Declined –
Warn the user appropriately then report them to
AIV or
ANI if they continue. Talk pages are usually only protected if there is extreme disruption from multiple accounts to maximize the ability for people to contribute thoughts. Looks like there's only one IP being cantankerous; an individual sanction (like a block) would work best if this continues.
Airplaneman ✈03:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: For some reason that I can't quite fathom this article has been a victim of edits messing with the format and content for a day now. Maybe some school class received him as a assignment.
MarnetteD|
Talk05:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of vandalism today (8/9 Feb) with anti-Israel messages, from two IP addresses and one registered user, Samarkanafani. The contest will be televised internationally on 18 May, held in Israel – vandalism might increase around then.
Demokra (
talk)
03:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: Repeated removal of tag by an IP. I believe this IP is
Bigcurl254 as that username was created when an IP doing major edits wanted to upload photos and was required to create an account, and that they've since been automatically logged out and haven't been forced to log in since to see that we've been leaving messages on talk pages. Semi-protection will force them to log in, which I hope will mean they'll see their pings and messages. Requesting a week, as this editor edits only sporadically.
valereee (
talk)
10:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
No worries, thanks anyway! If the IP continues to revert, I'll go ask for a temporary block! I'm actually supposed to go to lunch there next week and may be able to see if it's an employee doing the editing.
valereee (
talk)
18:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: An IP editor has repeatedly inserted a photo that some of us think isn't appropriate. A discussion has started on the talk page, and the IP has been blocked for edit warring, but an editor from a different IP identifier has started inserting the photo again. Requesting page protection to stop the IP editor(s). PKT(alk)14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
User:Jingiby is making threats and reverting plain facts with no reason given. Look at the article's history. He/She is the one who started edit-warring several days ago, with no apparent reason. He/she, in a clear example of
Wikipedia: I just don't like it is preventing other Users from stating plain facts (e.g. where the person in the article was born). He/she is behaving as if the article is his/her property; not a very constructive or consensus-seeking behavior. Also note that
User:Jingiby has been blocked from editing many times by administrators, as you can see in his block log, for reasons such as "nationalist trolling".
2A02:214C:8023:FA00:CDEB:38C8:93C4:3A71 (
talk)
17:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Disruptive editing started immediately after semi-protection expired. Although there are now discussions at both BLPN and COIN, there is yet to be a discussion on the article's talk page about the contested content. wumbolo^^^20:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Repeated high level of IP (172.11.189.45) and user vandalism (from users Certificationsaccess, Dagicle, and more).
Horizonlove (
talk)
22:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Repeated high level of IP (172.11.189.45) and user vandalism (from users Certificationsaccess, Dagicle, and more).
Horizonlove (
talk)
22:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined When the problem is with a single user, we prefer to deal with that user rather than protect the page. I have issued them a final warning. If they do it again they should get a good long block since their block log shows a longstanding pattern of disruption.
MelanieN (
talk)
04:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Not a large problem, but an IP from the same region as the company's headquarters continues to "update" the article, removing references and adding none in return. Extended confirmation might also make sense here.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
00:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Almost no activity at the article for some time, also see your talk-page.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:vandalism – Subject of article is a living person currently in a large controversy in US media over a possible antisemitic remark, and this article about a living, controversial figure currently has no protections whatsoever. There is currently a large edit war happening on this page due to the controversy.
TheNavigatrr (
talk)
20:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Oshwah: Unfortunately, that range wasn't wide enough. The editor returned with different IPs and the 183.90.36.0/24 range has now been blocked too. However, these are all Singapore Starhub Mobile IPs, which are in a very wide range (183.90.32.0/21) so I think it's likely the user will still be able to return with new IPs unless the /21 range is blocked, but would cause plenty of collateral damage. I think page protection is a better option.
Deli nk (
talk)
13:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Deli nk - Damn... I knew that 183.90.32.0/21 was the range of the network, but I noticed that the disruption was only coming from the range 183.90.37.0/24. I thought that blocking the /24 range would fully contain the disruptive IP hopping; apparently it didn't. I've extended the block to 72 hours and for the IP range 183.90.32.0/21. Sorry that my initial didn't stop the problem... this block should be better.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)13:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: This is a page I request semi-protection for a few months back because of someone who appears to be from this ethnic group adding information that had A LOT of POV. It appears the protection went away in early December and that someone came back a few days ago (February 7) with a similar kind of editing as before, putting all kinds of irrelevant and biased/POV wording in the opening paragraphs of the page not at all consistent or standard for these kind of pages on wiki. First, the page needs to be protected and then it needs to be reverted back to the version prior to the semi-protection being removed. The problem editor seems to be one
Mlambo1975 who may or may not be
MmeliMoyo who was responsible for the last semi-protection being put into place.
Criticalthinker (
talk)
11:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protect (temporary but long term) Persistent vandalism from multiple IPs. Page was protected for same last November and disruption resumed as soon as it expired and seems to have continued right to today. -
wolf19:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary(6 months) pending-changes-protection: Repeated cycle of reverting and/or undoing vandal edits. The vandal edits are coming from unconfirmed accounts and IP vandals. Some of these pages were protected in the past at least once or more times, thus the 6 months suggestion. This trend can be seen going for a long time, sometimes as even as far as the last 500edits(or more) or since the last page protection expired on some of those pages(what ever is happened first). Being that these are article and disambiguation pages of names, they are also a prone target to vandalism. The pending-changes-protection is due to the fact that the vandalism is not extremely rapid.
Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (
talk)
23:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined –
Warn the user appropriately then report them to
AIV or
ANI if they continue. These pages were vandalized only once and haven't been edited for many days. We don't protect each article due to only one instance of vandalism; warn the users responsible, and if they repeatedly engage in disruption, report them to the proper noticeboard for action.Striking out~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)00:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The name pages get many edits from unconfirmed users and most are bad. If you go through them, you'll find over 75% of the non-autoconfirmed edits to such pages are unconstructive. It's not one instance of vandalism. It would probably be good policy to put indefinite pending changes on all the name disambiguation pages.
Enigmamsg00:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Oshwah: "These pages were vandalized only once and haven't been edited for many days."(Oshwah) And what is the purpose of Pending Changes page protection? It is not uncommon for pending changes to be used on pages that have low edit rate. Take a look at the history of
Jam (disambiguation),
Dong, or
Box for example. The fact that it only gets edited every 15-30 days is not the point. Every edit 15-30 days being vandalism and/or a (undo and/or a revert) is the problem. FYI I found these pages by looking at the history of other pages like
James and
Justin, and looking at the history of the editors that got their edits reverted. I am not even sure that admins are understanding the purpose of Pending-Changes. Take the page history of
Black for example. If that is considered worthy of pending-changes, then what is the use for regular-semiprotection? That page is indef pending changes, and gets a vandal edit almost everyday. Now look at the history of the page
White, it almost had the same vandalism rate as black, but the vandalism stopped after semi-protection. I am not arguing, I am just asking why is this pattern of revert-vandalism-revert-vandalism-revert not a valid reason for pending changes?
Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (
talk)
01:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't believe that this article fits into the being part of the Arab-Israeli conflict (even though someone tagged the talk page of the article indicating such). Going to leave open for input by other administrators.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)08:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined - A message has been left on the requesting account's user talk page regarding their recent requests here. I'm not going to accept the filing of any more arbitration enforcement extended confirmed protection requests from this user here until they've acknowledged that they've read through all of the relevant policy and guideline pages, or reasonable time has passed.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)11:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Note:@
Banana19208: Iirc, this came up before and was declined as being rather more tangentially related to the conflict. Has the article been subject to Palestine/Israel themed disruption? If so, that would clarify the situation in favour of the proposed protection.
Samsara17:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: Again, as with
judaism this is a topic much bigger and somewhat tangential to the PIA conflict. Has the page been subject to PIA themed disruption?
Samsara17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
As with the request above, I don't believe that this article is fully interpreted as being part of the Arab-Isreli Conflict and hence included in
the ArbCom case remedy. I'll leave this request open for more comments; please ping me when a decision is made here.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)21:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined - Not interpreted as being part of the
Arab-Israeli conflict. I've also left this user a message regarding their repeated protection requests for 30/500 and for Arbitration enforcement reasons (Arab-Israeli conflict); they've all been declined so far and it's becoming clear that the user needs to read and review policy first. I'm not going to accept the filing of any more arbitration enforcement extended confirmed protection requests from this user hereuntil they've indicated that they've read and understand relevant policy and guideline pages, or reasonable time has passed.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)08:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Everytime the article gets unprotected this bunch of IPs come around and starts disrupting the article. Enough is enough that I am forced to ask for indef now. . —
IB[
Poke ]10:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined - I don't see a reason to protect this page right now. There were two anonymous edits on January 31, and some edits by an IP user today that were reverted - that's it. This article has only been protected a few times and for very temporary durations. If the rate of disruption starts to pick up to where it's occurring multiple times per day, file another report and I'll be happy to take a look...
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection as shifting IP keeps changing beginning of future reign as emperor (in infobox) from April 30, 2019 to May 1, 2019. I can't seem to get the IP(s) to understand that Naruhito's future reign begins on April 30 (upon his father's abdication) & his future era begins on May 1, 2019.
GoodDay (
talk)
04:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protecton as shifting IP keeps changing beginning of tenure as empress-consort from April 30, 2019 to May 1, 2019. As mentioned 'above' Naruhito reign begins April 30, 2019, then his era on May 1, 2019.
GoodDay (
talk)
04:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined - It doesn't appear that all anonymous users editing this page are causing disruption. Warn those users and report them to the relevant noticeboards if the disruption becomes repeated.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)00:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: - IP vandalism straight after protection gone as usual. Please protect until after the contest is over in May.--
BabbaQ (
talk)
00:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Protecting the article from all anonymous and unconfirmed account edits until the end of May as the article's first protection duration is much too long; let's start at one week. After it expires, if the vandalism continues, file another report and we can extend the protection to be longer.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)00:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Semi-protection did not stop user from adding unsourced, tendentious information based heavily on rumours, personal interpretations of the situation and personal opinions on contestants.|Ps' Disruptive edits were made once again after my request was made.
Termo-status (
talk)
14:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: I was the one who implemented the current semi-protection, so I'd like someone else to decide if the semi is still adequate or if the article now needs extended-confirmed protection. (Full protection would surely be overkill.)
MelanieN (
talk)
00:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
MelanieN: I looked at this, and I believe it is User:Bedfrog who is inserting material not supported by RS, and moreover the material is controversial as it alleges malfaisance, naming specific living persons. A difficult situation as the rest of the article is extremely thinly referenced. Elevating to ECP could be an option if this continues, but policy suggests a block should be preferred as long as a single user is involved, which, as long as the semi persists, may continue to be the case. I have left Bedfrog a warning to this effect. Given that there is still heat in this situation, may I suggest the semi be prolonged? Best,
Samsara05:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Samsara and
Termo-status: The semi-protection does not help because the problem user is autoconfirmed. We could raise the protection level to extended confirmed, but I agree it's better to deal with the single user. They repeated their insertion despite your warning. I gave them a final warning. If they do it again, I may be offline, but any admin that sees it should block them. As for prolonging the semi, let's wait until it expires and see what happens. --
MelanieN (
talk)
15:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined I'm tagging this "declined" for the bot. We will deal with the user rather than increase the protection. I have the page on my watchlist - and Termo, let me know if they do it again.
MelanieN (
talk)
20:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Long-term semi-protection: The IP hopper is still a problem at this article. Went right back to it after the protection wore off. And the pending changes are not a help.
Flyer22 Reborn (
talk)
00:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I think pending changes protection is working fine for the time being. It can not completely stop disruptive editing, and this is not what it was designed for.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
11:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
This article does make extensive mention of the PIA conflict and therefore qualifies for the arbitration enforcement. Not to mention that it's a highly visible page.
Samsara17:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent violations of the
biographies of living persons policy. The main problem for some time has been changing Bhaskar's date of birth without providing any sources or using any logic, which always continues after short periods of semi-protection.
Politrukki (
talk)
13:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Half of the last sixteen edits to this page, over the last month, have involved the addition of a comment that the station has no service to Manchester Victoria; the other half were reversions of those eight by myself,
Keith D (
talk·contribs) and
Flooded with them hundreds (
talk·contribs). The station has no service to most of the other 2,500+ stations in the UK, so there is no need to single out one of them. It's probable that the seven IP users and one (recently) registered user,
Nellis1999 (
talk·contribs), are all the same person; it's possible that this person desires that a service be introduced, which would be against
WP:NOT. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
19:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Target of disruptive IP users Edit warring and changing content without updating sources or adding non-notable awards. —
IB[
Poke ]21:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Again IP craft has started with the Grammy Awards in full bloom. Can this page be semi-protected till end of February?. —
IB[
Poke ]22:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Huge parts of the page is being deleted, changed or vandalism is being added by mostly first time random ip users. This page needs to be protected.
Awardmaniac (
talk)
23:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
No edits in two years. No reverts ever other than one self-revert and a deprodding. Quite honestly, I rarely get to look at such quaint and peaceful edit histories.
Samsara22:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Doug Weller, who was on ArbCom at the time, has been editing this article and did not set it to ECP. There is a conflict over the lede, but the proposer of the deletion that has been reverted several times was already extended confirmed at the first time they made that edit.
Samsara22:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Its only needed if there are edits that violate the restriction. I think there was a decision not to pre-emptively protect articles until there was a demonstrated need to. nableezy -
22:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined - Not yet. The edits were disruptive, but they're not occurring at a rate where protection is needed at this time. If this changes and disruption is being made to the article at a high rate, file another report and we'll take a look.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)16:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Note:@
Banana19208: I believe it was in 2017 that we had someone step forward with a whole long list of these, and iirc we eventually just said no to them because they weren't actually cases in need of attention. I don't wish to discourage you from bringing cases where you actually see disruption, but then please help us a little bit by pointing out specific edits that were disruptive and had a PIA flavour to them. For instance, I earlier EC protected
Sinai Peninsula because it had
this recent edit, which to me suggests there is the kind of problem that the ArbCom decision is trying to address, and therefore it's in the spirit of that decree to raise the protection to extended confirmed. But I don't yet see that being the case for some other articles that have been nominated for the enforcement.
Samsara15:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined Due to the high number of extended confirmed requests for arbitration enforcement this user has made here that have been declined, I'm not going to accept the filing of any more until the user reads the appropriate policy and guideline pages and understands the remedies and their definitions first.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)16:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: Pretty sure we wouldn't ECP this, as the topic is much broader and with indef semi in place, there seems to be no further disruption. Again, my opinion could be changed if diffs of recent PIA-themed disruption above the current protection were shown. Overall, my impression is that PIA-themed disruption is quite well controlled at the moment.
Samsara15:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined - Due to the high number of extended confirmed requests for arbitration enforcement this user has made here that have been declined, I'm not going to accept the filing of any more until the user reads the appropriate policy and guideline pages and understands the remedies and their definitions first.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)16:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Elections in India are coming near, and this page is getting regular vandalism around these times. I have been reverting edits for the last 2 days.
Daiyusha (
talk)
18:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. These articles have had temporary semi-protection on them a few times but the need for indefinite semi-protection is needed. There are a few IP users going on to all of the article vandalizing them in the same way even after being warned.
Ohmyfifthharmony (
talk)
16:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: There have been persistent good faith/vandalism additions to the article, both in terms of moving it to
Accession of North Macedonia to NATO, replacing 'Macedonia' with 'North Macedonia', and adding a date for the ratification of the accession protocol by Greece despite there being consensus in the talk page to add it only after it has been deposited with the US government. There is currently an RfC being discussed to update
WP:NCMAC but ArbCom has stipulated that the current NCMAC is still in effect until that happens, and so the article should remain unchanged. I think a month's worth of semi-protection will resolve the issue of vandalism. --
Michail (
blah)
17:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Various IPs are constantly adding (contentious) which has previously been removed as per ocnsensus on the talkpage and at DRN, It would seem the IPs are using this as some sort of smear campaign... Anyway could I ask that this is protected for a full year , Thanks,. –
Davey2010Talk13:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I found the relevant edits, but it would still be helpful to have them submitted with the report. Especially at busy times, submissions could get declined if the disruption is not recent and/or immediately obvious.
Samsara15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated removal of negative content by different IPs. This has been going on for months already - note the previous protection
at the old title - so please consider a couple of months. .
SmartSE (
talk)
16:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Oshwah: My impression is that the user makes a new SPA each time they decide to edit the page. I've left a message on
J-Heart1's talk page before
Mat-West was created and made the same edits. Perhaps would adding the article to pending changes be more appropriate than adding a warning to each new SPA? I think that this is more mis-informed possessive editing combined with refusal to communicate, rather than vandalism. —
MarkH21 (
talk)
20:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I suspect so. But of course, I cannot conclusively say so. I figured that adding protection to the page would encourage / force the user(s) to engage in discussion without having to explicitly determine or accuse anyone of sock-puppetry. —
MarkH21 (
talk)
23:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The interactions make w feel a
WP:SPI report might be in order. Looks like a fan club or student group. The anon is out of U of L. I'd be happy to semi the thing. Maybe I'll give them a agf-sock notice.
Dlohcierekim(talk)00:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Lectonar:... this IP editor can't stopped that the reversions are good, basically the IP address got a final warning to engage a three-revert rule edit warring. This should be giving a matter of solution for a temporary semi-protection.
ApprenticeFanwork12:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Luke Stark 96: Hi Luke, I noticed that pending changes was enabled on this article and wanted to make sure you know what that does, as many users may not be aware of it. You can see that it's active by a different appearance of entries in the editing history - usually the "good" edits appear in blue. What it also means is that edits from IP and new users get held in a queue and will not be visible to the public until a more experienced user, like you or I, accepts them. So when pending changes is enabled, it doesn't matter whether you are online and revert the change immediately, you can just revert it when you next log in, and nothing bad will happen in the meantime. Does that help?
Samsara10:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Just yesterday, there were some edits from an IP that were apparently considered good, so for now:
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
Samsara10:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Last disruptive edit more than 1 week ago.
Lectonar (
talk)
12:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined When the problem is with a single user, we prefer to deal with that user rather than protect the page. I have issued them a final warning. If they do it again they should get a good long block since their block log shows a longstanding pattern of disruption.
MelanieN (
talk)
04:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Not a large problem, but an IP from the same region as the company's headquarters continues to "update" the article, removing references and adding none in return. Extended confirmation might also make sense here.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
00:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Almost no activity at the article for some time, also see your talk-page.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Unusually heavy spate of schoolboys adding themselves to the "notable alumni" list with qualifications like "Guitar Hero aficionado" and incomprehensible nonsense. Julietdeltalima(talk)19:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Created by an editor with undisclosed COI. The author not following the AfC process and not yet disclosed their connection with the subject.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em)
09:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Over the past ~4 months, all 24 edits to the article were either vandalism or reversions to vandalism, and the longer-term edit history is not much better. —
173.68.139.31 (
talk)
19:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Huge parts of the page is being deleted, changed or vandalism is being added by mostly first time random ip users. This page needs to be protected, it needs to be protected for a longer period of time than last ones, at least over a month.
Awardmaniac (
talk)
22:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Since US President Trump visited this venue on February 11th, it has seen persistent vandalism, with vandals not only modifying the venue capacity, but modifying its opening date, adding spurious details about the venue's history, adding SEO terms, and other vandalism, most coming from anonymous accounts. I have reverted most of these changes, but it's still being actively targeted. Please review and consider for temporary protection. .
AlexDitto23:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
You're right, that was the reason for the deprecation (I struck a little of my original comment). but because it's deprecated, it's still true that we don't need to make the +/- 75 edits to various talk pages that still use it. IMHO, of course; another admin may disagree and I'm happy to be overruled if I'm wrong. --
Floquenbeam (
talk)
20:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Recent spate of vandalism today from different editors - must be time for HeLa/Henrietta Lacks to be covered in some schoolchildren's educational courses...
Shearonink (
talk)
22:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism and reverts by different users over the years disputing consensus versions of the article.
An edit war is brewing. Currently there is a request for comment about censorship in the talk page:
/info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad I suspect there will be an impending edit war soon given the history of the article and predisposition to requiring admin intervention and bans to prevent revert wars many times before. Can a mod please protect it from edits. --
Misconceptions2 (
talk)
13:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. Applying semi-protection would have no effect on the accounts involved with the recent back-and-forth reverting, as they are all accounts that are confirmed. If edit warring starts to begin, file a report at
AN3.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)16:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: For the past ten days or so, an IP-hopping editor has been persistently adding unsourced material in an apparent memorializing effort; the edits are unproductive as they add OR and/or remove sources. Article recently kept after Afd.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
16:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Full protection Readdition of challenged negative BLP that is now under discussion at
WP:BLPN. Challenged material has again been removed and should not be added back until the matter is resolved.
Dlohcierekim(talk)16:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The page is has been attracting more attention than usual from multiple IPs for the last few days - could we raise protection level to semi for a bit in the hope that it dies down?.
GirthSummit (blether)15:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite template protection:High-risk template – Template is used in infoboxes to state whether the number of staff/faculty is "on an FTE basis". 269 transclusions at present but likely to increase as the data is added to schools.
Steven (Editor) (
talk)
00:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Ymblanter, can we try ECP first? I do not think it should be template-protected because it is just transcluded in 561 pages. If it is still not effective, then template-protected. The only unconstructive edit is edited by a non-EC editor
Hhkohh (
talk)
09:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Hhkohh,
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Protection of templates, which is a policy, does not mention extended conformed protection of templates, and my understanding of the spirit of the policy is that the extended confirmed protection was introduced for articles. I will not object any administrator overruling me and reducing protection to extended confirmed, and I will welcome any clarification of the policy, but I would not be willing to go against the policy unless absolutely necessary.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
10:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
To concentrate on the template this was requested for....after looking through the editing-history: that was one instance of blanking by a rather new-user, which might easily be ascribed to being new. Tbh, I don't see the need for protection for this template at all, but if it is protected, I would go for template-protection. And he actually reverted himself in less than 5 min.
Lectonar (
talk)
10:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I am usually lenient on templates because damage can be too high, but we can also go back to semi (leaving it completely unprotected would probably not be safe).--
Ymblanter (
talk)
10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Current governor candidate for upcoming elections. Disruptive editing and multiple rollbacks based on sentimental opinion. Please put semi protection for the next two months. . Eightnisan 10:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – People are trying to declare the rover dead before NASA's official statement. Requesting a fer hours worth of page protection.
CroGamer 1 (
talk)
18:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: As a public figure, Julia Wolfe needs to be able to maintain some controls over how her current and past history is curated. Editors on her Wikipedia page create incorrect edits and generally give Julia's history an air that she would prefer to be able to alter, but (of course) given the nature of Wikipedia, without protecting her page she is unable to maintain her edits or control edits by others. Please let us know how we can restrict editing of her page to certain individuals.
Redpoppymusic (
talk)
21:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Pinging @
Bearcat:, the protecting admin. This was protected as a repeatedly-recreated article that had been deleted back in 2016 via AFD (
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca Padovan). The actor may be more notable now, I suggest you consider drafting an article in your sandbox etc. If you want it to be a redirect you'd need to suggest to where a redirect should point. Fish+
Karate10:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The target was
You (TV series), so I've created the redirect. However, in light of the fact that it was repeatedly recreated as an unsourced article on the basis of his having had one supporting role in a stage musical, the protection is still in place in the meantime. Fish+karate is correct that this does not preclude him ever being allowed to have a Wikipedia article — if you (or somebody else) wants to take a stab at writing a new article which makes a stronger claim of notability and
reliably sources it better, you're welcome to try that in draftspace. That said, just a reminder that NACTOR is not automatically passed just because an actor has an IMDB page which verifies that he's had roles, the way a lot of people on here seem to think — it still requires evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Continuation of disruptive editing that led to the previous semiprotection. Constant removal of a character's description and an episode containing this character's name. A very significant period of semiprotection (longer than the last one) appears necessary.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
01:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Article about a controversial former Micronesian president, a few IPs are repeatedly reinserting ramblings about his inheritance rights, racism speculations, and some original research about incest. See
this talk page thread for a more detailed explanation. –
Þjarkur(talk)23:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Sorry, when I encountered this page I wasn't aware that the country had been renamed, so it looked like a flare-up of the tenision what have previously existed over that country's name. Hence the protection.
I will now unprotect it ... but I do urge all involved to stop rushing at this. It would be much better to establish a consensus on how to proceed. There is discussion underway at
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC about an RFC, I urge all involved to get that RFC going.
There is no inappropriate haste, there is a concerted effort by various editors to bring various pages in line with both the consensus to move the country page to
North Macedonia and the reality on the ground that the naming dispute is over and we can all call the country by its agreed name.
Legacypac (
talk)
17:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Eight minutes after temporary protection was removed, IP began vandalising again. Seems something a bit longer might be needed.
Kingsif (
talk)
18:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Repeated attempts to add that the artist is Grammy award winning to the first sentence of the article by IP editors. This is not done per
WP: PUFF. You'll notice articles like
Beyonce do not lead with "Grammy award winning". StaticVapormessage me!21:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
STATicVapor: Though that may be the case, I think it'd be appropriate to mention the Grammy somewhere in the lead (like Beyonce's article). I personally don't see a need to protect the page for this reason, just a need to mention the Grammy somewhere in the lead (but not the first sentence).
Airplaneman ✈21:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
yes the template not the talkpage. I've updated the request. I was on the talkpage when I made the request evidently and that caused a misfire. Sorry. I want to move it and add the word North.
Legacypac (
talk)
07:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Not even a full week has passed since the article went unprotected, and vandals are back at it for some more. Suggest protection duration for at least one month. .
Sk8erPrince (
talk)
09:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
While page protection, by policy, is to be used in a reactive measure and to stop disruption that's currently in progress and occurring at a rate that justifies its application, there are rare situations and circumstances where applying page protection outside of this realm is legitimate, justifiable, and beneficial to the project given the circumstances involved. Given this discussion and the arguments and input given as a whole, there's an overwhelming consensus by the participants that the semi protection applied to the article by
WJBScribe was for reasons that fell into one of those rare circumstances where its use outside the realm of being reactionary was appropriate and warranted, and that the semi protection currently applied to the article should not be removed. Hence, I am closing this discussion and declining the request for unprotection and due to the consensus reached.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)05:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can of worms time. Unless we are seeing legitimate edit requests, I'm disinclined. Too much history and disruption to take the risk. Further thoughts appreciated.
Dlohcierekim(talk)17:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Not interested. It's only semiprotected, which is entirely reasonable for virtually any BLP with any hint of a problematic history. Everyone here has been around long enough to know this one certainly qualifies, which I assume is why you posted here instead of just unprotecting it yourself. I'm with Dlohcierekim, not worth the risk.
XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done18:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
For an article of this amount of traffic, PC1 would be a far better starting point if one really believes in the risk, 11 years later. That would still be pre-emptive protection and against the protection policy, but at least it doesn't compromise on Wikipedia's core principle quite as much.
Samsara20:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Perhaps you do not know the history of this page. You have been around long enough. Maybe you missed it. This page is a special case and reducing protection is out of the question. Per the previous discussion.
Dlohcierekim(talk)23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The musician himself isn't actually the problem — but unfortunately he happens to share the same name as somebody else who comes trailing an extremely problematic history, and certain people are very likely to try to hijack this article given half of one per cent of a chance to try.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Seriously. The amount of disruption over the former subject is staggering. AfD's, ArbCom, admin's driven off Wikipedia. Probably the most damaging series of events in Wikipedia's history. Most of its been hidden. But if you search in the Wikipedia namespace for this name, you'll find enough to curl your hair. And yes, that legacy is the past disruption that justifies create protecting that page for this long and semi protecting that page now. That's why so many people still watch that page more than a decade later.
Dlohcierekim(talk)23:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
We have no evidence that this will continue. And if we keep it at semi, we'll likely never know and may be keeping an innocuous article under an iron dome. With PC1, at least we'll know whether there is a problem.
Samsara02:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Just post a notice about this discussion on the article talk page. That would be a place to start. And if there are a gazillion watchers, we should have a good discussion-- or crickets.
Dlohcierekim(talk)14:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
In so far as the possibility of disruption goes, there has already been a checkuser block because of a comment on the talk page. This article is a powder keg. Having said that, I have placed notice of this discussion here.
Dlohcierekim(talk)15:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Noting with disappointment that @
Samsara: opened this discussion seeking to overturn my protection of the article without (a) notifying me by ping or on my talkpage and (b) without setting out the full explanation I had given for the protection on my talkpage. The reasons given in this unprotection request fail to mention the problematic history of this page and could have had an unfortunate result if those responding to it had been newer users who were not been aware of that history. For ease of reference, I reproduce the central part my explanation for the protection (thank you @
Dlohcierekim: for linking to the discussion): "I'm familiar with the general policy against pre-emptive protection, but I don't agree that this is pre-emptive. An article of this name has been the subject of sustained problematic editing and the protection is justified on that basis. The move protection is in effect just a continuation of my salting of the page post deletion, designed to prevent recreation of the article about the former subject. The semi protection is intended to reduce the chance casual reinsertion of material about the former subject, or a wholesale rewriting of the article. The protection is not speculative, it reflects my assessment of the particular risks posed by this article in the context of its wider history. In response to your point, leaving the page unprotected has already proved infeasible. The fact that the page history of problematic editing has been deleted, moved and oversighted does not mean that it should be disregarded when considering appropriate steps to protect the subjects of BLPs (and/or, for that matter, Wikipedians)." I stand by the protection, especially in light of the incident on the talkpage, and believe it would be reckless to unprotect. WJBscribe(talk)15:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Do you acknowledge that the more discussion this takes, the worse it's likely to get, and that if you had simply never protected the article, it might still happily be sitting there, just as it did for the first 37 hours?
Samsara16:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't. The thing to do was to not create this unnecessary drama. To just accept the reasons given and move on. In fact, I think the thing to do now is to leave it be.
Dlohcierekim(talk)16:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
No point changing it now that it's received so much attention. Would have been great if this business could have been conducted quietly.
Samsara16:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indeed, you could have emailed me instead of raising the issue on my talkpage. And you could have kept the discussion on my talkpage instead of raising it here on a prominent noticeboard. Or indeed you could have just respected my exercise of discretion and not concerned yourself unduly with this article at all... WJBscribe(talk)16:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I'll leave it to others to draw their conclusions about how successful our communication was, and whether emailing you instead could have resulted in a different outcome, given the evidence on your talk page. As for concerning themselves unduly... did you? Are you?
Samsara17:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm involved here, but I was also about to come and request this as a
WP:AC/DS under either AP2, PS, or BLP (BLP probably fits best, imo, but any works.) He's continuing his Twitter campaign, has a 5 minute YouTube video, and now the Washington Times is all but advertising it as well. Quite frankly, based on sheer numbers, we can't deal with this. We normally don't like protecting talk pages, but I think under discretionary sanctions it would be within an uninvolved admins remit.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
01:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Permanent semi-protection: Persistent Edit warring and
vandalism. This level-5 vital article is semi protected almost every week for a period of 1 week, twice in January for vandalism and 3RR. Due to the name recognition, it is subject to consistent vandalism from trolls and competing institutions. Disputed contents are added and warred regularly. It's sister college's page is already locked due to vandalism so I am requesting permanent semi-protection as it is already classified as a good article. (
Nochorus (
talk)
23:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC))reply
I think the solution here is okay but maybe increasing the semi-protection till April will be helpful. There seems to be a lot of vandalism from IPs and users getting banned for wikipuffery. But they rise up during admission seasons anyway. I do think semi-pretoection till April is better as most rejected candidates will stop caring around then. And people who don’t care about facts or reasoing will find ways to get around it anyway and WP community can take care of it then.(
TF Munat (
talk)
03:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC))reply
Temporary semi-protection: Film has just been released and has been subject to a lot of promo edits and fancruft in the past. That rubbish has started again. I guess a week or so of semi would do it.
Sitush (
talk)
04:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The A in PIA does not stand for antisemitism, it stands for Arab. Therefore, PIA refers to a specific regional conflict, and not antisemitism in general. As an example,
antisemitism is not EC protected even though it is a highly visible page that has been disruptively edited in the past. The specific criterion set out by ArbCom is, "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict".
Samsara00:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. IMO problem edits are infrequent enough that they are better handled by simple page-watching.
MelanieN (
talk)
23:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Pending changes:BLP policy violations – See talk page, but many reports spreading with outdated/incorrect information directly contradicted by relevant authorities. Needs protection until the story settles to prevent BLP violations from going in. .
ResultingConstant (
talk)
02:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
My name is Remi Dallaire... I am following Mark Dice on Youtube.... So...Can wikipedia give my 100 $ donation back since they don't care to keep the truth about what Mark Dice do ?? Because obviously you are not good enough to keep this site going and accurate. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.165.215.56 (
talk)
19:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Move to 30/500 for the talkpage to prevent newer/less experienced editors from posting ininformed nonsense here as a result of being canvased. This should result in fewer misguided users being blocked, and allowing them to edit other pages when they calm down or forget they were supposed to post on Dice's talkpage.
Legacypac (
talk)
18:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Upcoming event. Unregistered IPs keep removing information from the page that is bad public relations for the event.
JW (
talk)
17:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Pending-changes has not done much to curb the vandalism/disruptive edits. Articles of countries should be indefinitely semi-protected anyways, they all seem like high-risk articles.
Kingerikthesecond (
talk)
14:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Regular edits from anonymous IPs to focus lede on emphasizing specific racial groups with crime. Topic is EXTREMELY sensitive and contentious.
Seazzy (
talk)
15:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – I don't usually request indefinite protections, much less PC indefinite, but India-Pakistan has been a very hot topic in the area for a long time. There's been edit warring for a long time to keep a specific POV and
WP:FRINGE pushing.
Dat GuyTalkContribs10:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Area of strong editing conflict recognised by ArbCom, and this particular page has a long protection log and history of perennial disruption.
Samsara11:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Ymblanter: 14 of the last 50 edits have been reverts, let alone the vandal edits. As the May election approaches, the article of this politician is only going to get more vandalised. Please place protection on this article.
Onetwothreeip (
talk)
08:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: But the last 50 edits go back several months, and we do not protect preemptively. After the applied block, there is not enough disruptive activity to warrant protection.
Lectonar (
talk)
09:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. This is an ongoing event; I do not see many disruptive edits, more reactions on the incoming news.
Lectonar (
talk)
11:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: High level of vandalism from same user, using multiple IP addresses. Difficult to issue warning or block just one IP address. Request for 30 days semi-protection.
AmericanHistorian (
talk)
18:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – A previous semi-protection ended last week, and the same pattern of vandalism resumed. Clearly the same person, from revolving IP addresses, introducing large amounts of technical nonsense to disrupt the page. The same person has been seen to vandalise some other railway-related pages, but is constantly targeting this one. Timothy TitusTalk To TT16:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I believe a rangeblock was also applied in an effort to thwart this anon. caknuck°needs to be running more often18:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Another Pakistan-related page. Perhaps this one may benefit from a long term pending changes protection, but a short semi would be helpful for now.
72 (
talk)
16:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent addition of a promotional external link from various similar IP addresses. I couldn't find any mention of a publisher called 'Out of the Blue' on Wikipedia.
Leschnei (
talk)
14:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined.
PamD, you really should have knowm better. Why do not you warn the IP and then report them to 3RNN if they continue disruptive editing or re-report them here if a new IP appears?--
Ymblanter (
talk)
11:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – The page has been semi protected a couple of times, most recently three months which expired a couple of weeks ago. Since then, the same disruption has resumed, by at least half a dozen different IPs who don't understand Wikipedia's notion of neutrality or reliable sources. ECP might be useful given that these are unregistered accounts. bonadeacontributionstalk12:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: High level of vandalism from same user, using multiple IP addresses. Difficult to issue warning or block just one IP address. Request for 30 days semi-protection.
AmericanHistorian (
talk)
03:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
No, but it's probably fine to lower it to template protection. It looks like most of the other similar public-domain-notice templates that have lots of transclusions are template protected, so let's do that here as well until there is a consensus to do otherwise. I'll go and do it now. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪05:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: He made controversial comments on the
2019 Pulwama attack and so is suffering a wave of nationalistic vandalism from IPs and new editors (e.g. calling him a traitor, changing his birthplace to Pakistan). A week or so should be sufficient for things to die down.—
Neil P. Quinn (
talk)
17:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Semi-protected for 5 years, can probably try unprotection again. Had only been protected twice before. Protecting admin has not edited since November. —
MRD2014Talk19:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Done Considering this event is what caused all the problematic edits to the parent article, I think it's reasonable to protect this to match that article.
Enigmamsg19:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IPs restoring contentious infobox. Subject has been discussed in corresponding article talk pages, and the box was removed by an editor with an account in January as a solution for divergent standpoints, but it is being boldly restored by IPs.
Edin balgarin (
talk)
10:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Not done@
Edin balgarin: I do not see where this has been discussed previously, so this appears to be just a content dispute. It certainly has not been discussed previously on
Talk:Sicilians, so where has it been discussed? You cannot expect people to know what you're referring to and where to look without providing them a link to the discussion. Fish+
Karate15:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Consistent astroturfing, adding unsourced and politcally biased content to the page, even after it has been consistently deleted by mods.
Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Socking editor pushing his autobiography repeatedly. See
[3] as well as the deletion log for evidence.
Kb03 (
talk)
14:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Recurrent IP edits to change title of film to the production title; film is still officially untitled, release title has not yet been announced. –
Nick Mitchell 98talk05:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Philly boy92: - extended confirmed protection may only be applied if semi-protection proves ineffective. Please return here if that proves to be the case. Fish+
Karate15:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Long-term Semi-protection: Persistent pushing by ever changing IP account, of future uncertain date of accession, which in itself is a breach of
WP:Crystal. PS: Note that IP(s) refuse to respond to questions at its IP pages & merely blanks them.
GoodDay (
talk)
15:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent use of the article for advertising to draw in new pupils. See the prior discussion
here where the new user makes clear that he adds the info for promotion. A series of IPs have done the same. The Bannertalk00:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Long-term sexist and political vandalism by IPs, as she's famously vocal about such issues. She has a big movie release next month, so I think a month-long protection is necessary at this point.
Krimuk2.0 (
talk)
05:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Formatting damage. I recommend that others add this page to their watchlists. I believe the damage is likely unintentional, but for some reason, the damage remained unnoticed all day. This is the third time I had to repair that page. And that’s only from today and yesterday. This is a fairly popular page (more than 1,200 views per day) and the damaged infobox will confuse anyone who visits this page in its damaged state.
Bolt Strike (
talk)
19:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent, continuous and overlapping vandalism. This time a previous reviewer caught one IP's vandalism but missed the previous vandalism. I'll suggest indefinite, because the vandalism is still ongoing this many years later.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
03:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Correction - since both IPs in question were from Malaysia, it was probably the same individual rather than independent overlapping vandalism.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
03:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
It has enough watchers, and there were two IP edits recently that, while not huge advances, were unquestionably positive, so I'd like to maintain the opportunity for new users to work on this article. And PC1 comes with an annoyance tax that's probably not worth paying in this case (yet - fingers crossed).
Samsara16:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
Samsara16:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: The disruptive editing wasn't completely stopped with the previous partial protection, but it's much worse without. --
Ronz (
talk)
03:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Currentl move protected, other protections in the past. Past two days have seen multiple IPs vandalizing, probably something in the news. A short protection increase will probably do the trick.
Ifnord (
talk)
20:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – 145.255.xxx.xxx is repeatedly changing the established "BCE" style to "BC" without discussion, contrary to
MOS:BCE. Page was protected for one week, then three weeks, both times for this reason and the problem resumed each time it expired.
Dorsetonian (
talk)
20:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IP editors keep claiming he is running for President of the United States, based on a (publicity stunt) video where he says he is running for President of the Internet. This is unsourced information about a BLP.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
18:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Pending changes protection: Lately it seems IP vandals want to come here simply to insult her for no apparent reason rather than give any constructive edits.
Trillfendi (
talk)
18:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism after an alleged sexual harrasment scandal, many IPs/new editors are making questionable edits to the page (many of them just disruptive to the reading of the article.)
UCO2009bluejay (
talk)
15:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – My talk page has received a great deal of vandalism from different IPs lately, and I would appreciate if my talk page was protected to prevent this. -- /
Alex/
2117:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – I'm trying to rework this article (
Taiseki-ji) into at least a reliable and readable reference; however, one or two other editors persistently revert changes to their preferred wording, which is frequently semantically inappropriate or ungrammatical as well as in many cases erroneous. To no avail I've attempted to communicate with these editors through embedded comments because they work anonymously and always with different IP addresses (making discussions via their talk pages impossible). I'd appreciate it if an Admin could make the page uneditable by unregistered users till I can at least whip it into shape and provide some citations.
Thanks and best regards,
Jim_Lockhart (
talk)
08:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Constant vandalism and addition of unsourced material due to upcoming season and one that just ended. Protection should be longer than the last one.
Nihlus02:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Too much activity right now for PC protection to be effective. The PC protection will persist after the semi-protection expires.
MelanieN (
talk)
05:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I see one IP edit which was good and accepted, as well as one IP edit in December which was not reverted, but I am not going to object against an upgrade to semi.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
21:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Ymblanter: I've enacted a 6 month semi as a suggested compromise since the vandalism has been going on for quite some time. It will finish about five months before the PC1 you put on it earlier. I think this is a good solution.
Samsara03:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Unprotect: It has been nearly eight years now, and this was only because someone decided to add their personal news to it on multiple occasions. It was the same story each time and I think, given the amount of time that has passed, it is reasonable to believe the person has long moved on. Let’s try unprotection.
Bolt Strike (
talk)
01:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. I don't see it, I see some content disputes, which are inevitable on a new article about an ongoing event, but no clear-cut vandalism or disruption. Fish+
Karate15:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Still an issue with persistent vandalism by unregistered users, as soon as the protection expired someone got at it again.
Alohawolf (
talk)
20:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Bernie Sanders, independent, declared today he would seek the Democratic Party nomination for US President in 2020. RSes still (for now) refer to him as an "independent", but different registered editors have been changing the infobox to Democrat and back again all day. A discussion is underway on the talk page. A short (24-48hr) full PP might help that discussion proceed without making the page unstable. Thank you.
Levivich00:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: As far as I can see, the situation is rather stable; I do not see a need for protection right now, but will defer to my colleagues.
Lectonar (
talk)
11:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Lectonar, agreed, it stabilized after I made this post and seems to have remained quiet since. I'll take that as a sign of my amazing Wikipedia powers :-) Sorry for the false alarm.
Levivich16:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Although it's tempting to request indefinite since this IP range seems very unwilling to give up their tendentious editing. Recently protected by
Zzuuzz, we now get to enjoy salty edit summaries along with the edit-warring. .
——SerialNumber5412917:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't think it's vandalism, I think it's someone with a conflict of interest trying to whitewash the article. Possibly Ched Evans himself? In any case, it's disruptive but not vandalism - you can't prove the IP is deliberately trying to deface Wikipedia from their point of view.
Don't be a dolt, stop and think. I have opened a discussion on the talk page.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: The article itself has been included nomination for deletion that deals about game notability. In the discussion, the article considered have lack of "secondary reliable sources" that explains the whole topic. Thus, the page have to semi-protected for certain duration in order to prevent further abuse from IP editors.
54.36.115.10 (
talk)
20:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism following Home Office press release .
Harley Watson (
talk) 19:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Second this and would add - the article is not about the similarly-named person currently in the news, so aside from vandalism there's a very high likelihood of inaccurate edits. I've fixed a bunch of these in the last 20 minutes but they are reappearing as people read news and come to update with wrong information.
2A02:C7D:5E53:2500:F00E:CE51:5723:F363 (
talk)
20:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – due to the edit war regarding page maintainers (myself) and anonymous users regarding an ongoing project, it has been proposed to discuss page content in the talk page to no avail from anonymous users. signed:Donan Raven (
talk,
contribs)
14:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: Not every one is able to communicate via edit-summaries or looks at the talk-page of the article; I can see the talk-page of the (always same) IP is red...I would at least try to engage them directly via their talk.
Lectonar (
talk)
14:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
ok will start addressing them through their own talks pages, thank you for advising - (this is subject to scrutiny because it involves the same fund involved in charity work and a luxury yacht... it is also suspected that it is a member of the charity carrying out the edits). signed:Donan Raven (
talk,
contribs)
14:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page is often vandalized by IPs. Temporary protection was done in the past; vandalism still occurs. Requesting indefinite protection. Kees08 (Talk)03:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
JSFarman:I know the event isn't until the 24th and that this won't cover until then. I'll be keeping an eye on it and will protect for longer if need be.
Airplaneman ✈23:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and disruptive editing from IPs. Featured article. Vital article. High visibility article. Not one bona fide change so far in 2019; rest has been IP vandaloism and Bot or editor reverts. Was semi-protected until June 2018. Request semi-protection for 90 days.
Hawkeye7(discuss)20:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and disruptive editing from IPs. Please protect until at least March 31, as the current season ends on that date, and any vandalism will slow down after that. Thank you.
Drovethrughosts (
talk)
14:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Looking at the article's history, it seems like there is a vandal, who is capable of IP hopping, who is willing to vandalise the page indefinitely until we protect it. I am completely guessing here, but I wonder whether it's a Turkish nationalist who thinks that the lack of protection here compared with the presidents of other countries is some sort of slur? Can't decide whether we should ignore per
WP:DENY or just protect to stop the disruption - thought an admin should consider though. .
GirthSummit (blether)18:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Jim Boeheim is involved in a current event which has led to persistent vandalism -- notably changing his Title in the infobox to variations of "Killer".
SamCordesTalk16:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. The pending changes protection is still there, and the article has never been semi-protected before, let us start with two weeks and see what happens.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
18:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The day after semi-protection is lifted, the article was vandalized twice. Last time protection was removed (in November, called JUUL then), the article was vandalized 6 days later. This is a high-visibility article (110,000 views in the last 30 days counting the name it was just moved from) and it seems to attract a lot of middle and high school student IP vandals, unsurprising given the topic. If it's indefinitely protected we can hopeful avoid this vandalism.
Chumash11 (
talk)
14:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – SPA with a possible conflict of interest moving incomplete draft into mainspace. Please protect the title in mainspace as well if possible. Thank you.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em)
05:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism, particularly during/following the airing of an episode. This article has about 20,000 user views per day and 80,000+ when an episode airs.
Heartfox (
talk)
03:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm going to ping the two most recently involved admins, as they may be more familiar with the goings-on with the article: @
Arthur Rubin and
King of Hearts:. As the long protection log shows, the article has suffered from perennial abuse, so unprotection should be carefully considered.
Airplaneman ✈02:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed:BLP policy violations – Highly-visible article and persistent (re)addition of erroneous content; may be useful to consider indefinite ECP.
Mélencron (
talk)
23:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Dlohcierekim you are right. He's going to be a major player in next year's presidential election. I'd just protect the page for the next two years. This page is going to be a target for disruptive editing. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
03:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Consistent addition of unsourced casting and other info added to article by unregistered users. Previously been semi-protected for this same reason.
Gistech (
talk)
22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – The last semi-protection expired on 1/30/19. Since then, IPs have continued adding BLP violations on at least 8 occasions, as well as prompting the need to revdel 3 edits for serious BLP violations. Hopefully a longer protection will end that.
DannyS712 (
talk)
00:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Constant addition of the same false story that is attempting to be written as the truth by a variety of anonymous sources, despite the fact sources with the actual story were given. It is getting to the point that a non-IP user is pretending to be the creator of the brand with this fake story. --
ZootyCutie (
talk)
15:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: As the owner of this bot, I would like to request that my bot's userpage gets semi-protected in line with my own userpage which is also semi-protected.
Pkbwcgs (
talk)
19:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Reduction in protection level: From semi- and move-protection to unprotected. This page is part of an incomplete page move by swap. Notwithstanding, as it is now a redirect, protection not needed. Previous protecting administrator is inactive.
Bsherr (
talk)
15:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment:@
Ymblanter: I do not understand why you give unfair protection of those 3 articles that I recently published to a user who does not understand several tips in his discussion page and
here I have tried to add Rica Fukami's birth reference because I realized that in the Japanese Wikipedia article I did not see the actress's birth year nor is it singer, rather is a narrator of anime series but with its reversals the IPs like us consider us as cross-wikis in different languages in Wikipedia, as it does in Wikidata right
here and threatens us with wanting to block us globally so easily.
152.0.140.236 (
talk)
16:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection., these were indeed BLP violations, but the article has not been edited for more than a week.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
12:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection., these were indeed BLP violations, but the article has not been edited for more than a week.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
12:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent level of IP vandalism, with the style of edits between the various IPs being the same and suggesting the same person is constantly making disruptive edits. Even if warned through the IP they recently used, it hasn't discouraged them conducting this behaviour.
GUtt01 (
talk)
12:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Registered user continuously provides inaccurate information in regards to player statistics from
unsourced or poorly sourced content. Persistent
vandalism – Registered user also refuses to reorganize the layout of the players statistics section within article based on the player's point total on a scale from most points to least. Inaccurate information often has to be corrected.
Yowashi (
talk)
08:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – A user seems to change the title "Hazarajat" into "Hazaristan" in the opening lede and infobox without any discussion.
Khestwol (
talk)
08:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Short version: Requesting semi-protection (would prefer indef ECP, but my read of the policy doesn't seem to allow that) for these two articles. Wouldn't mind admins watchlisting them either.
Long version:
Someone or ones have a bee up their bonnet about feminist literary criticism of Shakespeare's plays. Hamlet is their latest target (edit summaries given where one was present / relevant):
882984228—Stop reverting this!!! If there was a section called nazism you would never allow it. Feminism nowadays is to males what nazism was to jews so stop adding text under that name!
828946232—"Feminist Critique" being promulgated as valid. Zero justification given on why the feminist lens, as opposed to an equally arbitrary 'inanimate objects lens', should be given a platform.
828775824—No justification offered for the incorporation of the arbitrary 'feminist critique'. A lack of amputees in 'The Tempest' would justify the addition of section dubbed "amputee criticism"? Common sense need be applied, unless propagating a biased narrative of course
828737896—To give credence to 'feminist theory' would be to invite any of the innumerable theories that spawn out of a biased outlook. A rather slippery slope.
826719658—[while reverting to their own edit] Please discuss on talk page before reverting without explanation or consensus
826708064—Removing section irrelevant to the main subject; fringe opinion (also possible OR)
822148611—removing section with little content and relevance to the subject (also, possible OR?)
811092553—Why do we need to know what the far-left thinks about The Tempest? If a Fascist criticism of The Tempest existed, would you let someone add that to this article? I think not.
751716434—People reading this article don't need to know the opinions of leftist extremists.
738838391—Would a piece of literature encompassing an all-animal cast receive "anthropological criticism"? Case in point, feminist criticism need not always apply.
733661422—Deleted an illogical section. If every literary work *must* contain an equal gender representation, this will clearly limit the degree of freedom that authors possess
These all come from a variety of different IP addresses, and have used the accounts ObservingEgo (currently indef'ed by
331dot per NOTHERE) and Arnol Chuarseneger (not currently blocked).
Note that (in the interest of complete transparency), when I previously requested page protection for this for The Tempest the request was handled by
Ivanvector who at least initially assessed it to be a content dispute (see
discussion at their talk page). I disagree with that assessment: this is either a single POV-warrior using open proxies, or it's meatpuppeting and off-wiki coordination (I'm betting it's the latter). Note that the edits all reflect a very specific world view, are focussed on literary criticism and Shakespeare, and use edit summaries that read like they are different people's attempts to express a common argument articulated in a off-wiki forum somewhere. Note also the variable familiarity with Wikipedia policies: a few edits give pseudo-policy arguments reflecting a superficial or second-hand familiarity with their existence, while some argue without apparent awareness of Wikipedia's policies or practices.
I am now so fed up with this (and the overwhelming stream of unrelated low-grade vandalism at Hamlet) that my preference would be to see both Hamlet and The Tempest put under indef extended confirmed protection (but my read of the policy suggests it doesn't permit that for this case), and range blocks applied to the IPs this is coming from as and when they pop up (given these are quite likely to be open proxies, that would help other issues too). However, even just a stint of semi-protection would probably make them lose interest for a while (until the next round). (Note that while Shakespeare articles are covered by DS due to
WP:ARBSAQ, it's for an unrelated issue. This would be something like
WP:ARBGG, if anything, but I don't think it applies or I'd have requested a babysitter for the articles over at AE. IOW, whatever remedies are needed here will have to be under the general policy framework.)
It would also help a lot if some admins watched these articles specifically (vs seeing them in a firehose of unpatrolled edits) and was aware of the above context when the next batch of these edits show up (pinging
Oshwah,
Favonian,
Materialscientist who have helped deal with some of the latest batch). Given this is persistent long-term (at least back to 2016, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it long prior to that too) abuse with occasional attempts at misdirection by referring to policies, I'm hoping it might be justified to maybe be a bit more trigger-happy with blocking when edits that match this MO start appearing.
Sorry,
Ymblanter! I hope I didn't step on any of your toes! I didn't see that you were looking into this until after I did. I went ahead and applied semi-protection to
Hamlet for one week due to the recent disruption, but did not apply any protection to
The Tempest due to no recent disruption being currently made, and the disruption listed in this report being from too long ago. I'll leave the rest to you...
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)08:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Oshwah: No problem, I was also distracted by smth else and it took longer than it should have taken. I applied an indefinite semi for Hamlet, since I just do not see any good IP edits in any recent history, and the recent disruption was too strong. For the Tempest, I agree that currently there is no evidence we need semi, but I believe the article which gets vandalized on a regular basis could benefit from pending changes, which I applied for a year.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
09:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I think that this is the most appropriate protection level, since it'll both enable reviewing for edits made to this article as well as leave it open as a "honey pot". Else, the LTA user will simply find a different page to vandalize and it'll take longer to locate, associate as LTA abuse by this user, and move forward from there. In situations like these, it's best to let them keep hitting the same page that we know he's been abusing and can watch, so that the sock users can be reported and blocked quickly. Pending changes protection will assure that nothing changed by the LTA user will be publicly viewable. Perfect solution. ;-)
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)07:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. – Repeated vandalism from anonymous IPs over a long period of time. Temporary semi-protection was not sufficient, the vandal keeps coming back.
KILNA (
talk)
07:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The IP range is much too wide to block - too much collateral damage. This protection level will stop future disruption from going live until reviewed, and allow anyone to make productive changes to the article.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)07:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – 13 attempts over 11 months by various editors to add non-notable YouTuber as a notable alumnus. Three month protection over this issue ineffective as edits restarted only 2 days after protection ended.
Meters (
talk)
20:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated hoax edits (from an IP in Oman that might be an open proxy) claiming that Western Papua has become an independent state, and no longer is an Indonesian province (which of course would have been all over the news if it had been true...). - Tom |
Thomas.W talk21:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – This page has been subject to a seemingly politically motivated historical revisionist.
The disruptive edits may be coming all from one person (SPI just opened today) -- They were originally using a longterm stable account with 600 edits, but then they began to edit-war and got a temporary block, then made a new account, and both got permanently blocked. After a few weeks a third named account made the same edit, I opened an SPI and before it even got looked at an IP address started making the same edits so I know am pursuing page protection as the (presumed) individual would just keep using IPs to pursue their agenda.
JesseRafe (
talk)
21:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – A different person of the same name died recently, and IP addresses are now persistently trying to claim that the article subject has died, based on confusion due to the similar names. At least one IP has persisted in this after their mistake was pointed out to them. Article needs semi-protection to stop this.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (
talk)
23:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: I would like to leave this unprotected, as a sort of testing-area for drafts...it's not far fetched that people use it for just that.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Lectonar,
Kusma - We should remove the creation protection from
Draft:Test and maybe consider creating both pages with templates that designate them as test pages? Either way, I agree in that I don't think that it's unreasonable for users to create pages named "draft test" or "test" in the draft space. In fact, I'd say that it's a good move on their part if they're unsure of how the wizard behaves, what it does, and where everything goes when they click the button. They're measuring twice and cutting once; good on them for doing that, and we shouldn't get in the way or prohibit reasonable attempts for users to do this.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)07:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I pretty much routinely use template protection for highly cited templates. If someone wants to change this to semi-protection that's fine with me. --
MelanieN (
talk)
03:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
If you feel that will be adequate, I will - since I see that all of this series is basically your work. Of course you, being a template editor, can edit it even under template protection. --
MelanieN (
talk)
03:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks. It doesn't harm my work if it's template protected, there's just little reason for template protection to apply here, and I'd rather keep things editor friendly. If someone finds a typo in {{JCW-type}}, well an edit request is just an annoying hurdle. Things would be different if this was something that would be visible from mainspace, or that would affect multiple Wikiprojects, but this is rather in the deep end of WP Journals. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}04:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Actively monitoring the page... I'm leaving it unprotected on purpose for a few hours to make sure that I've blocked all of the ranges that the user controls and that none were missed. Afterwards, I'll apply protection to the page.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)20:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Not done - No edits have touched the page since I blocked the IP ranges involved. I think we should leave it unprotected. If anything, it'll result in the user adding more disruption, which will make it easy for us to spot, revert, and block. :-)
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)22:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: The player made a request to FIFA to switch national allegiance from Portugal to Canada. It was approved, but Canada has not asked him to play for them so by
WP:FOOTY rules, he's still Portuguese. Fellow Canadians are being a bit to quick in changing his nationality.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
23:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: For many reasons, this article is about women in India, they tell what Indian feminists say but wall women in India would protect some articles, I've been pleased!.
Triangle3670 (
talk)
00:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of consistent vandalism, mostly pertaining to the film's reception and polirical elements, by users whose contribution are usually just for this page alone. This has been going on since the article's creation, despite multiple reversions and warnings, and needs to stop.
SavageEdit (
talk)
15:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Long-term pattern of libelous accusations of a risque video purported to have been made by the subject. No amount of protection has stemmed the tide of such flak so an indef semi is requested.
Blake Gripling (
talk)
22:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Well, it has been restored now, but much of the original history is missing. All of the vandalism edits are gone, which is good, but the latest version is from 2017 and there were legit updates since then having to do with categories and templates that changed after she passed. --
В²C☎21:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I've restored the Dec 2018 edit I believe
Born2cycle was talking about and pushed it forward over the recent correction, noting that the difference arises because of the temporary deletion. It looked like the other edits were reverting vandalism back and forth, so my thinking would be they don't need to be restored, but correct me if I missed anything.
Samsara22:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Enigmaman,
Samsara - Why was this page deleted? And why is it only being partially restored? Why are we keeping parts of the edit history deleted? No rationale was given in the deletion log, and I'm confused as to what's going on and exactly why. Can you explain so that I understand? :-) Thanks -
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)22:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Oshwah: I did not understand it either, so I restored the one edit that B2C seemed to be referring to and that seemed completely safe and innocuous. The principle being, if you don't understand it, try and be conservative around it until someone can clarify.
Samsara06:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm still not sure why it was deleted in the first place; RfD is the way to delete redirects, not this does not need a page and creation protection. Selective restoration upon questioning left the vandalistic edits deleted, but that's not really the question here. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)18:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Samsara, the result of re-adding the other edits is helpful (thank you!) but makes my latest edit (from today) not only moot but looks counter-productive. Could it be deleted? --
В²C☎23:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I asked about this deletion shortly after it happened at
Enigman's talk page and didn't receive an answer but the page was then partially restored. I would like to learn what PAG supported the actions here because I find it troubling. My opinion is the full history should be restored as I am unaware of anything that would need RevDel on the other edits of this article. Best wishes,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
18:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
if there is a full restore please leave out my latest edit which is out of sequence and nonsensical if it remains. —
В²C☎03:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I see no value in restoring all the reverted vandal edits but am not strongly opposed. I think it’s fine the way it is currently, except for my now-distorted edit... —
В²C☎ 15:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)changed my mind; see below. --
В²C☎19:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I think restoring the page history is the right thing to do - editors should be able to see WHY it was protected. Not restoring B2C's edit is obviously fine. I will point out, however, that we have nodeadline here and since Enigman hasn't been active for the last couple of days I see no reason not to let him have a chance to respond first. Best wishes,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
16:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Extend duration of current pending changes protection: The current pending changes protection (which began on January 2, 2019) expires on March 2, but during the current period there have been multiple edits by IP editors continuing to add unverified information regarding the operating status of this attraction, all of which have been reverted. I believe that these kinds of edits will continue to happen frequently after the current period ends. (Side note: Looking at the page's history, I've noticed that most of the IP edits during this period—especially within the last ten days—have been by IPv6 users whose addresses begin with 2601:585:102:12c9:. A number of these edits even add the same unverified "closing" date of January 8, 2018, so it's possible that they were all made by the same person. If an extension of the current pending changes protection period is not suitable, then I would like for admins to consider an IP range block for IPv6 addresses beginning with 2601:585:102:12c9:.) –
WPA (
talk)
18:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: To match the templates that use it; fun fact: since it was template-protected, the module has never been edited by a template editor, only by an admin.
DannyS712 (
talk)
20:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. I think you are misunderstanding Full Protection. It's not applied pre-emptively. The fact that the only editor on this one is its creator
Trappist the monk says there is no need to step up the protection level from Template Editor protection.
— Maile (
talk)
00:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. There have been only four edits since 2017, all of which were by administrators.
— Maile (
talk)
00:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Various IP accounts have been adding false director and writer additions, despite the fact the official website confirms who is part of the crew. This page had been protected from IP vandals for cast changing before, but now they have seemed to move onto vandalizing the crew lists. --
ZootyCutie (
talk)
21:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Due to the recent drama involving PETA's criticism of Steve Irwin, people are vandalizing this page. I doubt the vandalism will continue after the latest outrage dies down, which is why I suggested temporary protection.
Trebuchette (
talk)
05:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Keeping
WP:BLP in mind - recent spate of anons/SPAs adding "sex offender" to 1st/main topic sentence as in "Bryan Singer is a [other stuff], and sex offender.".
Shearonink (
talk)
05:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
PLEASE. I assume since Singer got some directing credit for Bohemian Rhapsody and since the Oscars are Sunday night that his article is now under recent and persistent attack by meat or sock puppets. Please *someone* put this article under some sort of protection. I am tired of reverting the various IP-hopping and named accounts identical vandalism.
Shearonink (
talk)
06:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This is the article linked by YouTube on most videos about vaccines. Since this is now a hot topic in the news, the article has become a magnet for vandalism. FallingGravity04:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed: I just want my user page extended confirmed protected so that only I and other extended confirmed users can edit it. Sincerely, Masum Rezatalk07:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: This is a recent WP article about what was in 2017, the world's largest film streaming site. Unfortunately, there are numerous active clone sites operating and thus this article is getting +50,000 hits per day. As well as IP-vandalism, there are IP/new editors trying to embed links to their new cloned sites into the text of the article.
Britishfinance (
talk)
11:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Thanks for that. The logic is that given the clone sites, this page is going to be abused by others until the notoriety of 123movies fades, which is going to be more than a week; this tiny article gets an amazing amount of hits? The similar
Putlocker required similar protection.
Britishfinance (
talk)
12:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. As Coltsfan notes, the vandalism did continue after one of the IPs was blocked, and has been going on for quite a while. Clearly a persistent sockpuppeteer. BTW some of the vandals are autoconfirmed and will be able to edit through the semi-protection; SPI may be indicated in some cases (not the stale ones, but any that are current).
MelanieN (
talk)
16:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Permanent extended-confirmed-protection: I want to make sure that my userpage does not get vandalized at all, and that only extended-confirmed users and administrators will be able to edit it. I spend a lot of time editing my userpage, so I'd rather have it be protected as a defense against potential vandalism. --
Kingerikthesecond (
talk)
13:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Restoration of content (POV, personal synthesis, etc.) by sockpuppets (IP-hopping editor) of banned user. –
Sabbatino (
talk)
19:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent IP vandalism. Not saying indefinite is best, but vandalism resumed pretty soon after the protection expired, so this needs more than just a few days. . Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}20:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. They keep readding net worth (which is estimation derived from tabloids) and incorrect occupations. –
Joesimnett (
talk)
20:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Fans of YouTuber and Twitch streamer Jerma985 are vandalising the pages by inserting stream jokes into them. This is happening more frequently now because these pages were referenced in a recent video.
AndreyKva (
talk)
20:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of exposure, IP vandalism, and new account non-policy based edits. The article has been continuously on the main page, and the 30-day protection just expired, in the midst of an escalating crisis with geopolitical implications. It is too hard to keep up with the non-policy-based edits.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
16:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Reduction in protection level: Please remove protection. There is an incorrect redirect to another page and every time someone tries to edit the redirect gets added again.
John1512 (
talk)
09:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Samsara: Looks like IPs are trying to split off "Trail camera" into its own article, which is currently covered as a subsection of "
Remote camera". I don't see how you could possibly consider that redirect to be "incorrect", even if the subject deserves its own article. Also, the attempt at creation appears dubious, because the only sources they're using are spam links, so it looks like a poorly-disguised attempt at spam. Good protection by Dlohcierekim.
~Swarm~{talk}23:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Idefinite semi-protection: Pesistent IP vandalisms once again. Guest users repeatedly add false information and fan speculation into the article without adding official sources, including claims of a Season 4 that has yet to be confirmed. The article has already been temporarily semi-protected from guest editing vandalisms three times before. --
Aura24 (
talk)
07:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Let's get these two editors to the talk page...as the have been at it for days. Edit summaries not the place to talk this out.
Moxy (
talk)
04:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm actually of a mind to block IWI over this. Reasoning being: (1) they've edited against status quo and insisted, against opposition, that they are right (they should have desisted and sought discussion); (2) there is a recent RfC that suggests that what they are doing would not be supported by consensus; and (3) they've threatened the other user with a block.
Samsara05:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Samsara: I initially full-protected, but upon further examination, I have come to the same opinion independently, and have reversed my own action. IWI hosted a formal RfC at the relevant parent article that formally rejected, via a community consensus (not a local consensus), the edit they were warring over on a different article. User(s)
blocked.
~Swarm~{talk}08:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – As with previous protections, as soon as the protection was removed a steady stream of IPs and SPA have begun to add unsourced controversial material to the article.
Greyjoytalk09:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Template protected If the template is template-protection than yes I agree the module should too. Transclusion count is definitely high enough to warrant it, anyway. @
Pppery: If you can give us a list of links to the pages on one wikipage (say your sandbox), we can batch-protect all of them in one go using Twinkle. No need to request them here one by one. — MusikAnimaltalk03:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
User:UsernameJohnWitch removes valid URLs with fishing URLs (deepdotweb.info vs. deepdotweb.com). ddw.info is the fishing site (front with posts from 20th January), whereas ddw.com is the right one (recent posts concise with the .onion content). Would lock the pages indefinitely .
Semi-protection: Persistent disrupt editing and abusely editing. The editing pattern is unique to standard editing that means it has multiple errors in the article (including infobox) either grammatical or false information about its service. The behaviour started when the
TV service changed its name to EBC. See the older history.
54.36.116.94 (
talk)
19:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move-protection: History of article moves ignoring the preexisting consensus on the talk pages. Both articles should be moved from "Sinhalese" to "Sinhala", then move-protected.
Danielklein (
talk)
14:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism. Easily spotted by going through the revision history of the article. The show is a popular sitcom and is prone to future vandalism.
Lafayette Baguettetalk23:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Unlike other cases where full protection was used before template protection existed, this full protection was only recently configured by interface admin
Amorymeltzer, who I suspect didn't do it for "no reason". Unless Amory agrees that it's not necessary, it's going to be a "not done".
~Swarm~{talk}00:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Done When I was making these I was trying to match them to the other templates or their underlying modules, so this is good. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)01:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not opposed to lowering the protection for {{
lang}} to be the same as
Module:lang. I am curious why {{lang}} is cascade protected (it has been since this edit –
Cenarium has apparently retired).
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – A probable sock of
Martinvito using IPs in the 2a02:2121* range inserts unreferenced perpetrators, often contradicting the sources. Socking has been ongoing since at least January 2018, which is why I ask for a permanent protection against this persistent vandal.
Sjö (
talk)
20:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I've put it on indef semi because it has a long prot log. If someone wants to make a strong case for a combination of a short semi and indef PC1, maybe because it's an FA, then I will be happy to listen to that. But as of the level of disruption it's had in the past, it would usually now be time for longer semi-protection.
Samsara21:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of vandalism today. Article subject is victim of harassment campaigns, so this happens often. Please protect for a longer period.
Wickedterrier (
talk)
18:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page has been repeatedly vandalised with pro-India and anti-Pakistan sentiment over the last day or two. It is my personal belief that the recent tensions between the two countries over a border region has sparked this vandalism but please protect as necessary.
Thetinggoskrrra (
talk)
11:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism –
User:Abecedare Since you have protected related pages, also consider protecting this. relevant updates have already been added, the ongoing jingoistic IP edits is all what is needed to be taken care of. . DBigXrayᗙ06:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Do you seriously think that is going to do anything when whoever is has access to more than one IP, including 47.195.8.229? Simple minded people with access to the tools... Besides that there's someone else with Charter Communications messing with it. I wom't even bother with this next time because I just did more harm than good.
PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day.13:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The disruptive edits in a span of the last 2 weeks came from the now blocked vandalising IP; 47.xxx edited last a month ago... so I advise to have a look at the
protection policy....simple-mindedness can be a boon sometimes.
Lectonar (
talk)
14:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not going to argue further about this as it does nothing to improve the encyclopedia, but that Frontier Communications IP is clearly the same person, due to the similar nature of the edits and the geolocation. As I said, I just did more harm than good; now the shared activity that I've been monitoring from one network will be shifted to other networks so that vandalism to obscure articles from DSL ranges can last for six months.
PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day.14:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent disruptive editing from multiple IPs following reports of an Indian strike using Mirage 2000 jets. Should be back to normal in a few days. —
Gazoth (
talk)
15:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. Semi-protection would cut out one side of the dispute; this can not be solved via page-protection. Just continue discussion on the talk-page. There is no need for edit-warring.
Lectonar (
talk)
09:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: The page has been vandalized for more than 2 times. tgave 05:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Trishagives (
talk •
contribs)
Declined No demonstrated need for protection. As per
WP:UPROT: User pages and subpages may be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists—pages in user space should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected.Airplaneman ✈07:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Page was reported at ANI, edit history shows a spirited edit war. I am an uninvolved editor. Request that page be full protected for several days while things are ironed out.
Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!05:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes:BLP policy violations – Poorly un-sourced information being added to article IP/new users edits would benefit from pending changes review before going live. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?08:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined This is not a problem that can be solved by protection; the draft already exists so protecting it from being edited won't help. What you want is create-protection. It is at
WP:MfD right now and will probably be salted after it is deleted.
MelanieN (
talk)
00:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Repeated
WP:EW by anonymous editors. We're already edit warring enough with logged in editors, we don't need IP's joining the fun. If possible, a one month duration should suffice until hopefully this dispute is resolved. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c22:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: EVERYONE IN PHILLY IS SAD THAT HE GOT TRADED. This has resulted in some edits by depressed fans, that don't really add anything to the article (but aren't vandalism) Gatemansgc (
TɅ̊LK)
21:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: I don't know...while this article falls in the scope of the linked discussion, disruption is rather weak. I would, if at all, opt for pending-changes protection. Deferring to my colleagues.
Lectonar (
talk)
11:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Lectonar and
Ymblanter the interesting revert history immediately before the Pending Changes were added and after that should make it obvious to anyone that PC is only going to waste everyone's time here. I would ask both of you to reconsider PC --DBigXrayᗙ13:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I think they should better be blocking DBigXray for making 3 REVERTS
[25][26][27] reverting 2 or 3 editors today alone. He is just whitewashing this sensitive incident in favor of Indian Army by claiming that the victims were fabricating the charges. Just block the problematic POV pusher.
27.34.108.128 (
talk)
13:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Well there you have it. These seemingly random IPs are colluding to get me blocked for edit warring just because I objected to their Agenda pushing I think
the proposal on WP:AN by
User:Ivanvector was explicitly mentioning this behavior and was planned to prevent this sort of thing that is happening quite frequently in the India Pakistan topic area, wehere seemingly random new editors are seen colluding to get their opponents blocked as a way out of content disputes. DBigXrayᗙ13:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protectedindefinitely per the linked AN discussion; this is exactly the sort of disruptive behaviour that discussion was aimed at. I have not reset the pending changes options though I think they are now moot; courtesy ping
Ymblanter. When that discussion archives I'll create a shortcut for it.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
13:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – The talk page is empty: May Also consider blocking the edit warriors, since this is not the only page.
Victor Schmidt (
talk)
14:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent sock puppetry by
User:Weathereditor (please see the
Long-term abuse page for more details). The page was already protected before. Handling it at
WP:SPI is probably not an option as he has virtually an infinite number of 2a02:c7f:etc. addresses at his disposal.—
J. M. (
talk)
16:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP (and suspicions they're socking) trying to source a programming schedule change using a shakycam COPYVIO YouTube video of the channel that doesn't confirm much of anything and refusing to source with something neutral. Change takes place in a week (and there's industry talk of another change on April 1, but again, not sourced neutrally), so protection is asked for on both pages until then. Nate•(
chatter)19:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Page on controversial rappers son. Subject will likely never be notable, and fans and haters are likely to vandalize the article. See the previous version of it and
This
.
💵Money💵emoji💵💸15:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Constant need to revert, on top of use of Personal Attacks by IP while erasing sourced info.
TropicAces (
talk)
17:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)tropicAcesreply
6 month semi-protection: Persistent vandalism; This article is always targeted by IPs after prior protection ends. There have been about 2 per week in the last 8 weeks).
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
13:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – The trailer of
Kesari (film) was released recently, and, as expected, the disruption by IPs has started at the
Battle of Saragarhi article – the movie is based on the Saragarhi battle. The film is expected to be released on 21 March, so we can expect at least one month of disruption. After that the disruption will depend on the box office performance of the film. So this article needs to be semi-protected. Thanks.
NitinMlk (
talk)
23:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
PS: The film trailer was released on 20 February, and all sort of problematic editing by IP users started on the very next day, which led to its temporary semi-protection. -
NitinMlk (
talk)
00:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – A higher-protection is necessary due to the high quantity of sexist rants by IP/new editors. Rotten Tomatoes
had to alter their page due to sexist commentary against Larson, and I believe we at Wikipedia also need to be more careful about this.
Krimuk2.0 (
talk)
07:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Extended confirmed is only to be used if semiprotection is insufficient as autoconfirmed accounts are causing disruption. That isn't the case, and there hasn't been a particularly troublesome history here. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)01:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: For the last two weeks, an unregistered editor has removed
Michelle Obama as a notable alumna of this university. He or she does leave edit summaries, has not participated in the discussion opened in the article's Talk page, and has not responded to a message left on his or her User Talk page. He or she also changes to different IP addresses frequently (may just be the ISP and is not necessarily intentional). This behavior is now disruptive - it has occurred six times with no sign of stopping - and our only recourse appears to be semi-protecting the article.
ElKevbo (
talk)
02:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined There is not much of this, and the other editor(s) are autoconfirmed, so semi-protection would not help. If you find someone's input to be unwelcome, you can always ask/tell them to stay off your talk page. While such requests are not enforceable, they are generally expected to be honored.
MelanieN (
talk)
20:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP editors removing marriage from infobox and changing personal life section repeatedly without giving sources/references. I keep fixing it but they repeatedly do it again despite being told how things are supposed to be referenced/done on Wikipedia. There have now been multiple edits over the past couple days... they delete stuff from infobox too
MiarrenEmily (
talk) (
talk) 10:48,
22:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I would support full edit protection of all Venezuela articles until the dust settles. We're not a news service, we need to stop trying to pretend we are one.
Simonm223 (
talk)
20:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: The usual gang of IP drive-by folks who get mad when RT finesses their algorithm/superhero movies do something 'wrong' are ranting about Captain Marvel and angry they can't downvote it on that site anymore, so their firehose is coming this article's way; one good edit since Tuesday (there's also some other guy axe-grinding because his reviews were rejected by the site on the side). Three weeks with a week of box office in the books should ward them off. Nate•(
chatter)17:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP editor keeps creating unsourced stub over redirect; the redirect serves a purpose, but subject is clearly not notable enough for standalone article yet. --
Another Believer(
Talk)17:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't have much of an opinion; there used to be zero
reliable sources and lots of copy-pasted spam, sockpuppetry and likely
undeclared paid editing. That was five years ago.
Pharaoh of the Wizards, why not create the stub in a sub-page of your user page and have it moved when it's ready? That might be easiest. Please remember that even stubs need to establish that the subject is
notable, though; merely adding a link to the University Grants Commission doesn't do that, in my opinion.
Huon (
talk)
11:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Temporary protection for this article, he recently had a stroke and I feel like temporary protection on the article is the best solution as news about his condition develops.
Pahiy (
talk)
16:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IPs are edit warring (probably the same person). I think it's fairly safe to say that the IPs are wrong, since five different users have reverted the respective edits (not to mention that there's a fair amount of evidence).
Jc86035 (
talk)
11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: The article is a BLP on an activist connected to the current "Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party" controversy whose content is more or less strongly connected to the Palestine-Israel conflict (the subject is an anti-Zionist and appeared in the Aljazeera documentary on the UK Israel Lobby) and therefore contains material which falls under the ARBPIA editing restrictions, which include a requirement that editors have EC status. Currently the article is being heavily edited by an IP editor who has ignored requests to leave material strongly related to the IP conflict alone. Apologies if I've come to the wrong place. The article has been subject to the attentions of a sockpuppet in the recent past and the IP's edits look like more of the same. ←
ZScarpia12:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. I do not see any immediate relation to ARBPIA, and, since the request was not acted on for longer than 24h, I am not the only one, but semi for 1 year (with the prospect of the next one being for an indefinite duration) is justifiable.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
16:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Continual addition of information with no source whatsoever while I am trying to get this list to Feature List standard. IP users repeatedly add information even when asked to stop and provide sources. Please protect the page. .
NicklausAU11:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – An IP anonymous editor has been reverted multiple times by many editors for added a whole section that has been described as sourced by blogs and contains a lot of original research and undue. Also the IP refused to discuss this in the talk page.
SharabSalam (
talk)
11:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, but this one is different. This is not "contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia", creating the category would litterally defeat the purpose of having it / be vandalism. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}07:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: Semi-protection won't stop edit warring between experienced contributors. It'll need full protection. As per
Amorymeltzer's comments at the AfD, I hope we don't have to go down that route.
Airplaneman ✈01:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Indeed — I considered full protection during the CSD edit war, but thought my comments would be a better way of handling things. So far it seems to have worked! ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)01:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: Actually, it is "...Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the conflict." I do not see enough disruption in this article as it is.
Lectonar (
talk)
16:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
JalenFolf: Um, why would this need protection? The IP's second edit was, in effect, just a blanking of some of the warnings, which is allowed. Even if this were a problem, we would just remove talk page access for the duration of the block, not protect the page.
Meters (
talk)
20:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't yet see this as necessary. I see that one user has been blocked, but overall, the situation seems manageable with the current semi.
Samsara15:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined Not going to do a mass protection like this. Please be more selective. My advice would be to only submit those with history of disruption. If it ain't broke. . . .
DlohCierekim(talk)01:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply