the gun in updating the page before anything has been officially announced.
Lepricavark (
talk)
22:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Not seeing enough for protection at this time. If the problem persists or escalates come back.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
22:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm not seeing a need for EC at this time given that the problematic editing looks to be mostly from IPs.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
01:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. None of the last 50 IP/new user edits have been kept, so short-term semi is better than PC (right now, anyway). Anarchyte (
work |
talk)03:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page has been the subject of redirect vandalism over the past few days. It appears like indefinite (or a long definite) might be in order since this is the fourth request.
Dolotta (
talk)
03:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Has been going on for a while, so I've given it a decently long protection. I don't think we need indef just yet, though it's nearing it. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)03:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Antonio Banderas, Adriano Celentano, and The X-Files
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. It seems that a few IPs (whom I suspect are actually the same person, given the pattern of editing and the fact that all the IPs are from Russia) are determined to add that both Banderas and Celentano appeared in various episodes of The X-Files, even though this is not the case. This has been going on for weeks now. Reaching out to the IP has done nothing; multiple messages requesting that these IP accounts stop have been ignored (e.g.
[58],
[59],
[60],
[61]). I was told to come here after appealing to
WP:AIV.--
Gen. Quon(Talk)20:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: I took a look at this but I'm afriad I lack enough knowledge of the subject to be able to figure out if there is a serious probelem with disruptive editing. So I'm going to leave this for a hopefully more informed admin.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
21:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Quick butt in note; its mostly disruptive that there is not consensus on what is being placed in the article and vise versa and thereafter what things are changing without reason, such as changing color codes and adding commentary text that isn't necessary or constructive to the boxes (since its an elimination show it technically follows
MOS:TV guidelines).
Adog104Talk to me00:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Discussion at
[62] is failing and descending into POV-pushing and edit war. The "my English is better"-card is already at the table.The Bannertalk15:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined One IP seems to be the main problem. They have not editied since being warned. Take it to WP:3RRN or just ping me if they resume and I will block them.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
18:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism relating to some kind of Twitter thing? I really don't know but a few users insist he died on Twitter yesterday (which is obviously ridiculous).
Trut-h-urts man (
T •
C)
19:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: This is a wikipedia contect, and it's unprotected, users can vadalise that and this contect not made for be edited by editors without admin permission and i just checked
HistoryWiae (Reverted 3 edits by Kaline01 (talk) to last revision by Ramaksoud2000. (TW)).
Builder8360 (
talk)
11:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection:WP:BLP violations. A persistent IP-hopping editor has continually tried to change the language of this BLP to a less flattering version without discussion. Considering how consistent this individual has been, I would prefer a relatively long-term semiprotection this time. Thanks. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
15:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: It's been six years since this page was protected, and in my opinion applying indefinite protection to a page that had never been protected for any reason before was a mistake. The article needs a lot of work, and opening it up to more editors could help spur those changes.
ZarosFlok (
talk)
07:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
@
JHunterJ: Pinging protecting admin. This was 6 years ago, so the requirements to protect pages may have been laxer. I agree that we should give it another shot, but it's up to the protecting admin. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)09:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent removal of sourced information by unknown IPs (and even insertion of unsourced info), which is followed by non-neutral POV comments in the edits summaries such as regime lies, propaganda, etc. Removal of sourced info has been canceled each time by editors Mr.User200, Editor abcdef and myself but they are continuing.
EkoGraf (
talk) 06:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
:Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection.
CambridgeBayWeather,
Uqaqtuq (talk),
Sunasuttuq10:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The edits are too spaced out and too few that I don't think semi-protection will be justified at this point in time.
Mz7 (
talk)
02:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: These pages were semi-protected indefinitely in 2011. There is only one protection log entry in each article. After six years, I believe it is worth another shot, especially since the protection reason was not for vandalism. The protecting admin is no longer an admin and has not edited in a month. —MRD201400:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – A user persists in adding a list of sources with bare mentions of this company so as to draw a picture of the company's positions. Explained on the Talk page.
Largoplazo (
talk)
19:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection - A persistent IP editor at 2602:306:3485:e0f0::/64 is repeatedly (since June 28) reverting the page to his version and ignoring other changes.
Power~enwiki (
talk)
21:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Anonymous users are inserting a clearly not neutral line (also not supported by the linked reference). It has happened twice already, after one revert. Likely spurred by recent political events.
50.1.84.80 (
talk)
14:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: New user constantly reverting sourced info. Certainly has good intentions, clearly a French citizen trying to get the film noticed as French, however many prominent publications don't support his claim.
TropicAces (
talk)
11:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAcesreply
Fully protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let's try to get this resolved at either the ANI report or the talk page by then.--
Slon02 (
talk)
20:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Anon IPs, including a dynamic-IP address, for days now have been reinserting 1,600-word plot synopses for this movie, more than twice the
WP:FILMPLOT length of 400 to 700 words, written in fannish, non-encyclopedic
WP:TONE, and have made uncited claims about the "true" writers of the movie.
This article already was
protected for one month from June 13 to July 13 for "Persistent disruptive editing and likely socking," and the disruptive editor(s) returned almost immediately after the month's protection was over, so perhaps a longer semi-protection would be appropriate? --
Tenebrae (
talk)
13:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Lil Pump(
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)Reduction in protection level: Request this page be unprotected. It says that it can only be done by an admin. Working on a draft now in my userspace -
User:DoubleuWW/Lil Pump - and subject is notable under
WP:NMUSIC. It appears that someone has also submitted a draft -
Draft:Lil Pump - however, that draft would need a substantial improvement to show notability which is why I started one from scratch. --
DoubleuWW (
talk)
08:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
At this point I still think it should be submitted through AFC, referencing the declines at the other draft. I wouldn't object to unprotection by another admin who works more specifically with music articles, though, so long as he's aware of the history of
the sockfarm promoting this person. —
Cryptic20:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Cryptic - Wow! I figured there was some drama with the page since it was protected but didn’t realize it went that far. I have done quite a bit of work on music pages so I am sure the topic meets
WP:NMUSIC but that doesn’t seem to be the issue here. Looks like creating the page would actually be assisting someone with promotion. If someone reviews the
draft I created and sends it to the mainspace, I will watchlist it and revert any promotional edits or
WP:FANCRUFT that gets introduced. If not, that is fine as I don’t want to create any issues or assist someone in promoting themselves. So, if consensus is not to move the page, you can blank the content in my sandbox as again, I don’t want to assist anyone with promotion. I will simply move on to editing another artist. Thanks for your time and sorry to step into this mess. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DoubleuWW (
talk •
contribs)
06:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
@
DoubleuWW: I believe
Cryptic is fine with unprotection as long as your draft (or any draft) gets accepted at
WP:AFC. When you think the draft is ready, hit the button that says "Submit your draft for review!" and then wait a bit. It'll be easier on all of us if we have confirmation from an uninvolved user who has fully analysed the article and agrees that it's ready for mainspace rather than unprotecting it now and having the possibility that the socks come back. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)08:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Roc Nation has been protected for this same reason - Jay Park has signed with Roc Nation. That much is true. But there are no details for what branch of the company he signed with. Including this information is "too soon" until we know something.
Kellymoat (
talk)
19:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruption presumably by former pupils, their friends and fans, adding numerous non-notable alumni. -
Arjayay (
talk)
16:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined The article is and has been semi-protected for many years. The problem was with a related template, and has been fixed. I'll protect the template. --
zzuuzz(talk)06:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Jay Park has signed with Roc Nation - that much is true. But no details were released, so there is no way to know what where or even if to add him to this page. Instead of an edit/revert situation, I request page protection for a short period. .
Kellymoat (
talk)
13:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Has been vandalized no fewer than 20 times since July 10 by IP/new accounts attempting to attribute the popularity of the mullet to a K-pop singer. No substantive contributions have been made to the page during this time. A previous 3-day protection was unsuccessful in deterring the vandal(s). —Laoris (
talk)
15:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed: Persistent
sockpuppetry – See page history: Throw-away user accounts adding and removing material in a way that makes it hard to see if there's one person behind it or if two people are fighting each other (some accounts have already been blocked and some not blocked yet but heading for a block, plus a steady stream of new accounts as the old ones get blocked...). - Tom |
Thomas.W talk16:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: – multi-IP/accounts persistently vandalising. Perhaps upping to semi for a short while should stop it?. —
72talk01:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Article suffers from multiple IPs (same person IP hopping I am sure) adding links to a future event that does not exist, repeated insertion and reversal.
MPJ-DK01:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Article suffers from multiple IPs (same person IP hopping I am sure) adding links to a future event that does not exist, repeated insertion and reversal.
MPJ-DK01:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. A short period of protection till he demits office on the 25th will help curtail the inaccurate information added consistently.
49.207.58.16 (
talk)
21:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP and sock accounts vandalism. Due to the recent suicide of
Chester Bennington, people are trolling this page today. IPs, socks and newly-registered users are doing that, erasing information and adding intentionally inaccurate info as well. It's time to protect this page again
Zoolver (
talk)
21:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Repeated IP vandalism. Same paragraph (President Trump dropping M-80s on Afghanistan) has been added 9 times by various IPs since April 23, 2017.
Dlthewave (
talk)
21:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Persistent trolling and intentionally inaccurate edits; I know this has been requested and denied before but it's really picked up in last 24 hours.
TropicAces (
talk)
21:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAcesreply
Temporary semi-protection: Consistent edit wars/disruptive editing in regards to her (non-existent) romantic relationship with another character. Efforts to just undo the edits have not been working and is almost always re-added shortly after. Almost all the revisions on the first page of the history is people adding this content and then it being undone over and over again. --
QueerFilmNerd (
talk)
19:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Pending changes protection is not working - there are currently 26 pending changes to be reviewed. All recent IP/new user edits have been disruptive/vandalism. Would be better to semiprotect indefinitely.
Dee0315:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Not yet. I do agree that disruption has picked up in the last few days, but lets wait until it's currently happening. Message me on my talk page when it does, and I'll protect.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)11:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Support this – this article has gotten a lot of bad editing for a long time. Now that PLL is over, PC protecting this for a while will hopefully cool things down for a while... --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
16:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – We have an IP hopping vandal with a grudge against the subject who has presumably been wound up by the recent publication of BBC salaries. I assume this will calm down after a short period of protection.
DanielRigal (
talk)
09:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The user with an assumed conflict of interest has not edited since being told to go to the talk page. If it picks up more heavily then maybe it'll be justified. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)03:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Very few edits ever occur on that page, and definitely not enough to warrant protection of any kind at this time. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)03:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection. Newly elected President of India - high visibility for at least the next few days, top of main page, and also suffering a lot of disruptive edits from IPs and unregistered users since the last protection expired. --
zzuuzz(talk)06:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I'd like to add my voice to this concern, too. Some of the individual users are quite active in their presumption, and delete their User talks, rather than heed the explanations/warnings.
JesseRafe (
talk)
20:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Done EC extended to both articles for 1 week. We may have to make the EC permanent on the new press secretary but let's see how 1 week works. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
20:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. I'm not seeing an out of control edit war. This looks more like your run of the mill, if perhaps a bit heated, content dispute. If it gets out of hand come back.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
16:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Oshwah I thought one of the edit warriors had been around for a while but apparently they are all new so I've downgraded the protection to semi for 1 week. DeniseJZ & Jessehr are almost certainly the same person. Kebawl may be a sock as well but I'm not sure of whom. I am leaning towards blocking the two fairly obvious ones and kicking Kebawl to check user. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
23:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Oshwah thanks! I didn't realize you were a check user. If you have the time and want to take a look at all three that would make me more comfortable before I open the trap door. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
23:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: All of the Europe's biggest football clubs, including Real Madrid, Barcelona, Man Utd, PSG, Arsenal, Juventus, etc. have had their Wikipedia pages protected, but Bayern's Wikipedia page is the execption even though the German club is one of the best in Europe. That means that anyone can vandalise the page and write some bad comments about the club at any minute. So, that's why I am requesting you folks to protect Bayern Munich's Wiki page indefinitely because doing so is very neccessary.
SuperBayern (
talk)
16:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Disruptive editing from unregistered IP users. Page about a newly released music album. Multiple IP users removing a negative review from an established publication to make reception section look more positive.
Dfnj123 (
talk)
20:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Long term ongoing disruptive editing. Two previous protections did not seem to give the desired hint.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
21:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Page is frequently in the pending changes queue and no constructive edits from non-autoconfirmed users have been made. DrStrausstalk14:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: IP users, possible SOCKs, are returning to the Talk page with their unsourced challenges to the concept and science behind umami. We have previously had persistent vandalism on this article and disruptive Talk discourse.
Zefr (
talk)
19:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I see there is already some discussion going on in the Talk page, so hopefully this will be resolved quickly.
Fvasconcellos (
t·
c)
16:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Regular mentions of rival games and how this one compares. Looking at the history of the article, this appears to be happening every few days and includes vandalism of parts including the infobox title.
Jrmswell (
talk)
14:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
This is a redirect page. The protection log indicates it was specifically protected because of a given situation at that time. What would be your reason for wanting it unprotected?
— Maile (
talk)
23:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – There hasn't been a single decent anon contribution to the list in years and they repeatedly mess about with it, adding unsourced, removing unsourced, altering the alphabetical order, changing the name to something that is not in the source. Etc. I've had enough: the thing falls under the scope of two sanctions regimes but they're useless against anons.
Sitush (
talk)
07:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit-warring/content dispute that should be resolved on the talk page rather than with an edit war.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
05:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Short-term semi-protection: Basically, addition of unsourced and poorly sourced content – a recent cast change to this TV series has led to a series of improper edits by IP's here. Once this news dies down, it'll probably be OK again – 2 to 3 days of semi-protect. should do the trick... --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
05:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: This is a long article can have new informations,I want unprotect article,and why Cholera was Permanent-Protected?.
Builder8360 (
talk)
11:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Since this station's name/slight format change last May, this page has seen numerous amounts of vandalism from a particular user (Robert L.Hill, to be precise) who insists on taking ownership of the page and is known to have constant vandalism all over. If possible, I would like to request a temporary semi-protection order to see if this will stop it. (
Alex jirgenstalk16:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined I do see a lot of editing from a few days ago, but it doesn't appear to be over a content dispute. Only one edit has been made since July 19. No need for protection at this time. If this changes, let me know and I'll take another look.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)19:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Article recently came off protection, and as soon as it did an IP editor immediately resumed the same disruptive editing that has gotten the article protected twice before. It's going to take even longer protection this time to get this editor to go off and do something else, I'm afraid... --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
16:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – An editor keeps introducing unsourced content, and refuses to abide by
WP:BRD. Please protect the page so that this can be thoroughly discussed.
RGloucester —
☎16:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I blocked the 2600... IP as well. I presume it was the same vandal, just switching between his computer and phone.
only (
talk)
20:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: A group of newly registered users seem to be having a political battle over
DUE and the candidate's history with regards to lobbying. Lots of reverts flying around at the moment. Seems like temporary semi-protection is the right move. --
EpochFail (
talk •
contribs)
20:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Although the IP has been blocked for 24 hours, it was only after I don't know how many reverts, and the IP refers to "we". I'm sure this will continue.
Doug Wellertalk16:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)reply
And now there's another IP address with the same reverts, virtually identical edit summary"2(Reference at page 1 doesn't mention what you trying to put).
[77] Which is just plain wrong.
Doug Wellertalk16:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Pinging responsible admin @
HJ Mitchell: Hi, you've restricted this template to autoconfirmed edits seven years ago. I've so far used edit requests to make changes to the page, but I don't think this edit restriction is necessary. According to
toollabs:templatecount, the template is transcluded from (only) 315 pages. The restriction to autoconfirmed users was set indefinitely without prior restrictions. This template also doesn't have any intricate syntax, but it's a wrapper around {{
Navbox}}.
2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (
talk)
16:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
(Non-administrator comment) I don't see a point in removing protection from a template where vandals can easily add fake licenses or blank the template. Even though it's only transcluded in less than 500 pages, it's still prone to vandalism as it's transcluded on several already highly viewed articles.
jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
21:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – persistent vandalism in the history log I dont know if it should be tempory or indefinite through as it has a long history of vandalism
protection seems to work but when it expires the vandalism comes back. Flow 234 (Nina)talk10:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Repeated unsourced death claims on a BLP. No sources have corroborated any claims about the subject, especially on gaming fan sites to which she is likely to be featured in.
Blake Gripling (
talk)
03:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Semi has been done 3 or 4 times, but vandalism ensues quickly upon expiration of protection. Thanks
Antonioatrylia (
talk)
02:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. The page had previously been protected (~2 weeks ago), but once the protection was removed, the vandalism started right back up. To make matters worse, some of the IP editors are getting belligerent (
example).--
Gen. Quon(Talk)22:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Numerous IP vandalism edits and other unconstructive edits. Apparently, no one is watching this article, as some of this vandalism has gone unnoticed for a while already. --
1990'sguy (
talk)
22:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotected (well, lowered to SPP) – This NFOOTY claim appears legitimate and the unprotection request comes from a veteran editor and AfC reviewer so I'm comfortable accepting this. Unprotection doesn't preclude later AfD. Ben – Salvidrim! ·
✉22:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – An abusive slang from
Hindi language was added in place of the title at Infobox, as I understand Hindi I removed the slang (You can verify it using translators). It seemed an auto confirmed user who doesn't understands the Hindi language accepted that edit. AnoptimistixLet's Talk12:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending changes protection: The page isn't edited a lot but the vandalism and BLP violations are quite apparent from looking at the page history. Protections have been previously applied but there's still a noticeable number of issues.
Eventhorizon51(
talk)13:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Edited about 2 times per month, overall. Way beyond the level even for pending-changes protection.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: For this to be a DAB/surname page. Also I think the fact that it's been almost 9 years since the vandalism here means there's likely little threat to it.
Nohomersryan (
talk)
06:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Yeah, long overdue. Not sure why I made it indef back then - I wouldn't do the same today. It's now unprotected. --
Ed (
Edgar181)
12:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Sidenote: Reviewed the contribs, doesn't the protection sound a bit excessive when the vandal was actually retracting his vindictive post at its latest?
88.208.35.30 (
talk)
18:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. IPs continuously WP:CRYSTALBALLING commentator pairings for the 2017 season. I put a note on both pages to wait UNTIL CBS and Fox OFFICIALLY announces the broadcast teams.
ACMEDeputy (
talk)
02:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined There are many anonymous edits, and while these are not sourced, most of them are not disruptive or vio. I am in favor of leaving the article open for editing. Malinaccier (
talk)04:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: Nominator is referring to
RedOnion1634 that I had blocked in error, and then unblocked as soon as the error became known. That editor has made a great many additions to this article in the last two days. However, those edits seem to be someone trying to improve the content, without providing much in the way of sourcing. Good-faith edits, but I'll leave it up to another admin to sort this out since I already did a block/unblock.— Maile (
talk)
20:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. Here's a
diff RedOnion1634 placed on this nominator's talk page, as to exactly what I was saying. This really needs to be decided at Dispute Resolution.
— Maile (
talk)
20:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The LGBT issue is now being stirred up by the Tweeter-in-chief, so no telling how long this will draw out, or how many articles it will affect.
— Maile (
talk)
19:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: High level of conflicting changes and IP-vandalism. This module was divided into two parts
Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map and
Module:Syrian Civil War overview map And now
Module:Syrian Civil War overview map not protected.
Mehmedsons (
talk) 10:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
You can just put Extended protection at this module bcause its part of the Module:Syrian Civil War detailed and which have a lot problems at past with high level of conflicting changes from the users without the extended confirmed access level and IP-vandalism. And one of this IP-users already made the first of conflicting change without any source
link. So please instal the same protection when module can be edit only by editors with the extended confirmed user access level also known as 30/500 protection. Is it extremely necessary!
Mehmedsons (
talk)
06:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Conflicting changes are *not* a reason for protection at all. I am not seeing IP vandalism either. Protection is a last resort, not the first thing to throw at any issue.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
11:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Pages are not protected preemptively. There's no requirement to protect everything related to the Syrian Civil War from what I can see (the article itself only features semi) (though I could be wrong, I don't read much into these matters). We need to see evidence of proper disruption or vandalism before protecting any pages. It's only got 12 transclusions at the current time. I'm not
Jo-Jo Eumerus, but I hope this answers your question adequately. Cheers, Anarchyte (
work |
talk)11:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I did see that the other module was protected. Thing is that a) that the other module was protected does not mean that this one also needs to, b) there is no indication of improper editing on this module and as Anarchyte said we do not protect pages pre-emptively and c) that the "detailed" module had problems in the past does not mean that these problems will propagate to the lower-level module. Also, while it's true that bad edits are a problem, "some people can't edit the page" also is as it retards updates and leaves errors around for longer.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
15:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Not a single person has edited this since 2012. UpsandDowns, I'm tired of issuing
WP:CIR warnings to you and cleaning up the messes you leave behind; if you make any more obviously stupid nominations like this, I'm going to block you. Lord knows you've had more warnings than someone as disruptive as you usually gets. ‑
Iridescent08:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – It was announced that
Jake Paul would be leaving the series on July 22. However, as this article covers the series as a whole, Jake Paul should still be listed as a cast member, even once all the remaining episodes starring him air per
WP:TVCAST. IPs are persistently removing him, and the article was already protected once due to this.
Amaury (
talk |
contribs)
14:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continuous IP disruption of the article adding false gross amount and changing ranking. —
IB[
Poke ]04:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Very little editing has been done by IPs/new editors. There hasn't been enough disruptive activity recently to justify protecting it. Maybe if it becomes more frequent then it'll be warranted. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)10:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Long term PC-protection requested because of persistent "language warring" (Belgaum is a Marathi majority city in the Kannada-speaking state of Karnataka, and IPs and new users repeatedly change between Marathi and Kannada names, and equally repeatedly change the info about spoken languages etc...). - Tom |
Thomas.W talk12:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Dispute over whether a completely different entity (a Marvel comic imprint about music) must be merged into an effective record label currently operating under the same name. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent target of genre-warring from
MariaJaydHicky over the past few months; the page gets protected for a week and then the genre-warring resumes. They have used two IPs in the last hour to restore edits on both this article and another Nelly Furtado album,
Mi Plan. Blocking temporary IPs or the throwaway accounts they create will not work. Ss11222:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed or pending changes protection: Persistent COI and SPA activity.
Smartmatic has been using employees and proxies to whitewash and push POV in the article. New accounts and confirmed users have replaced blocked users and have made attempts to prevent COI/POV edits futile. I recommend extended confirmed protections for this reason, though pending changes protection may also be an option as long as the Smartmatic article is given some form of protection. --
ZiaLater (
talk)
09:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined, recent disruption is coming from one user, and sanctions should be sought against this user, not against the article.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
06:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Disputes over notability tags, relations to another division of Marvel that is connected in name only, etc. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This looks to be a group of bored schoolkids or a Reddit thread, so a day will hopefully be long enough for them to get bored. ‑
Iridescent08:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is probably breaching a policy of some kind or other, but in this instance I'm very reluctant to protect. Because this is a brand-new article on a subject with BLP considerations, I don't want to close off the main avenue by which people can correct errors (drive-by IPs generally aren't aware of talkpages). PC rather than SP means that IPs can still make legitimate changes but spam won't stick. I also note that this is a de facto BLP which is primarily sourced to the Daily Mail. ‑
Iridescent08:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Understood- thanks very much. Now let's see what we can do re. D.M. —
fortunavelut luna
Came here to request semi-protection of this article, as the edit warring parties are IPs (although they may well be socks, semi-protection would stop this) -
Arjayay (
talk)
18:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection but for longer period than previous protection period. Continuing attempts by IP(s) to make highly defamatory edits to this
WP:BLP, with no explanation and no attempt to discuss on article talk page.
Ghmyrtle (
talk)
07:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Protection: Page is under long-term removal of sourced content. Attempts to engage are futile they just create SPAs and IPs.
GreenC14:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Lectonar - almost all edit activity since May has been of the same slow motion deletion of the same content. Please look again. If this isn't "persistent" I don't know what is. --
GreenC23:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: A few days after the last PP expired, the same aggressive IP (173.xx) from June has returned to change sourced (and
recently agreed upon) content to suit their agenda, and is persistently edit warring over it. Last PP was about a month—needs to be longer to ward them off.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
01:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done. To protect against the removal of a PROD tag goes against the whole reason PROD exists. If the IP deems it notable then just take it to AFD which will continue even if they remove the tag. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)09:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – An person with a changing IP address is continuously inserting a self made notice on the top of the article, demanding that episodes be updated, and using SHOUTING edit summaries stating that if they don't update, THEY WILL BE BLOCKED INDEFINITELY.
My name isnotdave (
talk/
contribs)
12:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
This is a good example of why this page has a running backlog of reports. This was filed here after only two edits had been made today by another registered editor. No disruption, just the ongoing updating of a current event. Unless the request is for preemptive protection- which is unnecessarily restrictive. —
fortunavelut luna08:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Lectonar: It's not just one IP. 7 different IPs in the last week have been reverted immediately. With the exception of one, all want to change the result of the battle.--
Cpt.a.haddock (
talk) (please ping when replying)
09:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Nawaz Sharif has been ousted from the office of Prime Ministership. I suggest we should apply pending changes protection on his page.
Saqib (
talk)
10:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Done I'm not sure why I put on semi overlapping the PC, but I've set it back to be just the PC for now. We'll have to wait and see if semi is still needed.Anarchyte (
work |
talk)10:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi protection persistent addition of same unsourced information on this article plus removing existing information. IPs continue to re-instate Philippine Airlines stating that they "want" the airline to come to Chicago providing no source and no confirmation that they will serve the airport.
97.85.118.142 (
talk)
06:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism –
The Bhar Historian (
talk·contribs) has just been indef'd for their efforts here and so the present anon(s) editing may well be block evasion, Whatever, they're making a mess of things -
WP:V, disruptive changes to the hatnote etc - and it is not just me who has been reverting them. The same applies to a lesser degree at the
Rajbhar article, which may or may not be synonymous.
Sitush (
talk)
03:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:
Edit-warring vandal with highly-mobile IP address. Multiple edits per day to undo sourced material and replace with OR and SYNTH. Page has been protected numerous times in the past and as soon as the latest protection was lifted (was for 4 months) the vandalism returned every day.
JesseRafe (
talk)
21:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Since at least June 10 going up to just a few hours ago, anon IPs, including a couple of similar-looking numbers, have been making non-constructive,
WP:NOTCENSORED-violative edits affecting
WP:BLP. Editors including myself,
User:KH-1here and elsewhere and
User:Dimadickhere and elsewhere have been restoring the article, but after more than a month-and-a-half of this, protection appears warranted. --
Tenebrae (
talk)
00:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP's constantly changing the sidebar at the top of the page (especially over the last 24 hours) to say housemates have been evicted, have won or are finalists when the final isn't until Friday. They're simply guessing or putting what they want the result to be.
ThisIsDanny (
talk)
13:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – One stubborn editor with an always changing IP address insists on removing sourced content from this page, and directing editors to their own personal interpretation of a State statute which contradicts the facts as it is seemingly not enforced per the IP's reading, given the mentioned sourced content already on the page. This dispute has been the source of almost every edit for over a year, and page has only been quiet when PP is on. Last one was for four months and since it expired the disruption has been daily, requesting indefinite. This isn't a hot-button page and is in general relatively static, so indefinite PP wouldn't be that impactful to GF new editors who can also always request changes on the Talk. The page is watched because of this vandal, so their requests will likely be answered promptly.
JesseRafe (
talk)
14:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Just a suggestion,
JesseRafe - Notability seems quite thin. Why not just merge it to the university's article and be done with it? I think I have encountered the guy that is disrupting before on another very marginal New York law enforcement agency and that solution worked there. NYPD is notable, the vast majority of other law enforcement agencies, not so much. His additions seem very "police buff" oriented. Not remembering the specific article I am referencing, sorry.
John from Idegon (
talk)
20:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
It still needs protection, regardless, we can't block this individual, and he'd target the new page as well. Protection was granted multiple times in the past, why is this request not addressed? Four months was granted because of the persistence of this IP, how about a year this time?
JesseRafe (
talk)
21:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – various IPs making strikingly similar alterations by damaging the formatting or adding nonsense and unhelpful clauses, along with deliberately misleading edit summaries. There have also been tendentious and confrontational edits by other editors over unnecessary and misleading material (e.g. Tupac Shakur, Nazism, etc).
Cpaaoi (
talk)
14:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi protect 1 year: It looks like this page is being vandalized due to people thinking the series has ended. Administrators don't want the end date on there until a year from now, which is why I requested a 1 year length. Rabbids and Breadwinners are protected due to this reason right now, and Bella and the Bulldogs went through it as well.
68.224.116.208 (
talk)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Name keeps getting changed to "Aaron Rogers", likely to be people imitating the Tom Brady / Jets issue that was in the news lately.
Kbseah (
talk)
21:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Removal of pending changes: This article was indefinitely semi-protected in March, but the pending changes protection was not removed. This article no longer needs pending changes with the indefinite semi-protection, as all edits will be automatically accepted and there will be no need to review any edits. I have already asked the protecting admin, who has not responded. —MRD2014Talk •
Edits16:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined Semi-protection would do nothing here, the parties are all autoconfirmed. I don't think you want full-protection just yet, but that is certainly an option if the edit-warring continue
Vanamonde (
talk)
09:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Upgrade sought from previous temp-semi (now lapsed); sporadic IP vandalism has resumed, and, given that this event is likely to result in a protracted court case with a potentially politically-incendiary outcome, don't think another few days or even a month is going to curb the hit-n-runs.--
Froglich (
talk)
07:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: The ARBPIA protection is completely unnecessary. The country of Jordan is older than the Arab-Israeli conflict. The most obvious reason for its unnecessity, is that the page never endured any type of vandalism or conflict in relation to the conflict. The enforcing admin refused to lift the protection when I asked him to a few months ago.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
20:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Maile66: Must be easy to throw away a responsibility. Tell me is it so hard for you to decide? Egypt and Syria both were major participants. Heck, United States was a major player. This is frustrating.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
22:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Makeandtoss: I've unprotected it. Not entirely because of your requests. But I have reservations about how ARB allows indef protection just for the asking. So ... here's my gift to you and Jordan. Unprotection. Enjoy.
— Maile (
talk)
22:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Maile66: I am almost the only Wiki user active on Jordan related topics. So it was almost as if Jordan was an article from makeandtoss.wiki.org, now people can challenge what I add. I hope what you said was sincere, and not just to get over this. But thank you for your patience and kindness.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
22:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: Yo ho there, yourself, Cyberbot. The article is unprotected for editing, but the pre-existing move protection placed on it by
Materialscientist in October 2016 remains in place. No request has been made to remove the move protection.
— Maile (
talk)
00:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – 8 different IPs have edited this page in the last week and been reverted. 2-week protection did not work in June. Longer term requested. (FWIW, RPP request was denied about 12 hours ago.).
Cpt.a.haddock (
talk) (please ping when replying)
19:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing –
Bhar was semi-protected yesterday after a report here that mentioned the issues of disruptive editing were spilling over to the
Rajbhar article. I suppose it was inevitable that it would escalate when the anons etc could not touch the Bhar article - it has.
Sitush (
talk)
06:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Template is only transcluded on 1 page. I've already gone to
Materialscientist's talk page to request unprotection, with no response after at least an hour.
jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
19:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn. Fulfilling this request would require unprotecting the other periodic table templates, which is not something we should do.
jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
22:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. References and maintenance templates repeatedly removed. IP editor also deleting discussions on article talk page.
DynaGirl (
talk)
14:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism by several users; possibly the same user under more that one user name or IP, reaches 4 warnings then starts same vandalism under another name. "Full protection" requested in the alternative if needed due to adoption of user names by vandal.
Donner60 (
talk)
04:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I suggest fully protection for a few days. earlier today semi protection was removed because it was not useful either. --
Saqib (
talk)
14:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Anonymous editors are repeatedly changing the subject's pronouns to they/them, despite an edit comment referring to the talk page discussion citing Stenberg explicitly asking to keep being referred to with she/her pronouns. If this pronoun choice has since changed, none of these editors has cited a newer source.
Funcrunch (
talk)
15:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I request that this article be placed on semi protection for an indefinite time as it is subject to vandalism on a regular basis. This can be confirmed by viewing the page history. The page has been protected previously too but the protection was removed or expired, and the frequent IP vandalism is back again. The protection is extremely important. Mar4d (
talk)
16:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It hasn't been protected since March 2016, it seems. It had a short pending changes period in November.
Enigmamsg19:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:This is a Google Doodle for today. It is regarding an event significant in the history of African Americans. Unproductive edits are being made, not in good faith..
Haxwell (
talk)
16:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Editors (perhaps hired) have been repeatably re-creating this article. (It's been deleted five times thus far). I think it's time we prevent further re-creations. Chris Troutman (
talk)20:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
It should be hold with permanent lock. because of long lasting vandalism.A battlefield with original data and wild actions (the last one from Hungary IP 84....).Thanks.
Benniejets (
talk)
16:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Vandalism and original research in this article are impressive.It should be immeditely locked.The last vandal is 84.1.175.16 from Hungary.He shlould be
User talk:Galgah from Budapest area.Thanks again.
Benniejets (
talk)
16:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
Samsara17:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes Cyberbot, and if it hadn't been denied a few days ago, it would've prevented the subsequent vandalism and I wouldn't have to be typing this now. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
17:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Can we please give this poor article and its watchers a break? "*Angelina Lewis as Roxanne Atreides" just isn't that funny any more ...
DBaK (
talk)
08:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Not done We usually look for two recreations. This has only been recreated once and the last time it was deleted was in December of 2016. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)03:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Very peripherally related paper ref (unsuitable for article in general, and for chosen statement in particular) repeatedly inserted into multiple genetics artciles by changing IP (apparently author). Short semi might be useful. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
01:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: Person has been announced as interim Prime Minister today, so would request protection till his announcement cools down.
Sherenk1 (
talk)
14:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: Is going to be the next Prime Minister of Pakistan (in 45 days). Can see some disruptive editing from now.
Sherenk1 (
talk)
14:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – 129.32.224.73 it's vandalising from some reason Director Johnson McKelvy, and seem they war on this place (Like a battlefield).
Builder8360 (
talk)
15:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There haven't been any edits to this article since November 2016. The IP you list has not edited on this article since September 2016, or anywhere on Wikipedia since November 2016.
— Maile (
talk)
17:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Trut-h-urts man: For future reports, it helps if you give an idea of the length of the trading window, which I understand is how these things usually work. I've given ten days, but you can ask for unprotection if the rumour becomes news.
Samsara19:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Will do in the future. Usually on deadline day, the trades are confirmed by the end of the day. Can't say for sure but in the future 1-3 days max would be appropriate in my opinion.
Trut-h-urts man (
T •
C)
19:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: This is not a template, should not be template protected. Either semi or full protection, but not template protection.
Ups and
Downs (
↕)
16:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Not sure whether this qualifies exactly, but a dynamic IPv6 has been adding blank rows to the table of entries in this article (as in putting the date of the chart ahead of an announced #1 song - but obviously not providing the song in their edit ...
example) ... has been doing that for weeks and it's clearly annoying. There also has been some random vandalism like
[83] but that seems to be spread out. Articles for previous years have been semiprotected in the past
20152014 because of vandalism issues that carry over from year to year. Don't know if semiprotection or pending changes is the better call here, but in either case, this being put under protection for more than a week would be preferred, based on the first problem I addressed (the addition of blank rows - note: the Billboard charts are updated weekly).
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
17:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: An editor/editors with a dynamic IP has been continuously blanking required references from the page with no explanation to the point of disruption. It would not work to block them as they appear not to edit on one static IP more than once. Ss11215:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)reply
This is a redirect that is move protected, nothing else. There's been no vandalism in the last decade, because it's been protected. Why do you want a redirect unprotected? My understanding is that redirects are prime targets for vandalism.
— Maile (
talk)
18:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Maile66: To my understanding it's got both full edit and move protection, and from what I can see it's never actually been moved (besides the 2002 edit). It was indef-protected after a (now blocked) user continuously POV-forked the main article. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)06:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
This is another redirect that has been move protected, and nothing else. See above. Redirects are prime targets for vandalism.
— Maile (
talk)
18:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Maile66: It's got full edit protection and full move protection. I don't think either is necessary (it was protected soon after it was created), so IMO we should give unrpotection a go and if it does get vandalised then the protection can be reinstated. Up to you, though. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)06:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
The accusation of vandalism is a lie. This article has been 11 years without an infobox, and a small clque are edit warring to put one in. They are trying to drive people off the talk page too. It's disgraceful behavior. The scare language of "anon IP who is address-hopping" is a bit of a joke. I give away more information in an IP address than the anon-pseudonyms. The different IP addresses are all me (I am hiding nothing), but my mobile phone company mixes them around regularly
213.205.198.162 (
talk)
22:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
So far, this editor has been posting disruptive edits and tendentious arguments at the talk page. All save one of these IP addresses contain previous warnings for disruptive behavior at other articles. The editor is on the cusp of a 3RR violation if one notes that there are different IP addresses being used.
Montanabw(talk)22:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
None of the blocks were for me, as I have already explained. The IPs are a large mobile phone company. This Montanabw has edit warred and lied. Other editors, notably the Ghnome, have baited, and none of them have yet addressed the question of their proposed addition. Nothing at all, just finger-pointing at an IP and baiting of Coile and Kavya Liz. The behavior of these infobox people is shocking
213.205.198.162 (
talk)
22:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
strongly oppose No, the founding principles do not prohibit modifying such a list and do not recognize the principle of freezing such pages. It is not a vandalism. --
Panam2014 (
talk)
16:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Again, what you're saying makes absolutely no sense. It is not because an article is labeled that it can no longer be modified. We must stop a bit of inventing rules and appropriating the article. --
Panam2014 (
talk)
19:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
This discussion will come to end when there is a
third opinion. 20:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I have looked at everything and nothing prohibits editing a labelized article. Thank you for stopping to invent rules and make obstruction. --
Panam2014 (
talk)
20:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed:Arbitration enforcement – I see no reason why it should be fully protected: ArbCom hasn't specifically imposed it (although it is subject to discretionary sanctions). I'd like to do a bit of work on it myself as well. DrStrausstalk17:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't think the article subject is close enough to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to justify ARBPIA protection, I only count one sentence which discusses the conflict. Hut 8.518:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Long-term Semi-protection: This page has been the subject of IP vandalism that has gone on for months now. Given the edits that are made, I speculate that the IPs are really just one zealous editor who continuously and without reason makes massive changes to the page. A look through the
page's history shows what I'm talking about. Almost all of the IP accounts have been warned, but the vandalism continues, unabated. Temporary protection does nothing to dissuade this editor.--
Gen. Quon(Talk)19:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Long-term Semi-protection: High level of IP or the first editor's disruptive edits without responding to the on going discussion.――
Phoenix7777 (
talk)
20:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: A rapid series of continuing reverts. I could not quite tell if it is vandalism or some sort of a BLP dispute, but in any case temporary semi-protection seems to be in order.
Nsk92 (
talk)
23:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of poorly sourced, POV-laden content by unregistered user. Also see
Linda Fairstein and now, apparently
Ben Stein. Pretty clear WP:NOTHERE if the protecting admin wants to address that, but not reporting elsewhere as there haven't been the multiple warnings yet. — Rhododendritestalk \\
20:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)reply