Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection., the today edits look more like insufficient competence of a new user than like vandalism--
Ymblanter (
talk)
15:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Going through Reddit, seems as if YouTube TV leaked an episode early, forgetting about the World Series last night and that it preempted a new episode of TMS. (
Example post 1,
example post 2): the leaked episode doesn't actually air until November 6, so would love page protection before anyone does possibly starting putting spoilers in.
Magitroopa (
talk)
19:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – A COI editor was banned for making legal threats while upset at edit warring. Discussion
at ANI and after editing as an IP, which I then turned into
an SPI, they are now making multiple new accounts, and still vandalizing this page, as well as the SPI page and there's no reason to imagine they will stop any time soon. .
JesseRafe (
talk)
14:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Pending changes protection: This article gets vandalized frequently throughout the year and could greatly benefit from pending changes protection.
Clovermoss (
talk)
21:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., the article is broadly construed to ARBPIA, not reasonably construed, and the current practice (which can change after the current arbitration case has been concluded) is not to protect such articles with a reference to ARBPIA.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
11:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
For more information, the individual is a politician and has been recently hospitalized, and people are (incorrectly) adding death dates and the like because they do not like him.--
Jorm (
talk)
20:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Several IPs, obviously being used by the same person, are redirecting the page, although several editors have opposed that. The IPs have been asked to open a move request if they want the article have another name.
Ktrimi991 (
talk)
11:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: This will be a very high-traffic page (linked from central notices) that will be prone to vandalism; requesting page protection through the month of November as we have done in previous years. Thanks, ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs07:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. All IP edits appear to be vandalism, but they are few and far between. Only one such edit was made today. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
00:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. It was one edit, made hours ago. I would need to see more vandalism before reprotecting it. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
00:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. IPs disrupting, others editing constructively. This article could use some more eyes, though.
Lectonar (
talk)
14:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: This page has been repeatedly vandalized by that LTA who keeps posting pictures of a particular train. In addition, as an LTA page, there's really no reason for anyone not autoconfirmed to edit it. --
Rockstonetalk to me!22:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism in music section, likely to escalate due to fanwars originating from twitter as it gain more attention. Need immediate attention from rollbackers.
Froswo (
talk)
20:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Multiple wireless IPs make the same or similar unsourced additiions of non-notable persons to an alumni list (all edits have been reverted and warnings left on talk pages):
[5][6][7][8].
Archer1234 (
talk)
22:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by adding fake results committed by an IP originated in Tangerang, Indonesia since yesterday.
Flix11 (
talk)
16:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: I am asking for protection of the article once more. There is a high level of IP vandalism regarding the party's leadership positions. The party has very complex leadership positions. Interim leadership is to be elected on 17 November 2019. If possible, could the protection last just a bit after the 17th?
LefcentrerightTalk(plz ping)20:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Since the start of October, there has been a back-and-forth between a number of IP addresses, involving some removing as much as 37 KB of information, and others restoring it. It looks to be some sort of slow-motion edit war between editors who will not discuss and have not listened, so it does not look to be stopping any other way. Ss11209:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Although this was made autoconfirmed-protected, this does not really seem effective, as it was recreated another time afterwards and deleted as G11. The protection level should be best upped.
ミラP03:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The two edits were made over a week ago and there has been no disruption since.
Kosack (
talk)
08:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Full protection: This was reduced from full protection to template protection in an attempt to allow
RexxS to edit it, which failed due to it being used on the main page. That reason no longer applies since they are now an admin, and the only effect of the page not being full-protected given that it is used on the main page is to create false "Edit" links for template editors.
* Pppery *it has begun...00:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: @
Pppery: You're quite right and the issues for me no longer exist. The other alternative that we discussed would be to fork a version of the module purely for use on the main page. Both the main page's module transclusions and this module have been very stable for a considerable time, so there's little concern over updates to the module. It would only be worth doing, however, if other template editors wanted to be involved in maintaining this module. and I suspect that is not the case. Would you like me to raise the protection level of this module to full protection now? If anybody finds a reason not to, it's a simple job to revert that action. Cheers --
RexxS (
talk)
02:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Multiple wireless IPs make the same or similar unsourced additiions of non-notable persons to an alumni list (all edits have been reverted and warnings left on talk pages):
[9][10][11][12].
Archer1234 (
talk)
21:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Please see this
entry. This is a high-profile article due to the on-going impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. It would also probably be a good idea to revision-delete this diff. Please protect for a month or so, or perhaps indefinitely given that this is BLP and that the subject may also testify publicly. .
K.e.coffman (
talk)
16:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Seems like it was really just a short 15-minute burst, hasn't been anything in the hours since. The recent history isn't great, but it doesn't appear to be excessive yet. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)19:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. One user on one day. If they persist they can be reported at AIV, although I note you've warned them twice since they last edited. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)19:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Another account has started making unsourced additions,
Lectonar, possibly the same person given how similar their changes are. Maybe you could reconsider and semi-protect for sock puppetry?
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits)
17:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent additions of a birthdate without a source, despite a large hidden note in the edit-window. I wrote this article; a source isn't readily available, so just finding one isn't a solution. . Vanamonde (
Talk)17:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. last protection came off and vandalism immediately reoccurred. If that happens again, longer-term protection may be needed
Nosebagbear (
talk)
21:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and other disruptive editing; began around late October but became more prevalent around and during its TFA schedule.
Macrophyseter |
talk18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Ivanvector: due to their problematic past, I'd think it would be wise to leave these be, the protection should certainly not be in the way of anyone improving the encyclopedia. —
xaosfluxTalk12:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Pages aren't protected unless there is a need for them to be protected. These were protected as, effectively, high-risk templates, and they are now no longer used. I don't see why unprotecting them should be controversial.
* Pppery *it has begun...19:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Waves of IP edits mostly consisting of vandalism and unsourced content which PCP has failed to curb.
Philroc(c)18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Continuous editing by anonymous users inconsistent with Manual of Style. Warnings left on each user, however it appears they continue to access via different IP addresses and never engage in discussion regarding their seemingly disagreement over MOS.
ms784 (
talk)
19:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Discretionary sanctions article (BLP in the 2020 U.S. presidential election). Much disruptive editing ongoing to make it seem like the subject mistreated the black residents of South Bend. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
16:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Mass insertion/deletion & replacement of images with no discussion. I am about to start a thread on the talk page, but in the meantime things are getting out of hand.
Curved Space (
talk)
07:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: Sorry, but where does it get out of hand? We have a little back and forth with about 6 reverts in the last 3 days....imho this does not warrant full protection at the moment. Using the talk-page is a good start.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
This is one IP, which can be dealt with by other means than full-protection of an article (
WP:AIV comes to mind). This is pages for protection, not the page to deal with disruptions in general. And Wikipedia is not censored.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Fair enough -- I've started discussion. However, I think your comment about
WP:CENSOR is inapplicable. The issue is not the content (although some of it is clearly not in the Glamor photography category anyway) but the shotgun/bombardment approach used on an obviously already contentious series of edits.
Curved Space (
talk)
08:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Need immediate protection. Her nude pictures were leaked recently, and some people are trying to add them here.
Störm(talk)12:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Because of edit wars for some reason, I decided to file a request to fully protect WJCT (TV). That's because of me and Cuchullain reverting it back and gave me a final warning to stop edit warring or I will be blocked. So I will stop doing that by fully protecting WJCT to prevent edit wars. CentralTime301(talk, contribs)22:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined@
CentralTime301: Article not edited for some weeks before this request...if it is an edit war at all, it is somewhat
lame. And please don't add protection templates on non-protected pages: as you can see they are removed by a bot.
Lectonar (
talk)
06:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined Despite being indeed offensive (altough when I read some edit-summaries all-over Wikipedia, I ask myself if it would really be considered offensive in interactions here, but that's another discussion...), this has not been recreated. We shall see.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed-protection: Resumed right after protection expired. Tampering the box office figures. Auto-confirmed promotional accounts are also performing this.
137.97.98.52 (
talk)
07:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing by various IPs and new users for almost 1 months going on in the article. New users and IPs are vandalising the players career stats. Need to be protected.
Dey subrata (
talk)
11:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. The existing semi-protection seems to be doing the job.
MelanieN (
talk)
01:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Indeed it is only move-protected at the moment, but the disruption is just not big enough. And why extended-confirmed protection?
Lectonar (
talk)
06:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed-protection: Persistent
vandalism, both account and IP one. Dozen of ethnicity-related (due to Yugoslav war) cases after I significantly expanded article by translating Bosnian i.e. Serbian version. If not extended confirmed, please protect it indefinite semi or other level. --
Obsuser (
talk)
15:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: An IP user insists on adding false and unreferenced content. For example he claims that Weston is not a reference implementation of Wayland, despite the fact Weston's
README file says the opposite. He also insists on adding the claim that a feature is "controversial", even though the referenced commit says nothing about a controversy.
KAMiKAZOW (
talk)
20:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. Article was unprotected earlier today after being semi-protected for a month, and now IPs are edit warring again.
Please note that the article has been protected multiple times just in this past year:
October 3
[14], September 23
[15], August 13: protection level was upped to Require extended confirmed access[16], July 4
[17], May 26
[18], and May 16, 2018 which protected the article for a year until May 16, 2019
[19]. Another user thought an indefinite page protection was warranted
[20] a while back.
Someone963852 (
talk)
23:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Protection expired on the 25th of October after being protected for several months. Vandalism continued as soon as it expired.
Nemov (
talk)
18:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – A lot of anonymous back-and-forth editing over the past 24 hours, clearly disrupting this page, and I suspect some sockpuppetry is involved. Recommend semi-protection for at least 1 week.
GoneIn60 (
talk)
21:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined Editors are correct to state that BLP (and thus stricter referencing rules) applies to the recently deceased. No-one has yet strayed into prohibited edit-warring area yet (notwithstanding the exception in BLP areas): I'd suggest taking it to the talk page
Nosebagbear (
talk)
23:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing by various IPs to malign the image of the personality by making him residence of another country, the topic which is recently going on in politics in his state. The page is protected earlier but as soon as the protection is lifted new IPs are again vandalising. Need to be protected for extended confirmed users.
Dey subrata (
talk)
11:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I was considering holding off due to the vast hoard of IP edits not being specifically reverted, but it actually looks more like a bunch of edit warring and individuals changing their mind on how to vandalise it.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
23:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Disruption stopped after IP had been warned.
Lectonar (
talk)
10:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
Lectonar (
talk)
10:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – at least one very persistent IP user has been very insistent on adding unsourced content here; I haven't gone through all of it, but some of it is verifiably false and may get into BLP issues as well. Indef semi-protection might help here. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
21:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Changes to the source and
WP:CONSENSUS "start" of the season is being changed by anons, new editors and SPAs has started again. I expect it to continue until after "western" Christmas (December 25). How about protect, or at least ECP until the end of the year?.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism, from multiple sources. Regular editors are being run ragged trying to keep the page presentable. Collateral damage would be minimal, since this list very rarely needs to be updated. ∴ ZX95[
discuss20:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Full protection: Requesting protection to prevent further good faith usage of Twinkle and other automated scripts to send messages to this banned user.
Jalen Folf(talk)21:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined There's really no need; we have plenty of banned or indefinitely blocked users, and it's a fairly common situation. You can uncheck the box to notify this user. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)10:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: One user in a full week since protection ended doesn't seem so bad.
ST47, you did the last protection, for a month, do you see a need? ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)19:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed:Arbitration enforcement – I would like to request a one month ECP for this article due to repeated disruptive editing and edit warring by newbie editors. This is a current hot topic in India due to the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir at the beginning of this month.
Kautilya3 (
talk)
18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: I have removed the negative, undue weight, graphic, poorly sourced, and previously challenged and removed content. I have also revdel'd at least some. This should not be added back without talk page discusion. -- Deepfriedokra09:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Almost immediately after the previous protection expired, an IP editor whose address has changed a number of times has again been on the article adding charts they have been told not to add before (
WP:BADCHARTS). If the article is not protected, they will continue adding these charts. They have not listened to requests, warnings and reverts in the past, and if they are blocked, they will just use a new IP address. Ss11210:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - an odd assorted mix of issues that's bumped up the rate to be too high for the permanent PC. I've given it a brief pause and hopefully the standing PC will suffice after that
Nosebagbear (
talk)
09:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. followed by:
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - the long-term range is on the verge of being too high for PC, so a replacement with long-term SP may be needed depending on what happens.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
09:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The two IPs socking have been blocked in the meantime; disruption apart from that was not pronounced, so pending-changes should do for now. I have watchlisted.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
There was a nasty little bit of off-WP nastiness over this article, with editors trying to keep to our policies being threatened with retaliation, including firing. That stuff seems to be a matter of the past, so I've got no problems with it being un-protected, if one or two of my colleagues will keep an eye on it. --
Orange Mike |
Talk23:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: It's been more than a few hours since the last user was blocked, so maybe that will do for now? Leaving open since this seems like it could go either way from here. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)19:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. I have blocked the 2a01:cb10:5da:8400::/64 range, which covers all the recent vandalism, for a week. No doubt protection may be needed once a date is set for the election.
Bishonen |
talk20:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent and disruptive IP editing. IP editor believes use of "first" rather than "only" is propaganda (despite consensus to the contrary by other editors) and refuses to discuss on article talk page
Fcrary (
talk)
22:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. while it's been a year since the last protection this set of vandalism has been running for a while. I've revdelled one particular piece of vandalism, I'll have a look at the older ones.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
22:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – The disruptive editing has begun again after months of peace. Pending changes protection for all editors could solve this recurring disruptive editing.
Semsurî (
talk)
01:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – It is unlikely that the vandalism will ever stop. (Notable journalist fighting against the establishment.).
Kautilya3 (
talk)
13:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - his article has gone long periods of time without vandalism before, so I'll try a longer protection and see if it needs indef after. I considered PC since the average edit rate isn't wildly high, but when it comes, it's usually coming in active peaks.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
15:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: The article is consistently being reverted by IP user(s), with removing and changing sourced content, and they have been notified to no avail -
FOX 52 (
talk)
17:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined, content dispute. I checked that the source 28 mentions both CL-215 and Mi-2, which probably means you have to discuss this and find consensus.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
08:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined This seems more like a disagreement about sources; the OP has been reverted himself. Please use the talk-page to hash it out.
Lectonar (
talk)
06:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: - Please can this page be protected from edits by new users. Also can the current vandals be banned from editing. This is the second time that this page has been attacked by a person or persons connected. They are morphing it into a completely different person. Thanks
Karl Twist (
talk)
07:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Unprotected This page has been protected for over 9 years and it's not really needed for it to be protected anymore, since there wouldn't be much vandalism on the page, in fact, very little. For example, if you look at what the page was before, there was only vandalism once every month or so, so I don't see why this is protected. Thanks! Dibbydib💬/✏08:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: its past year of semi-protection expired and IP editors immediately resumed adding racist apologism screeds to the hatnote and deleting words they don't like from source quotes. Another year?
EllenCT (
talk)
22:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – We have a vandal, keen to censor a particular detail from the article, who keeps on hopping IP addresses. A period of semi-protection would give them an opportunity to find an alternative source of amusement.
DanielRigal (
talk)
23:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism since yesterday. One or two of the vandals have ids, but protection will stop most of it.
ubiquity (
talk)
17:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Previously protected, it's been hit with increasing frequency as the holiday approaches. Maybe a protection until it's over is in order.
Ifnord (
talk)
18:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – 3-Year autoconfirm protection just expired Nov 4. 3 days ago. Recent vandalism by multiple anons. For evidence please check filter log as well as edit history. At the very least autoconfirm protection should be reinstated and in my opinion made indefinite.
Shearonink (
talk)
15:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I see a lot of editing but I don't see any policy violations. If there are some I have missed, please link to them and protection could be reconsidered by me or another administrator. Fish+
Karate11:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – An [already blocked] unregistered user by the name of Frostbite3721 has been vandalizing this article above yesterday. The article has to be semi-protected indefinitly to prevent further vandalism. Cheers!. CentralTime30112:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Repeated edits from new/IP editors adding deliberate errors, need protection for a few days to push editors to talk page and reduce the amount of reverting that's currently happening. Ravensfire (
talk)
15:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection or full protection: Yesterday in my round of NPR I noticed
Kingshow2150 had been constantly reverting a redirect that has been in place since
January 3, 2019. This user's edit pattern has been consistent since October 13, 2019 and despite a 24 hour block on October 27, 2019 the user never quits. The user also fails to add or fix the article. After I restored the redirect leaving valid reasons as to why it should remain in my edit summary I left a
single warning on the user's talk page with a personal note guiding the user to AFC then I requested temporary extended confirmed protection and
was denied. Now an IP address has followed in the same pattern as Kingshow2150 in reverting the redirect but took it one step further and
removed the article maintenance tags that were present before I restored the revert yesterday. I really don't want to waste the community's time taking this to AFD or starting a sockpuppet case just for an IP edit and I'm not sure what to do here. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?05:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. @
Alucard 16: Rather than edit war over the redirect, allow the article to be created and send it to AFD. If it is clear-cut a case as you say then there should be no issues, as the link can then be set back to a redirect and protected to enforce the AFD decision, but imposing protection at this point to resolve a content dispute without checking the viability of the article fairly would not be appropriate. Fish+
Karate10:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Over the period of the last few weeks changes are being made - like Indian PM changed to Pak PM, a line which had both India and Pak, the Indian part was removed. Also the inauguration of this is today/tomorrow. Please but this under temporary protection on the basis of past history as well as saving it from vandalism just now.
DiplomatTesterMan (
talk)
07:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Not done The entire article is unsourced, I don't see why the IP's unsourced list of "prominent and renowned" hotels is any more or less viable than your preferred unsourced list of "prominent and renowned" hotels. Fish+
Karate10:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Ultimately, this page needs indefinite IP protection. Virtually every IP edit is vandalism (a controversial subject), and it is persistent and non-stop.
Britishfinance (
talk)
13:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Muboshgu: We should just reduce it to see if its still needed, if there is no disruption, keep it that way. Any disruption occurs, put it back. Also, the protecting admin is retired.
Finball30 (
talk)
23:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I would strongly oppose unprotecting. As anyone could imagine, there would be significant disruption and edit warring over such an article. And indeed, that's what repeatedly happened in the past.
Enigmamsg04:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined I agree with my admin and ex-admin colleagues....looking back at the times before we had extended-confirmed protection at our fingertips, it was bad enough, disruption-wise.
Lectonar (
talk)
10:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
That page is for requesting access to the AFC Helper Script - is that what you want to do? But AfC reviewers must have, among other things, at least 500 undeleted edits to articles; you are not there yet as you only have around 150 edits to article space. Keep on making good edits to articles and try again when you have 500 edits. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
19:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism. Controversial foreign minister subjected to OK boomer meme. Subject's Twitter account has been flooded with the retort and continued vandalism is forseable in the short term.
Hariboneagle927 (
talk)
02:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP users are contributing with updates to the poll result tables in this article, but are not conforming to the manual of style, as you can see for yourself from the wrecked table layout. I have repeatedly tried to address this, and asked that the users in question try to avoid messing up the article's content as it is becoming tiresome to have to correct their mistakes on a regular basis. It seems as though these IP users do not know how to properly handle the wiki code for tables. And so it is quite frustrating not to be able to contact these contributors properly, since they are only IP users, and I would therefore like to request for the page to be semi-protected. If they so wish they can then set up accounts so that this persistent issue can be addressed, and then they can resume their contribution. Μαρκος Δ01:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I'm wondering if this should be semi-protected for a while due to off-wiki canvassing by CJ Hopkins
[35] including an attack on an editor.
Doug Wellertalk 10:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Oops, 3 editors. Actually I came back to note it was two, Grayfell and Philip Cross, and then found that I was featured(Hopkins apparently has no sense of humor but I'm pleased he linked to my userpage)! I see the article itself is now protected, but I'm still concerned about the talk page.
Doug Wellertalk13:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Article talk pages are rarely protected. There would have to be some serious repeated disruption for even a short duration to be applied.
El_C23:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:vandalism - There have been 4 edits made by Anonymous IPs without citations (they have been re-editing after reverting the edits). Please semi-protect to avoid anonymous IPs from making edits without providing citations or sources. Thank you.
Apollo1203 (
talk)
16:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined somewhat stale, since it's been 12 hours since the last attempt. Additionally, all the edits in the last 10 days were from 1 editor, who no-one has yet communicated with - if they try again that would be a logical route to take first
Nosebagbear (
talk)
22:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Nableezy: in regards to you creating the actual edit notice: I realize you've grown accustomed to doing this (probably because your 500-30 submissions are almost always accepted here), and you're just trying to lighten our load by doing so, but it would probably be better if you let an admin create it. Because you are effectively imposing 1RR before that DS has been approved by the given admin. Anyway, Done as per usual.
El_C23:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I was given the page mover permission for that explicit purpose, and my understanding, at least until the current case is decided, is that what is required for 1RR is the edit-notice, not the extended-confirmed protection. nableezy -
00:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
Vandalism – Various IPs keep adding unsourced crap to the talkpage (Claiming she's going to be in a show or something), Talkpage was last properly used in 2008 so protecting it won't harm anyone, Thanks. –
Davey2010Talk19:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Edit-warring by a single user to reinstate article on non-notable subject. Actually I'd prefer a block of
Kingshow2150 at this point, but I'll leave that to the determination of an admin. In any case this constant EW behaviour must stop. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
17:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined, we do not protect articles agains a singtle user. I see that they have not edited after a warning, if they restore the article again they need to be blocked long-term--
Ymblanter (
talk)
21:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: IPs repeatedly adding incorrect seat change figures. I also strongly suspect sockpuppetry is at play.
Number5717:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – One of the most vandalised (used for persistent IP-spamming due to its huge readership, per talk page stats) on Wikipedia. It is a waste of editor time consistently reverting IP pending protection edits - we should move this to indefinite protection.
Britishfinance (
talk)
11:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. In the last few days, there haven't been that many edits to revert. The article has only been semi-protected once. For those reasons, I'm going with a temporary semi-protection, for now. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
17:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Muboshgu, there is an IP edit to revert almost every second day - day-in-day-out. Look at October alone - there are 39 reversions of different IP vandalism. That is only October - it is the same level in September, August etc. (ever since I overhauled this article earlier in 2019) ...... That is at the extreme end of protection requirement. It is a poor use of time for editors to be reverting this, surely? I think this article needs longer-term autoconfirmed protection – at least 12 months,
Britishfinance (
talk)
17:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment:@
Britishfinance: IMO Muboshgu’s month of semi-protection was generous. The number of edits needing to be reverted is borderline for semi-protection; many would say that the existing PC protection is enough. Please see
WP:Protection policy; articles are protected only just enough to prevent disruption, while allowing constructive editing, consistent with our motto as "The Free Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit". Or read my essay,
User:MelanieN/Page protection, for some thoughts about protection philosophy. --
MelanieN (
talk)
20:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Lots of vandalism from multiple IPs in the last day or so, mostly related to the recent flooding. Perhaps a short term PC protection.
WJ94 (
talk)
14:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
This page has attracted scrutiny beyond the necessary, in my opinion, and photos have been deleted for no good reason - not merely removed from the article, but actual files have been deleted - either by users or bots, repeatedly. I continually do my best to adhere to copyright legalities and improve upon that and make sure all the licensing technicalities are taken care of. Dekanova is the first-ever World All-Around Champion in the sport of Artistic Gymnastics and I see absolutely no reason why, in addition to a biographic picture, there should also be *at least* one photo illustrating her ability. Biographical pages of other top gymnasts (
Larisa Latynina,
Nadia Comaneci,
Simone Biles ) have images in addition to their biographical portrait, so I see absolutely no reason why this should also not be the case for Dekanova. Bots shouldn't be allowed to deface this page in an automated fashion.
Thank you for your attention.
Miloluvr (
talk)
07:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined There is no need for indefinite create protection. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's protection policy before making more reports here. Thank you. --
Ed (
Edgar181)
11:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – trolling by sock of Cow Cleaner 5000. They claim they're sourcing content, but their source fails to back up their claim. And they refuse to acknowledge that.
Crboyer (
talk)
05:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: New ISIS leader, IP vandalism every single day, request a year protection similar to old ISIS leader page, which was 3 years.
KasimMejia (
talk)
08:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: I declined the protection some days ago, and would decline it again; IP vandalism every day is simply a misrepresentation. Since when? Adding a birth date without source is not vandalism, but at worst that: adding something which is not sourced, and at best a good faith attempt to add lacking information. Disruption so far is manageable without having to resort to protection.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Since he became the leader of ISIS, 7 days ago. There has been over 10 vandalism's, so I don't know why
Lectonar has a tendency unlike other administrators to not to protect pages easily, but in my opinion this is very disruptive to Wikipedia. The page is recently getting a lot of views due to being in the news, and by checking the history, I see the vandalism's sometimes go for an hour before being reverted, meaning a lot users are reading the vandalism's. The simple solution to this is page protection, which most admins would have quickly done but I suppose you have a reason in mind for not protecting the page?
KasimMejia (
talk)
10:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
10 instances of vandalism over a week is not a lot. And looking at the edits you're describing as vandalism, most of them appear to be good-faith attempts to improve the article. Edits that you may not agree with are not automatically vandalism. I agree with Lectonar, at this point in time there is no justification for protecting the article. Fish+
Karate11:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I agree with the others here that this article does not currently meet my standards for semi-protection. That could change with future editing, so I will watchlist the article.
MelanieN (
talk)
00:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Please, protect this page. IP and account put the name of Badar Ul Islam on this article who is not affiliated to this competition according to reliable source and official website. He/they also put a false gmail address in stead of official website.
S. M. Nazmus Shakib (
talk)
16:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent IP-hopping
vandalism and serious
BLP policy violations. It's worth noting that the page has been semi-protected multiple times previously and was semi-protected for one year several years back.
UnderMyHead (
talk)
02:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Multiple IP users adding poorly sourced nationalist irrelevant information, pushing non-neutral POVs, making arbitrary reverts etc. User has stated that will continue to revert to make his/her day. --
5.43.77.235 (
talk)
23:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: It was semi-protected before to prevent IP Addresses from adding incorrect/false/unsourced items. Since the page was recently unprotected, IP Addresses are adding fake information/fake TV Shows to the list.
TheBlackKitty (
talk)
00:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Due to the Hello Internet podcast this article keeps being spammed. This year has just seen one word change, but lots of continued disruptive editing. As it's unlikely to have much new to add to it seams sensible to block new/anon editors from wasting our time with their podcast trivia. .
KylieTastic (
talk)
16:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP vandalism over this term has not abated since the last protection expired on 29 Oct and will not abate until the political situation changes. CaradhrasAiguo (
leave language)
18:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: The page has been extended-confirmed-protected for more than a year. There seems to be no good reason to prolong the protection of the page. —
Etewilak (
talk)
00:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Continued unverified date changes by IPv6 users. It's apparent that the IPv6 user (who uses multiple IPv6 addresses that start with 2a02:2f08) will not relent on doing these same exact date changes that they seem unable to back up with a reliable source, and will continue to use the (ineffective) tactic of false edit reasons in hopes of misleading and convincing editors to ignore these edits. Because there have been several instances of this going on for a period of several months now with no signs of stopping, it should be clear that the most effective way to prevent these edits from happening again would be to semi-protect the article indefinitely. –
WPA (
talk)
03:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – An IP is repeatedly adding completely incoherent text to this article (specifically, "Tais Lopes, who was recently part of the JN local presenters rotation, where he stood out and got CNN Brasil to meet on 4 November 2019") and is ignoring messages left on their talk page about it. Page protection may force them to engage in discussion. See also
Jornal Nacional.
Dorsetonian (
talk)
16:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continuously vandalised by IP address. Religio-political slogan and thus blanking is done by both sides of people. Page was protected in past but after removal, it again started. . Harshil want to talk?08:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – The page was semi protected from 20 December 2016 until three days ago (so for almost three years). Since almost the moment the protection was lifted on 7 November, new accounts and IPs have been edit warring to change the infobox and lead in conflict with
MOS:HONORIFIC. The name used in the introduction and infobox have been discussed many times on the article talk page and reflects a broad consensus. bonadeacontributionstalk10:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – This page is subject to continuous vandalism due to its subject matter. I'm getting tired of reverting it every day... please enable PC.
OrgoneBox (
talk)
15:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Full protection: This module is regularly (including at this moment), but not always, used on the Main Page, and is used in multiple system messages. I think that counts as sufficient to warrant continuous full protection over risk level. .
* Pppery *it has begun...17:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP hopping editor adding basically nonsense to article for past several days. Semi protection needed to prevent further incidents. Ravensfire (
talk)
14:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
This journalist is currently involved in a Twitter spat, and there's been persistent vandalism on the page recently by anonymous accounts. The article would benefit from increased protection, it makes any effort to rewrite it impossible. --
Michail (
blah)
18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined One instance yesterday, which was reverted by a bot. Before that: one IP disrupting, another IP reverting. All in all 4-5 disruptive edits since October 30th, which is not a high level of vandalism.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Ok there is currently a vandalism on that page which I didn't revert. I asked for protection before doing so that the user would not start an edit war. But I'm not going to revert the vandalism since you think it doesn't need protection. I'm not a page guardian. You can revert the vandalism if you want. Search for the word "Banana".
KasimMejia (
talk)
13:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
In the context of the current protests in Chile, some demonstrants have started a campaign in the social media to rename Plaza Baquedano into Plaza de la Dignidad. Since then, the wikipedia articles have been constantly vandalized. The Spanish version already increased security.
SFBB (
talk)
17:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: The page has been receiving vandalism over the last two weeks from IP's and newly registered users. There is a good chance this will continue and even potentially increase during the current
UK election, as he is a senior political figure. Asking for the page to be semi-protected until at least a week after the election ends (19 December 2019).
Helper201 (
talk)
12:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: Persistent disruption by IPs of late. The issue from them is over a section of information relating to something concerning a controversial matter that occurred, relevant to the series of the TV programme the article is about, that happened outside the programme during its broadcast. One such IP put forward this reason: "Took out stuff that Promotes hate to Lottie Lion, who is suffering from violent abuse andFake content". The reason given was absurd, given that the information was neutral in tone, delved into the controversy from an encyclopedic viewpoint, and has in no way anything to suggest that it is either fake or promotes hate against someone. To suggest such a reason would mean that anyone could suggest that to remove content they don't approve of against any figure they like such as Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, and so forth.
GUtt01 (
talk)
09:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Vandalism almost every day from different IP adding nonsense in French. This vandalism has been jockingly shared on French Twitter, which could encourage others to do the same (
example 1,
example 2). A temporary semi-protection coul maybe discourage them. Thanks --
Titlutin (
talk)
11:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism, violation of BLP. This page was semi-protected until Oct 29; on Nov 4, same vandalism ("until his death August 11") reappeared.
73.106.75.85 (
talk)
06:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined. I'm not seeing that much disruption in relation to how active the article is. But feel free to cite some examples.
El_C06:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – We have either an IP hopping all over the place or a coordinated attack with multiple IPs and at least one new named account, Attempts to claim that Devin Nune's cow is on the committee
[40] have been going on for more than an hour today, and I see the same edit more than 6 months ago
[41].
Meters (
talk)
06:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Question: Isn't the whole point of the sandbox that anyone can edit it in any way they see fit? If there is sockpuppetry, isn't
WP:SPI the better course of action? –
Muboshgu (
talk)
19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined because the user seems to have run out of open proxies to abuse for the time being, and plenty of admins are now watching. No Wikipedia page is immune to protection as a response to vandalism, but the sandbox should remain open as much as possible.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
00:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – An IP is repeatedly adding completely incoherent text to this article (specifically, "In celebration of the national newspaper's fifty-year anniversary, Rede Globo deployed local broadcasters affiliated with the network nationwide for Saturday news broadcast from August 31 to November 30. such is the newscast and led by two presenters from different federative units, one man and one woman, as well as any possible presenters who are kept away from the stand[12]. Some prominent names in this rotation, such as: Taís Lopes, who soon after, hit his trip to CNN Brazil") and is ignoring messages left on their talk page about it. Page protection may force them to engage in discussion. See also
CNN Brazil.
Dorsetonian (
talk)
17:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: I am going to move to a new account, because the CentralTime301 page is gonna be protected fully to prevent edits. Just so I can move to spicyeater2005. Cheers!
CentralTime30119:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined See
WP:UPROT: protection isn't applied pre-emptively, or when there's no demonstrated need (which I interpret as a history of disruption). Your userpage is already locked from IP editing, which should be sufficient to prevent any disruption.
Airplaneman(talk)✈19:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not seeing anything here that addresses my reason for protecting the page - it was
a spam-prone list, a magnet for non-notable companies wishing to promote themselves by adding them to the list. This problem does not magically go away with time.
MER-C11:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined As per
MER-C. Another option would be to try pending changes protection, but I see that as an inferior solution based on the article's edit history. Though non-autoconfirmed edits were at a volume pending changes is capable of handling, a large amount of those edits were spam, so I think PC would just be a waste of time.
Airplaneman(talk)✈19:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – High level of IP vandalism and BLP violations. The article has previously been temporarily and indefinitely semi-protected, but vandalism has resumed when the protections ended. I suspect vandalism will continue as long as this person remains a prominent political figure. RockingGeo岩石Talk05:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Since some months ago, some IPs and a new account apparently linked with them have been adding content that has been rv by several editors, with the rationale that it has POV issues and lacks source backing it. The article was once semi protected for that reason but disruption resumed after the semi protection expired.
Ktrimi991 (
talk)
17:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection., this certainly would be good enough to protect an article, but for a talk page, whereas not very nice, couple of sock edits per week is something we can live with in order to keep the talk page open.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
13:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: : "....the only topic which ArbCom has explicitly specified for use of ECP is indeed the Arab-Israeli conflict. Administrators may apply indefinite extended confirmed protection at any time to any page in the conflict area at their discretion, whether or not there has been disruptive editing on the page. There is a general consensus that administrators should neither apply ECP to pages with only a tenuous link to the conflict nor seek out articles in this topic area to protect pre-emptively. Many administrators will now only apply ECP in circumstances where there have been editing disputes involving accounts that fail the 30/500 rule." There is no disruption yet.
Lectonar (
talk)
12:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined I'd agree with Lectonar here — I can see a future where disruption happens, and I understand how one can make the connection (why Israel was after the bomb, for example) but it's tenuous at best. I don't think ECP is warranted. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)11:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – RPP on grounds of edit warring. Primarily
user:Aravindddd with clear language that he won't stop and has accused others of being lower class, and various ips removing the same content. No uses of talk page for any party.
Zinnober9 (
talk)
17:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-Protection: Persistent
IP disruption. I made a previous request for protection over this, but to warn the IP user will not suffice; the same MO is linked to a number of different IPs. The article needs this level of protection to act as a deterrent to this behaviour. Their reasons for disruption are from a personal viewpoint, rather than from an encyclopedic one, over a section of information they seem to dislike. Warnings can only go so far.
GUtt01 (
talk)
17:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: I started a talk page thread. Perhaps a discussion will result. Objecting user is encouraged to discuss the removal of content there. I don't see a BLP violation, but if there is one, it could be discussed at
WP:BLPN -- Deepfriedokra18:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Deleted in article space after deletion discussion. Deleted three times in draft space. Please
ECP Salt in both article space and draft space.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
21:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. This article has been subject to much vandalism by "haters" over the years but is becoming more and more of a problem adding rude opinion comments and removing factual, sourced information. It is a problem.
Gjh fan22:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. This article has been getting hit rather intensely the past few days. Can we try semi-protection and increase it if it continues to be a problem?
Kansas Bear (
talk)
08:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Service is about to launch and vandalism has already started to pick up. Recommend protecting it for the next few days.
Brojam (
talk)
03:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. The article has previously been temporarily semi-protected but vandalism has resumed when the time-limited protection expired. I suspect vandalism will continue as long as Ms Lights continues to be a) a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion, b) female, and c) not white. Please can we apply protection until further notice?
John Stumbles (
talk)
20:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. I blocked a tight range of the most-active IP, but outside of that, there's been only one other edit in the nearly two weeks since protection went off so I think we're okay for now. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)21:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Maybe I'm just getting soft, but with the exception of the
obvious vandal, most seem to be (at least somewhat) GF attempts at improving the article. Not productive necessarily, but not hugely disruptive or obvious vandalism. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)21:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. This article has its event happening hours from now, and persistent vandals have repeatedly edited information on the page, including results, winners, etc., without sources and references.
Migsmigss (
talk)
22:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I see that the other user has already started a discussion on the talk page. That is where you should work out this dispute.
MelanieN (
talk)
00:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: There has been a lot of disruptive edits and vandalism on the page, consistently in the past week. Page protection is needed to ensure such IP edits do not happen.
49.38.20.184 (
talk)
07:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Probable block evasion. The editor previously pushing this edit is now blocked for harrassment and now a new IP has suddenly turned up and is pushing the eaxct same edit. Both IP numbers have been extensively editing
It (miniseries) too. Since they are IP hopping SPI will be not much use.
Betty Logan (
talk)
16:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Some clever children keep changing his name to "Donkey Kong". Besides that, there is other vandalism frequently. Thanks,
EDG 543 (
talk)
16:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - it's been a while since it's had a long-term protection, so we'll see if a few days encourages them off wikipedia.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
11:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Various IPs have been periodically adding misinformation and outright hoaxes regarding Hotel Transylvania 4 since at least July. –
Skywatcher68 (
talk)
23:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Lots of IP edits. It looks like most are good. Occasional disruptive editing is not enough for protection. It needs to be pervasive.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
03:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection. An IP user has been consistently adding a great deal of editorial commentary and biased statements against this subject. As the
talk page indicates, I've recently made an attempt at a compromise with my edits, but he simply reverted them and restored his biased POV and shows no interest in working today a
WP:CONSENSUS. His edits violate
WP:NOR,
WP:NPOV,
WP:LIBEL,
WP:BLP,
WP:WEASEL and
WP:V, among others. Temporary semi-protection was
granted in response to this problem a few months ago and it briefly helped, so requesting a longer period this time around. —
HunterKahn01:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. No evidence to support extended confirmed protection. 2 weeks of protection applied to match the article this page now redirects to.
Airplaneman(talk)✈03:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The short answer is, when they were at IP 64.99.238.10 – yes, I warned them about editing tests. I have done so again at the new IPv6. But if this continues, the article should likely be semi-protected for roughly a week to try to put a stop to it. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
13:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This month has seen a lot of vandalism to this page by many IPs. Today, the 4th, and the 9th of November, in particular, have been very active.
TheEpTic (
talk)
21:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Multiple IPs are adding incomprehensible information about
Egypt. This month, editors include 156.204.63.239, 197.46.124.19, 156.204.53.197, 197.46.126.56, 156.204.21.247, 197.46.117.90, 41.37.7.70 (blocked), 41.45.121.69, 156.204.109.223, 156.204.191.138, and 156.204.111.204. —
Arthur Rubin(talk)15:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Twice more by 156.204.240.3 , and once by 41.45.98.1 , who are, again, obviously the same person. Edits are rarely done in one step, so there are many more edits than editors. —
Arthur Rubin(talk)03:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – To avoid any vandalized and unverified edits regarding to NBA's new free-to-air rights to CNN Philippines from anonymous and unregistered users. This will only be temporary (p.s. maybe for 2 to 3 weeks or at least a month).
(P.S. I have to explain more about this one besides my initial reason: even though no unregistered users are currently editing this article, it would be best to put semi-protection even though there might be no activity with this article. This will avoid any possible vandalisms or unverified information coming from unregistered users (or from IP addresses) even though there is no activity with it, as been mentioned above.)
Jhenny38 (
Starters talk,
My contributions) 01:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined I understand the concern, but unfortunately, standard practice on this project is to generally avoid preemptive protections. Evidence of persistent vandalism must exist before protection is applied.
Airplaneman(talk)✈03:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
For at least a month, possibly longer, there have been ongoing violations of
MOS:GENDERID regarding the subject's pronouns. A lot of these edits come from IPs, which makes me believe that the article could benefit from a higher protection level so as to avoid such violations in the future and reduce the risk of an edit war. Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me01:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite Pending Changes Protection: Long term disruptive editing including attempts to promote
WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories along with books and authors related to these theories as well as attempts to promote the subject of the article in a manner suggestive of a fan website. This has been going on for years. Enough.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
02:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – People are coming after watching John Oliver's show on SLAPP Suits (Aired Nov 10, 2019) and vandalizing. I think that going through Sunday when the next episode should replace it would be good. Most of the vandals are through IPs. The prior protection appears to be last time this happened.
Jerod Lycett (
talk)
00:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: There's no point anymore. No one has edited it and this page could see some significant improvement. I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (
talk)
04:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note:@
Caker18: There are fewer edits because the page is protected. If you look at the
page logs, there's an extensive history of protection because of vandalism. I have no reason to believe that unprotection will have a different outcome than when
Beeblebrox tried it in October of 2015.
Airplaneman(talk)✈04:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism continued, several users revert it in order to have meaningful designation per refs and adherence. Please protect from IP at least.
--
Obsuser (
talk)
19:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Well watched recent event; disruption not too big.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Well watched recent event; disruption not too big.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Constant reversion by IP-hopping person over a couple years of changing "is one possible claimant to be inventor of the hot dog" to "invented the hot dog". Talk page contains an extended explanation of why the former is a more accurate description, along with refs; IP hopper does not engage.
Herostratus (
talk)
04:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection for 3 months: This is the third time in a month I have had to request protection for this article because every time the protection is lifted, the same IP blocks come back to vandalize it with the exact same edits. The first time was for 3 days, the next one was for 3 weeks. Please at least protect it for the next 3 months unless you want me to come back here in December.十八11:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Ongoing IP vandalism related to the #1 ranked college football team. Likely to continue thru end of season (January 13, 2020).
UW Dawgs (
talk)
15:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The IPs have been removing details such as citizenship. The article has been vandalised in recent times mainly by the IPs.
Abishe (
talk)
08:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., we'll see if a slightly longer protection helps. If it recommences then a long-term protection may be needed
Nosebagbear (
talk)
15:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: High level of IPs removing and adding information on this actor being a pornographic actor, which might be some kind of vandalism, but could be some kind of coordinated attack on a living person. I could not verify that he is or is not a porno-graphical actor, but the information is always added without a source and the edits are also reverted by different IPs. This suggests that there is at least disagreement over the information. There has been 23 revisions to the page in less than 14 hours, all of which are adding the information or reverting the addition of the information. I would propose it needs to be protected, as the information, which is possibly controversial, has never been sourced and the edits are from multiple IPs. Temporary for now, as protection will allow the IPs to make edit requests which allows the sources provided to be checked and protection will possibly discourage the edits if they are just vandalism.
Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions11:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Club official repeatedly editing the article in violation of
WP:COI and
WP:BRD despite request to stop. if they've edited it again by the time this request is responded to, I'd also request they are blocked as they will have violated
WP:3RR.
Number5715:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Seems to have stopped now; this shouldn't be done via page protection: aiv, the edit-warring and other venues are open.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: An increasing amount of IP vandalism has occurred within the past few weeks. Users are not following guidelines that are set in place with other Drag Race seasons and constantly un-edit corrections that are put in place. This makes for no cohesion with other sub-pages of the Drag Race umbrella and general page disruption.
Ellis.o22 (
talk)
23:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by a number of IP users over the last few months, to an extent which has become overwhelming for the registered users watching the page to remedy. --
Jonie148 (
talk)
09:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary full-protection: Persistent
vandalism continued using accounts after IP protection level introduced. Edit warring could be reason for my block what I do not want because I insist on obvious improvements (filling in refs, respecting established Peddie and Deliso refs, not removing pp-vandalism as page is still protected etc.) do not get reverted. Please lock it on correct (eatablished and improved) version and not vandalized (with false dated statement and removed refs, templates etc.).
If not full, please put pending changes or other suitable protection on established and improved revision until consensus is reached. --
Obsuser (
talk)
19:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated additions of original research with ZERO backing third-party reliable sources. This time with the removal of third-party reliable sources backing the CORRECT information the user continues to remove.
User previously was using the User:73.213.196.34 IP/Anon account, but is now using the User:D0h84 sign-in account. I suspect it is the same user based on behavioral and editing aspects.
As the user is now using a sign-in account, I am asking for full protection on the WDCT page. I am also going to ask for a checkuser (CU) to check my suspicion that the user is behind both the IP/Anon and the sign-in accounts.
Neutralhomer •
Talk • 04:50 on November 15, 2019 (UTC)
Here is the link for the SPI/CU I requested:
[42]. -
Neutralhomer •
Talk • 05:01 on November 15, 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. They are not quite autoconfirmed so I only semi-protected. Contact me or repost if problem persists.
Johnuniq (
talk)
06:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: The request was declined by
Muboshgu last time because there were quite a few constructive edits from IPs (at least, what appear to be constructive edits to the non-expert like me). I probably wouldn't apply protection at this moment, either, for the same reason.
Airplaneman(talk)✈23:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined. But please feel free to establish that "the article [has] descended into chaos" by citing individual diffs (of edits by distinct non-confirmed users).
El_C01:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Some anonymous users are removing pictures of the candidates unnecessarily and make difficulties for us to bring back to original position. The results will be released on either 17 or 18 November and there are chances for vandalism. So I am requesting for temporary protection until 18 November.
Abishe (
talk)
03:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism - Due to recent events, this page has been vandalized by various users and it should have full protection for a few days.
BattleshipMan (
talk)
05:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: Currently semi-protected. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users, I don’t think I see such edit-warring here. Is semi-protection sufficient?
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
18:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: A very peculiar case of edit-warring between IPs and others over two rival "official" websites. I have attempted to open a discussion on the Talk page, so far with limited success. Further input welcome.
GrindtXX (
talk)
22:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Taylor Swift's army is marching to her defence, which consists of saying what bad people these are ... it's a bit of a mess. .
DBaK (
talk)
00:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism from IP editors which occurs almost on a monthly basis. This article is unique in that the information in it changes only once per year, so the impact on limiting IP editor access would be minimal. Requesting whichever amount of time deemed as acceptable for placement in semi-prot status. . Spintendo09:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism - almost every edit to the article since its creation is an IP vandal, and virtually no vandal edit is from the same IP. Strange for such a small article, but I guess an internet celebrity is a common troll target.
Gaioa (
TCL)
16:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IP user has twice deleted legitmate material in bio of living person without justification
Update: (s)he just did it for a third time.
Bill (
talk)
19:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – An IP address has been using an innappropriate vandalism message. So in addition to my talk page (which is high risk for vandalism), my user page also needs to be protected as well. They need to be semi-protected for indefinite. Cheers!
CentralTime30123:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Already protected by administrator Zzuuzz. For a couple of days. Your user page is protected against IP and non-autoconfirmed edits by an edit filter so semi-protection is not needed.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
00:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That's a bit hard to work out but there is not enough trouble for indefinite, but there are some problems.
Johnuniq (
talk)
22:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Disruptive IP vandalism has resumed following the end of the previous, four-day semi-protection. Behavior is same as before - removal of content that is well referenced and neutral, without explanation other than personal opinion. An additional part of the vandalism included false information being added in per personal opinion. The most recent included a personal attack against myself. I warned the IP twice not to resume their behavior - an editor who, despite the differing IPs they were assigned, could be identified by the behavior of their edits - but it fell on deaf ears. Blocking won't stop this. I URGE any admin to put this into semi-protection until at least the end of January 2020. It's the only way to discourage them; blocking the IP won't achieve anything if the editor can resume with another IP assigned to them.
GUtt01 (
talk)
08:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I urge someone to step in ASAP! The person editing under an IP conducted another disruptive edit with another attack against me.
GUtt01 (
talk)
09:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I would also like to ask that whoever can attend to this, also strike out the edits of this nature from the article's Revision History.
GUtt01 (
talk)
09:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – persistent IP additions of unsourced factual errors or gently modified copypaste additions from other articles - cannot for the life of me figure out what they're trying to do. . -- a they/them |
argue |
contribs13:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Same IP block continues to edit page in violation of MOS and participate in edit warring despite a previous 1 week block. No responses to warnings left on talk pages, no comments left on edits.
ms784 (
talk)
05:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – vandalism associated with Chuck Schumer, who is receiving extensive media coverage of late - little reason for page to receive many edits regardless due to its nature.
Will120 (
talk)
05:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Concurrently with pending changes protection for one year. Enough is enough of this long term disruption.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
23:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)reply
This lying vandal
Paisarepa is vandalising this page by deleting confirmed information, Henry Golding was born in Malaysia, he is ethnically half Malaysian from his mother’s side of the family and he holds citizenship in both Malaysia and the United Kingdom.
174.237.5.84 (
talk)
19:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Page is getting vandalised due to new owner taking over the team, firing the old manager and making himself manager. Then firing some players and bring on new ones. Think just needs time to settle down. . NZFC(talk)(cont)21:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Repeated addition of the same disambiguation page entry, the edits are rapidly reverted by several different editors. Failure to discuss. The edits come from multiple IP addresses, and are generally the only edit from the address. The same edit has been made spasmodically since 2015, but it has been made several times in the last few days and this has become disruptive.
Verbcatcher (
talk)
15:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: an IP editor has persistently added unsourced content (and, indeed, content thst contradicts the sources provided) to the article for a week or so now.
Mclarenfan17 (
talk)
10:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – The article is about a prominent Bollywood Music composer-singer-actor Himesh Reshammiya, and the article is often being edited disruptively by multiple IPs. So, requesting to protect the page for indefinite period.
Sony R (
talk)
13:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Extended confirmed is not necessary given the disruption is coming from IP editors. 3 months as article has a lengthy protection history. Fish+
Karate13:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – New editor wishes to revise a Good Article with some very garbled and confusing changes. I've repeatedly asked them to seek consensus on the talk page, but instead they are insisting it's "personal" and have declared their intent to edit war "a thousand times a day"
[43]. They're probably just going to get themselves blocked for edit warring and personal attacks, but maybe if the page is locked they will be forced to engage and discuss with other editors, not just me, on the article talk page? .
Dennis Bratland (
talk)
08:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Restored to the Nov 5, 2019 edit, which is the last good edit before the edit warring. I have not restored all the way back to when it achieved GA status, because there were several good edits by others in that time period.
— Maile (
talk)
18:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined I added the formal decline template in the hope the bot will archive this. The problem appears to have been handled as above.
Johnuniq (
talk)
05:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Long-term pending changes: Long-term disruptive editing involving a non-notable low-affiliate television current day TV network trying to turn this article about a defunct TV network into an
WP:ADVERT for them (they bought some assets of the old network, but it's virtually indistinguishable from the old network and is carried by less than ten stations across the United States). Persistent and jumping IPs, but don't want to block actual contribs if they come in. Nate•(
chatter)08:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Mrschimpf: The article has never previously been protected and
WP:ECP is only to be used infrequently and after other measures are tried. I can see that the problem is long term and one week's protection is pretty useless but that's about it for now. Please put an explanation on article talk (which hasn't been edited since 2009) about the problem. You might mention
WP:WTAF and
WP:Teahouse. In the future, link to the explanation in the reverting edit summary.
Johnuniq (
talk)
09:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent
vandalism – Previously, semi protection was also applied and many users are removing sourced content rather than engaging in discussion on talk page. Every time, new user arrives and starts doing blanking. No old user replies on the talk page. Even after seeking third opinions, no new editor engages in consensus building. Semiprotection with blocks on some users have been indeed failed here. Thus, this must be protected upto extended confirmed so that user engages in consensus building. . Harshil want to talk?02:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I see a content dispute, and discussion on the talk-page has already started, including new editors.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Unprotection the dispute regarding the station's governance ended several months ago thus the factors that led to an edit war over thr article no longer exist.
199.119.233.132 (
talk)
13:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Done At least somewhat; I have down-protected to pending- changes for some months, and if there is no disruption in this time, that will have been that.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended-confirmed The last week has just been nuts with a group of several users adding promotional, unsourced, and other encyclopedic content. This doesn't seem to be the norm for the article. A week's extended-confirmed would be enough to make the users forget about it I think. All three users involved are accounts, and I think two of the three are auto-confirmed, so semi-protection wouldn't do much. I'm a little worried I'm overreacting, but this page has been a mess the last week.
Hog Farm (
talk)
03:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended-confirmed Continual
WP:BLP violations with elements of
WP:NPOV recently. At least one of the involved contributors is autoconfirmed. The potentially libelous BLP violations is what is leading to my request.
Hog Farm (
talk)
04:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Once again, the same unregistered individual whose IPv6 addresses begins with 2A02:2F08 continues to change the original air dates without providing a reliable source or a proper explanation to justify their edits, and the one reliable source that is used on the article for original air dates (involving
TVGuide.com) doesn't even prove their edits for them. I also could not find any reliable sources on my accord to prove that the episode in question ("Toying with Jenny / Teenage Mutant Ninja Troubles") aired on the date they keep changing it to (September 21, 2005, instead of the actual original air date of September 9, 2005), so as far as I could tell, their changes are false and unjustified. I cannot stress how has been going on throughout the entire year now, going as far back as January 24; they just will not cease until their unexplained and unproven edit stays on the article. –
WPA (
talk)
01:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Article has been protected one time in its history, and that was by me for three days a month ago. Not enough evidence to suggest it needs indefinite protection. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
05:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined@
Mvcg66b3r: I don't see a degree of disruption that warrants protection. Please spell out any problems with at least the time/date of problematic edits and preferably a brief description of why they are a problem on the article talk.
Johnuniq (
talk)
22:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined@
HistoryofIran: It is not clear from a quick look why the IP edits would be regarded as
WP:VAND. Please put a brief explanatioin on the article talk and link to it in the edit summary when next reverting. That makes it easier to justify protection.
Johnuniq (
talk)
23:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined There's a lot of vandalism today because it's the main page featured article. I think the threshold for protection is typically higher than normal for main page featured articles.
DrKay (
talk)
20:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)reply
It looks like enough to me...it looks like about 80% of the last 100 edits are either IP edits or people reverting those IP edits. I think the anons are trying to use it as an easy means of self-promotion. I misread your comment before Ymblanter, thinking you were saying that semi-protection isn't sufficient for this article, so I've already placed Semi for a year, thinking you'd endorse that. Feel free to revert or shorten if you disagree. ~
Awilley (
talk)23:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note:@
Fylindfotberserk: The "
source" for his birthday simply appears to be an old Wikipedia mirror. I did a quick search for a reliable source and couldn't find one. Sure, the 1972 birthday others seem to be changing it to may not have a source, but is the currently listed 1971 date any more verifiable?
Airplaneman(talk)✈22:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Though I did see at least one or two constructive (or, at least, non-destructive?) anonymous edits, the vast majority of edits in the past day or two have been disruptive.
Airplaneman(talk)✈22:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Persistent
vandalism – Not only is the topic of this page a meme, but the page itself is a very popular meme. Please spare us from the Sheldon Cooper nut smash memes.
puggo (
talk)
20:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Full-protection: Ongoing edit warring involving multiple users, failure to heed article talk, typical factions appearing on article talk, and failure to heed ongoing user talk warnings. I believe full protection would be most helpful so that admins involved are not tempted to revert through semi-protection.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
14:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined - I have faith that the users involved are mature enough to resolve this on their own and so I've left some advice on the talk page. I am open to protecting the page if they decline to take my advice.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
14:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – A small number of EC users have been continuously reverting and undoing each other's work for several days now.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
14:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Primefac:Well, I am not sure what the big highlighted section is and the reason why my name appears in the protection log is because it is one of the userboxen whose protection I lowered from full to template because it isn't so widely employed as to justify full protection. On the substance though I'd agree that this can simply be unprotected.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
12:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
There was supposed to be a ping to
Trialpears but I forgot to put it in. The highlighted notice is at the top of this section.
Primefac, thanks, thought I read somewhere that going to RFPP directly when it's been orphaned is fine, since it's entirely non controversial and is regularly done by administrators without consulting the protecting administrator. For the userbox I noticed that Jo-Jo didn't actually protect the template, but was just reducing protection after HJ Mitchell protected it. Since HJ Mitchell isn't active anymore I came here immediately. ‑‑
Trialpears (
talk)
13:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated removal of copyvio-revdel requests by IP and reintroduction of copyright material. Removal of revdel:
1,
2. Reintroduction of same material:
1,
2. Also of course disruptive editing.
Muhandes (
talk)
09:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Article was already moved to draftspace but recreated in mainspace. If you have a look at the content you'll see. Article was redirected to school district by another editor, the creator removed redirect with an
excellent comment.
Steven (Editor) (
talk)
00:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined@
ThatMontrealIP: I know you are just the messenger but there is a problem, namely that some of the IPs have posted at
Talk:Keith Ablow and have not been answered. That COIN discussion does not show a group of established editors agreeing that the recent edits have been a problem so protection can't really be justified until a consensus can be shown somewhere.
Johnuniq (
talk)
05:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes protection or semi-protection: Prone to vandalism, particularly from IP users, with two IP users vandalizing the page five times today. Vulnerable to users adding in their own names, or the names of their favorite celebrities. It also doesn't make sense that this page, which sees more traffic and is edited more frequently, is unprotected, while its less-edited and less-viewed
counterpart has pending changes protection. Strongly suggest at least matching the two pages' protection levels, if not directly adding semi-protection onto Time 100.
Bobbychan193 (
talk)
07:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Somehow disrupting edits seem to come in bursts, and often the article goes completely unedited for weeks, so no case for semi-protection; I have watchlisted and will evaluate after the 3 months.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Reposted as requested. Persistent IP vandalism returning after the previous semi-protection expired changing the Chinese name of the subject to call him "brain-fried". The IPs just come back no matter how long the semi-protection lasted. Granted, this time the IPs took 6 months to come back but once they come back they hit the article twice in the same day committing the same vandalism from as early as May 2018.
_dk (
talk)
07:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I misread the edit summary. In fact the article was fully protected for two days by another admin.
Johnuniq (
talk)
06:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Two acts of recurring vandalism in less than a day after the last protection was removed. I suspect this will continue to run for a while - a month might give it a chance to cool down a bit.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
21:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. @
Viewmont Viking: While there is definitely a small amount of actual vandalism, how is
thisvandalism? We should not label edits that are trying to help, particularly if made by new users, as vandalism unless they are clearly vandalism. Please read and review
WP:VANDALISM - "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Fish+
Karate15:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Unregistered user under both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses making unnecessary changes including spelling out the full name of one of the cast members (i.e.
Chris Sanders by his full name Christopher Michael Sanders) and adding the casts of one-time crossover guest characters in a bizarre format that even contained inaccuracies (i.e. referring to American Dragon: Jake Long characters as being from Japan even though they're Americans, with two of them being of Chinese descent). Also requesting that Leroy & Stitch also gets semi-protected as it too is a recent target of the IP editor. –
WPA (
talk)
14:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Unprotect or at least reduce to minimal protection like autoconfirmed. Random userspace pages like this should not be full-protected, or it prevents
WP:GNOMEs doing basic maintenance like (in this case) changing
Category:User essays to the more specific
Category:User essays about arbitration (i.e., add parameter to top template: {{User essay|interprets=the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee|RfC/ArbCom]] and [[Wikipedia:Devolution]] pages|cat=User essays about arbitration}}). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 07:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I wasn't going to say anything since I figure that everyone is entitled to a lapse in judgment at times. But it's likely this request is in conjunction with SmcCandlish running around and tagging all the ACE2019 voter guides and other such templates and pages as essays. Unless there's been some sort of RfC saying this should be done, I'd think that these should all be reverted. It's not been done in the past, and without community consensus, I don't think it should be done now. Taking it on himself to perform such editing in a middle-of-the-night unilateral editing spree is disruptive. I considered blocking, but he is an established editor, and considering all the anger that's been floating around the project these last few months, I just didn't want to escalate things - but it appears the SmcCandlish insists on escalating them. I think perhaps a post to one of the ... *sigh* ... drama boards is in order.
— Ched (
talk)
12:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined The protecting admin has been contacted and will react accordingly. At the least it is not a clear-cut case anyway, and may actually be a bit pointy.
Lectonar (
talk)
12:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Confirmed. Please advise how to deal with vandalism from a user who joined within the last 2 weeks, and has removed previous 3RR warnings from their talk page
Jopal22 (
talk)
22:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Jopal22 This table shown here
WP:PPLIST shows it well. The next step up from semi-protection would be Extended semi-protection
WP:BLUELOCK. I would recommend requesting for Temporary extended semi-protection.
Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I’m not sure how I managed to set pending changes protection for an hour as well but it’ll end soon enough.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
11:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – pages are being consistently vandalised (addition of fake / unsourced support staff) by ip editors and short lived accounts.
Spike 'em (
talk)
09:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Anonymous editors persistently changing episode numbers despite notes and warnings in the article to discuss on the talk page before changing numbers.
AussieLegend (
✉)
08:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., and
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There is a content dispute with respect to this page's "Plot" section and how a paragraph or so should be written. Two or more extendedconfirmed editors have reverted edits in a short span of time. Requesting full page protection for between 3 business days and 7 calendar days to establish consensus at the page's talkpage.
Doug MehusT·C22:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I came here to do the same thing. So I second the motion and request indefinite semi-protection because people will never stop arguing about how to address his citizenship and never stop vandalizing his article.
Trillfendi (
talk)
03:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Experienced major vandalism about as soon as it was unprotected. A higher level of protection seems to be needed.
Kingsif (
talk)
00:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: an IP editor keeps adding unsourced content (Ogier and Evans as Toyota drivers) and is trying to pass off an existing, unrelated source (titled "Why a head vs. heart call ...") as evidence of it. While the announcements of Ogier and Evans are expected in the near future, they have not been formally made and previous, similar expected announcements never came to pass.
Mclarenfan17 (
talk)
11:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The qualification involves young people in Welsh schools using IT facilities for their work. As a result the article regularly gets the attention of bored young pupils using Wikipedia for their work, and as shown by the recent history, it is targeted for vandalism. The current article is quite comprehensive so protection would not affect its quality.
Llemiles (
talk)
17:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. One instance. If it keeps occurring then talk page access could be removed by the blocking administrator, anyway, rather than protection. Fish+
Karate15:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
considering it's been pretty consistently vandalized going back to September 8 ( a week after being unprotected) can you extend that a bit?
Hydromania (
talk)
09:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP editor edit warring to restore content supported by no other editor -it was rejected not only by me but by a different IP editor as well. This is particularly egregious behavior since the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, as noted on its talk page. Article needs to be protected to stop this disruption.
Freeknowledgecreator (
talk)
05:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. I was sorely tempted to use DS, but have instead semi'd and made a comment on the talk page. You've done the right thing trying to sort it out on the talk page, but feel free to ping me if there is any more edit-warring.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
07:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Extended Confirmed Protection or Semi-protection: Repetitive addition of unreferenced information and continuous addition of copyright violating images despite warnings.
KasimMejia (
talk)
07:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 72 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. there doesn't seem to be enough history of vandalism to warrant indefinite semi protection. I don't see any part protections in the log.
EvergreenFir(talk)06:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
After discussion and re-evaluation, and taking into account the fact that this article is currently the
TFA, I've removed the protection I applied earlier. Unless the disruption gets to a level and rate that's significant, we should try our best to leave the TFA unprotected.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)21:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It's likely just some kids who are doing this. A two hour duration will easily make them bored and move on, and will put an end to the disruption. :-)
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)20:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There was one more bad edit after protection expired, and the short protection confused the bot.
Johnuniq (
talk)
00:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Previously protected, probably for the holidays, it's been the target of petty vandalisms. A short protection, until next week when it's over, may be helpful.
Ifnord (
talk)
19:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – An anonymous editor keeps adding the same vandalism to the article. I was going to request a block but they've just started using multiple IPs. Only short-term protection required - they'll probably get bored by tomorrow.
WJ94 (
talk)
17:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: High levels of users adding poorly or completely unsourced information, with recent information appearing to be potentially a copyright violation as it is a leaked tracklist.
CAMERAwMUSTACHE (
talk)
00:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Sorry, I missed this decline report when I protected it (forgot to refresh this page having loaded it before your comment). Happy to revert my decision if you feel strongly about it. Regards,
AustralianRupert (
talk)
09:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Essentially an edit war going on over the infobox image of the article. Typically to an older image, the latest image was a copyrighted image which didn’t even show the subjects face.
Alex (
talk)
04:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Vandalism on the article. I'm just reading the article, but a user named
Niga toilet and a suspected IP sock puppet are repeatedly replacing the "Bridge" in "
Marco Polo Bridge" with "Cringe". Also requesting blocking the user for vandalism and the IP for sockpuppetry.
TagaSanPedroAko (
talk)
00:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Talkpage discussion at
Talk:Sharyl Attkisson related to content dispute and what to include at the "Anti-vaccine reporting" section per
WP:BLP is the subject of a 30-day
RfC and is showing no signs of
forming a strong consensus one way or the other. So, with the full page protection expiring in less than 4 days, I thought it prudent to ask for an extension of the temporary full protection, to, say, December 25, 2019, at which point it would be automatically unprotected.
Note: Previous administrator
El C made the page subject to 1RR restrictions, which was a prudent move.
Doug MehusT·C02:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Checking to see if protection is necessary. I have to think about it. As an aside, it's good to see bots getting some respect — we serve at their pleasure, after all!
El_C03:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent
sockpuppetry – This article has long been the subject of a WP:HOAX gemstone by an LTA called Freecomwireless (see talk page tags), requiring long periods of protection; now, an IP is repeatedly trying to delete references to the hoax on the Talk Page requiring Talk Page protection.
Britishfinance (
talk)
00:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Talkpage discussion at
Talk:Sharyl Attkisson related to content dispute and what to include at the "Anti-vaccine reporting" section per
WP:BLP is the subject of a 30-day
RfC and is showing no signs of
forming a strong consensus one way or the other. So, with the full page protection expiring in less than 4 days, I thought it prudent to ask for an extension of the temporary full protection, to, say, December 25, 2019, at which point it would be automatically unprotected.
Note: Previous administrator
El C made the page subject to 1RR restrictions, which was a prudent move.
Doug MehusT·C02:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Checking to see if protection is necessary. I have to think about it. As an aside, it's good to see bots getting some respect — we serve at their pleasure, after all!
El_C03:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Flyer22 Reborn, I see the point, but administrators should
explicitly not use semi-protection in edit wars involving autoconfirmed editors. The talk page has not been edited since 2019-05-06; a relevant policy section may be
WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. As the protection request seems to be valid, I hopefully chose a policy-compliant action that comes closest-possible to your request.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
00:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Flyer22 Reborn, sorry, you're correct. Point 3 under "Guidance for administrators" at
WP:SEMI does include edit warring and thus confirms the validity of your original request. You had also specified this reason in your request. Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
May I kindly request adding a section to the talk page nevertheless? After all, the idea behind protecting this page is enforcing proper discussion of what seems to be a large content dispute over a small detail.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
00:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
~ ToBeFree, thanks for changing the protection. Before my Internet connection started acting up, I was in the process of stating the following: "This is not some edit war between autoconfirmed editors. It is a disruptive IP being reverted by multiple autoconfirmed editors. This is not some edit war case where the article should be full-protected as if legitimate discussion will be had. There's really nothing to debate. The IP is being disruptive, plain and simple. Administrators semi-protect in cases like these all the time. See, for example,
Ferret's semi-protection applications to the
Slut-shaming article. The IP doesn't care what consensus there is on this matter. Going by all the times the IP hopper has been reverted, the consensus is already clear. An editor can take this issue to the article's talk page, but that IP hopper is not going to show up there to argue anything. And, in this case, when your full-protection wears off and the IP hopper continues where they left off, with several more editors reverting, is the article to be full-protected for a week again? So the article gets to be held hostage by this IP hopper? One week of full-protection is too long for this case either way. I see this as a case where an admin should temporarily (for two days or more) semi-protect the article to stop the disruption and hopefully get the IP hopper to stop making this same edit over and over again. The multiple reverts haven't discouraged the IP. Not being able to edit the article might, like it has for other IPs who've done similar at other articles. I might consult a different admin about this. No need to ping me, by the way."
I agree, and I apologize for the incorrect response. In the future, I will use semi-protection to deal with similar cases and have corrected an identical mistake above. Thank you very much for pointing this out, and for the detailed, helpful advice.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
01:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent
disruptive editing – The person talked about in this page jested at the idea of inventing something (green tea sake) that has already been invented and then told his viewers on Youtube to edit Wikipedia to say that he was the creator of green tea sake. In response, the article has been receiving several edits claiming he's the creator of the beverage. . Mccunicano☕️01:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I’m not seeing a need for extended confirmed protection here and in any case we can only use ECP where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, which is not the case.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
02:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Some IPs, apparently being used by the same person, are adding unsourced and redundant material, although they have been reverted by several editors. The IPs have already breached
WP:3RR.
Ktrimi991 (
talk)
22:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Thank you @
ToBeFree:. Since the IPs breached the 3RR, I judged that requesting semi protection would be better than requesting a block. However, sometimes small issues become big problems in Balkan disputes, so the full protection is a better idea. Cheers,
Ktrimi991 (
talk)
00:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Requesting protection due to persistent BLP violations by unregistered editors, including addition of a phone number: see
this,
this and
this edit today. A block on the /64 may also be indicated.
Wham2001 (
talk)
21:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Vandalism, content dispute, fake information,
WP:SYNTH, among other things. Despite warnings, nobody is going to the talk page. It's a
current event, and information is being added without sources or altering what the sources say. Article was already protected, to no avail.
Coltsfan (
talk)
18:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. What I see is two auto-confirmed editors reverting each other, and no attempt to discuss at the talk page. Please give your reasons, sources, etc. at the talk page.
MelanieN (
talk)
21:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Not quite true. Warnings about editing without sources and trying to imput
WP:OR were taking. But if you look his talk page, he delets all warnings and not once tried to talk to me about the reasons of the reverts (though messages were send to his talk page, like i said). It's not someone who showed any willingness to talk.
Coltsfan (
talk)
21:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I've gone for very short protection length since the primary IP has now been blocked. If it flares-up afterwards please re-request
Nosebagbear (
talk)
21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism –
CrowdStrike has been mentioned by The US President as being a Ukrainian-based company when all the sources point to it being a US-listed public company. Edit warring has started on the article. Suggest lockdown at least until end of current impeachment process. .
Stuartyeates (
talk)
10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined - Persistent vandalism? Edit warring? Where? I don't see anything like that at all. There were two edits made by an IP user today, which I've reverted. The previous edits aren't vandalism and have no issues in regards to
edit warring at all...
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)11:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oshwah, support per your reasons. It looked like a single IP user made couple edits that weren't constructive. Also, I thought that the nom's suggestion to "lockdown at least until end of current impeachment process" was both vague and too long. Impeachment processes tend to drag on for years. We generally don't indefinitely semi-protect pages for that long, especially not an insignificant cloud security company.
Doug MehusT·C15:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. Vandals keep spoiling the film before its wide release. Since this entire film is a mystery it should be protected from vandalism for at least a couple of weeks.
Nemov (
talk)
15:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: There has been a consistent level of IP disruption on the article since the last protection period, and unfortunately a number of the edits that have been made have included personal attacks by IPs - possibility is that they are the same person given different IPs to use to make edits. One of these edits claimed I "owned" the article's page, which is not the case, as I actually revert anything that is not constructive, helpful, or seems aimed at removing good, referenced information that is notable for the article; I know for a fact, that some of the disruptive edits that have occurred on the article have taken place whilst the programme in question is in broadcast for this respective series, and seem adamant to voice personal opinion that is biased and not encyclopedic - in other words, they want to disregard anything that seems bad for a person, when the information is being neutral in tone, and doesn't promote anything bad against the person partaking in the programme. As the previous request I made didn't heed what I stated before - giving it three-day protection, when it had already received four-day protection and did nothing to discourage the behaviour - I really must insist, out of opinion, that an admin must make it much longer. At least until the month after the programme's conclusion, which would be January 2020.
GUtt01 (
talk)
16:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Agree with and endorse the request for protection. If the editor has a serious interest in content, they can stick with one (registered) account and make their case on the talkpage. ☆
Bri (
talk)
18:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: The amount of IP disruption that has been on this article for the last years is mind boggling. Can this article please get a long protection (at least 1 month)? It's getting rather boring constantly reverting IP's who pov-push by changing/removing sourced information.
HistoryofIran (
talk)
15:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined - Not yet. I see the two edits from an IP user that removed content, as well as the two edits from the other IP user that added disruption to the article. However, these instances don't appear related, and it didn't grow out of control as far as rate of edits or the number of users involved.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)12:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Many anonymous users have made good contributions to this article. I don't want to add a protection level that would stop them from being able to contribute. Hence, I believe that pending changes protection is the best protection level to apply here.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)12:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page has been (temporarily semi) protected three times in the past year. Almost immediately after the most recent protection expired, this page was vandalized. Though I am unable to directly see it with my permissions, I saw the effects in the log with an IP-edit made which was almost immediately rolled-back by a rollbacker. There have been 113 reverted edits and of the total 657 edits, 51.9% of them were IP edits (according to the Xtools statistics tool).
KnowledgeablePersona (
talk)
19:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined@
LuK3: Sorry but the correct response would be to remove the birth date. Instead, add some text somewhere in the article saying that the birth date is contested. The reference given for the date is not a reliable source and it has title "Mystery over ... real age" with conclusion including "We’ve contacted Tones and I’s management company for clarification on this whole age issue".
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Talkpage discussion at
Talk:Sharyl Attkisson related to content dispute and what to include at the "Anti-vaccine reporting" section per
WP:BLP is the subject of a 30-day
RfC and is showing no signs of
forming a strong consensus one way or the other. So, with the full page protection expiring in less than 4 days, I thought it prudent to ask for an extension of the temporary full protection, to, say, December 25, 2019, at which point it would be automatically unprotected.
Note: Previous administrator
El C made the page subject to 1RR restrictions, which was a prudent move.
Doug MehusT·C02:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Checking to see if protection is necessary. I have to think about it. As an aside, it's good to see bots getting some respect — we serve at their pleasure, after all!
El_C03:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Alternate idea: we could go week by week, with you or another admin extending full protection on a rolling 7-day basis based on how the talkpage discussion(s) are trending.
Doug MehusT·C17:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Frankly, I'm more concerned with the resumption of
edit warring on the mainspace than what's happening on the talk page throughout the duration of the RfC (not that the latter is unimportant).
El_C17:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
El C, True...so you want to see how that plays out before deciding if 0RR is needed. With 1RR sanctions, each editor would still be entitled to 1
good faith reversion of another editor's edit, right? Thus, my earlier concern on the talkpage with respect to first-mover advantage is probably moot/not present. That said, if the editors on both sides resume reversions within the bounds of 1RR, then that would be an indication that the 1RR isn't working?
Doug MehusT·C17:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I really have to see how things play out before can evaluate particulars. Right now, I'm leaning toward letting the protection expire, but will hold off for a little while so as to give participants a final chance to comment on the request or modifications thereof.
El_C18:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined. I decided to let the protection expire automatically and instead see how well 1RR works for this article.
El_C02:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined @
Elizium23: Sorry but it's too confusing at the moment. Please put a brief explanation on the article talk about why whatever is the official link is correct and should not be changed. Link to that section in the next revert. Then ping me if problems persist.
Johnuniq (
talk)
03:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: This page was previously semi-protected because an anonymous user repeatedly edited it to provide a (false) death date for a living person. When the protection expired, these edits began happening again.
Lizzard (
talk)
00:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Noting that, because this has been a repeated violation of BLP, I have extended semiprotection to one year. Discussed with JJMC89 on their talk page with my reasoning.
Risker (
talk)
04:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Karmaisking has returned with IP accounts and almost certainly the EpsteinDidNotDie account (camel case, hits this article immediately). Requesting semi-protection to stop this in it's tracks. Ravensfire (
talk)
17:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from IPs about how COPPA is going to destroy Youtube. Those IPs do not follow Neutral Point of View expected in Wikipedia articles.
122.108.183.105 (
talk)
20:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of a week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thank you for reporting,
CAMERAwMUSTACHE, but those registered accounts are mere throwaway accounts. None of them are autoconfirmed. EC protection is for when semi hasn't worked, so semi should be tried first.
Bishonen |
talk16:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
MelanieN (
talk)
03:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
MelanieN (
talk)
03:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IP vandalism, removing the legal name on the ballot for the Labour candidate and replacing it with an alias the candidate uses. --
RaviC (
talk)
09:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – A series of IPs that geolocate to Florence has been persistently making unexplained changes to genetics data in the table in the "Distribution" section that directly contradict the given source, despite numerous reverts and warnings. It looks like vandalism since they appear to be falsifying the data, but at the least it's disruptively adding unsourced content. They've made similar changes to several other articles.
IamNotU (
talk)
06:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:Disruptive edits An IP whose address is different each time, keeps removing references in order to justify their own additions.--
Harout72 (
talk)
20:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:Disruptive edits An IP whose address is different each time, has been removing references in order to justify their own additions.--
Harout72 (
talk)
20:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:Disruptive edits An IP whose address is different each time, has been removing references in order to justify their own additions.--
Harout72 (
talk)
20:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Might not be quite time for protection, but recent history showing 3 different IP addresses adding the same (unsourced) genre and using disruptive notation (boldface) to highlight it.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
10:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. 1 instance of disruption on the 23rd, 2 today. I have watchlisted and will protect when it picks up.
Lectonar (
talk)
12:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict)@
Lectonar: Thanks for watchlisting it. Was a little hesitant to ask for the protection since there has been no other activity at the article outside of the vandalism. But since several IP addresses are logged, putting in the same type of content, it would be extremely difficult to give sanctions to the one behind it (I'm thinking it's one person).
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
16:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: In order to be created as a redirect to
Trunk (car) as it is common slang for front-trunk which has also been officially adopted by car manafacturer
Tesla, Inc. (
source). It's defined on Wiktionary and in the target article. Protecting admin has been inactive for >4 months. — IVORKTalk23:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Done@
IVORK:: I have downgraded to semi-protection, which will allow you to create the redirect. I will not unprotect completely, as the term is a vandalism target.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing, some of the content is controversal as the custody of the church is disputed and often new editors like to insert their own opinon without looking at what the sources say.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
02:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined@
Inter&anthro: Sorry but there is insufficient activity to satisfy
WP:PROTECT. Please put a brief explanation of why the intermittent IP edits are unsatisfactory on article talk and link to it in the edit summary of future reverts. That makes admin action easier.
Johnuniq (
talk)
07:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined - First of all, did you mean to refer to the article itself or the article's talk page? The article does not need a change to its protection. If the edit requests on the article's talk page have no merit, remove them. If the edit requests become blatant in regards to disruption or trolling, and if the rate of their creation becomes significantly high, file another report here and we'll take a look then. Administrators will only apply indefinite full protection to an article or page in extremely rare, unique, or severe circumstances; indefinite full protection should be completely avoided unless no other option is available and its use to stop disruption is absolutely imperative.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)20:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – A user with the name of the first author of a new paper added this work to the page. It is redundant and I interpret it as spam and self-promotion.
I have reverted this addition 2 times now, and two anonymous users (probably the same person but not logged in) keep reverting it back and not bringing this to any talk page.
BernardoSulzbach (
talk)
19:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IPs and some users adding poorly sourced materials in the article continuously. Need to be protected for atleast 7 days atleast upto the new CM get elected.
Dey subrata (
talk)
18:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This was protected by me while still under the title "2019 Iranian fuel protests" until November 24th. Since then, we have indeed some instances of disruptive editing, mentioned above. The article is well maintained and well watched, disruptions are quickly spotted. Not a case for page-protection at the moment imho.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Article has gotten 3 disruptive edits by IP's in the past day. I'd recommend pending changes to stop this at least. Sometimes the edits go for hours.
KasimMejia (
talk)
13:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Permanent Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. This a country article which has very high level of viewership therefore to stop different IP users from random editing please semi-protect this article permanently. Moreover it is difficult to monitor if such IPs keep editing without discussion on talk page.--
Metatheria (
talk)
14:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Chief Minister of Maharashtra resign but he will be caretaker CM till next Government forms (maybe till Dec 1). But IPs are editing without knowing about current CM situation. Request you to semi- protect till Dec 2 till everything settle up. (for 6 days).
Brown Chocolate (
talk)
16:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:Persistant vandalism. The same user makes the same edition over and over again under different IPs. For example, since October 10 he vandaliced the article 10 times.
HHH Pedrigree (
talk)
12:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The article, which was originally created in 2010 by an editor with probable COI, has for the past five years been repeatedly hit by IPs and throw-away accounts, all trying to remove the well-sourced controversy and turn the article into a CV bordering on a hagiography (IPs/accounts that based on both page history and geolocation are most probably the subject of the article himself or someone close to him). - Tom |
Thomas.W talk11:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Requesting temporary full protection again at
Spider-Man: Far From Home. Administrator
BD2412 previously locked it down for approx. 3 business days; however, at
Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home#Edit discussion for Plot wording where I initiated a discussion, none of the involved editors of that page took me up on my offer to discuss their content dispute. I think that what needs to happen is an administrator needs to lock the page down for, say, 2 weeks, and then notify (via Twinkle or manually) the recent regular page editors (several extendedconfirmed users and IP users; not me, though, since my involvement in that page was in requesting page protection following my adding a hatnote to "The Blip" dab page following an RfD I closed) via their talkpages that they need to discuss their content dispute per
WP:BRD.
Doug MehusT·C16:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
There's also another issue where an IP address keeps removing correct information against sources and consensus. They've been blocked before but they keep changing their IP addresses using VPN or something.
Starforce1320:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Starforce13, Yeah, I have seen some good information be added by IP editors and non-IP editors, which has been reverted despite no recent
consensus having taken place. I have also seen nonsense or likely nonsense be reverted. At the end of the day, the editors, registered and IP, need to take it to the talkpages rather than just dismissing every possible addition out of hand, I think. After all, consensus is
not permanent and can change.
Doug MehusT·C00:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Dmehus, if you look over the last 24 hours, there's been over 30 reverts (+/-57 bytes) between that sockpuppet IP and over a dozen different registered users. All the registered users are on the same page with the consensus. When invited to talks, the IP never participates. Instead, they leave death threats and things
like this to multiple users as they did last time before they were blocked. So, I think protecting the page is the only way to stabilize the page.
Starforce1301:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Starforce13, Thanks. I didn't see that. Still, I was concerned that another, presumably unrelated IP user's,
was reverted, with no discussion. This IP user does not appear to be constructive, but other IP users' edits may be and I hope there is not a bias against IP user editors. I have seen some very good edits by IP users on unrelated articles.
Doug MehusT·C01:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Dmehus. Of course, a lot of IPs have good edits. But if there's one relentless bad actor, the only way to calm things down is to protect the page. The "blip" one you cited, seems like a normal regular edit; and the editor after the IP explained their reasoning as they would have done to any other user. None of that is a cause for anti-IP/edit war concern. The real need for protection is the MJ-related edit war which is why it needs to be locked down until things calm down.
Starforce1301:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Starforce13, Yeah, I agree with on the MJ-related edits. I agree that this IP user shouldn't be resorting to namecalling and other personal attacks, but a discussion needs to take place related that MJ editing. So, hopefully another one week full protection can be instituted; afterward, it be worthy of re-assessing if semi-protection is needed if the IP editor doesn't get his or her way.
Doug MehusT·C01:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Looks like most of the recent disruption is IP-caused. This is without prejudice to being bumped up to full protection if necessary later on. Lord Roem ~ (
talk)
07:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. After taking a break for a few months the anon(s) we had issue with previously has returned. For whatever reason, he/she continues to make the same widespread, erroneous edits to the article concerning what constitutes a humid subtropical climate. This despite the fact that its been explained several times why his/her edits are inaccurate. This has been going on for at least a year. Furthermore, the user typically deletes sources that doesn't support his/her viewpoint. Any assistance on this would be appreciated.
G. Capo (
talk)
23:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated edits from IP adding hoax/false cast information. This has been done on other articles in the past, this is the new target. Ravensfire (
talk)
19:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Recently, many edits are coming from various IP addresses. There are special quality requirements for this page per
Template:Age_of_consent_pages_discussion_header. I am not suggesting this is vandalism, but that repeatedly having edits coming from one or more IP editors is detrimental to the review and discussion appropriate to these changes.
Fabrickator (
talk)
04:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. @
Fabrickator:: as you said, this is not necessarily vandalism, and in addition many IPs also do good work on the article. As this is quite specific, an edit-notice might help; some people will read them, and indeed heed them.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This is difficult: by its nature, this is a place for newcomers who want to participate to add themselves. Admittedly, there is vandalism, but of the very obvious kind. I would not protect. But I have watchlisted.
Lectonar (
talk)
12:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Noting I have added "Please discuss on talk" in edit summary and there doesn't seem to be anything else happening at the moment, so protection may no longer be needed.
Steven (Editor) (
talk)
18:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Hey
ToBeFree, welcome and please could you take a look, it seems your edit summary message was not taken into account and the edit was restored with edit summary "edit conflict", which does not make any sense. Thank you
Steven (Editor) (
talk)
21:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
You were of great help in the DYK but not so much in the article, come on, have a look at your edit summaries... "Working against their own interest"?? Nope and yes they are redundant ref names — anyway this is the wrong venue, unfortunately you didn't follow the advice on the edit summary and start a discussion on talk, but I'll start one which would be the right thing to do
Steven (Editor) (
talk)
22:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. 1 instance of (childish) vandalism by an IP; the rest of IP-edits are constructive.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined The edits were not vandalism, but good faith edits which have been reverted in the meantime. If it picks up, warn the IP (their talk-page is stll redlinked), and take it to
AIV if necessary.
Lectonar (
talk)
06:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. One instance of disruption yesterday is not persistent; page not edited for a week before that.
Lectonar (
talk)
06:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Should probably go back up to semi-protect. BLP issues with allegations supported by the same non-RS repeatedly added over last week mostly by IP addresses. Every IP edit since 19 November has been reverted by Pending Changes patrollers. Multiple RevDels have been required.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)05:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Lots of vandalism by multiple IPs and new accounts. This has been going on for months and is especially intense in recent days. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
04:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Permanent Semi-protection: IPs are vandalising again and again by adding unnecessary and unofficial stuffs in the article for last one month (may be same user using different Ips). This will be continued for the whole season of the league if not protected.
Dey subrata (
talk)
15:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Ongoing IP vandalism related to the #1 ranked college football team. Likely to continue thru end of season (January 13, 2020).
UW Dawgs (
talk)
03:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I had protected my user page in 2011 due to vandalism. I was inactive for a long while, so I'm no longer an admin. I was wondering if the page could be unprotected so I can update it. Thanks,
roozbeh (
t* alk)
Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism since September 17. Roughly the same edits made on twenty separate occasions by two different IP addresses, apparently coming from the same user, plus one longer edit placing arguments supporting the edits directly in the body of the article (and which I moved to the article's talk page, where I replied to them). These edits and their reversions account for nearly all of the page history. One of the addresses was temporarily blocked in October; user has never used edit summaries or responded to messages on either the article talk page or his or her own talk pages, including explanations of why the edits were being reverted. The main address has never made any other edits; the secondary one has only made one other edit to another article—probably a different person a year earlier.
P Aculeius (
talk)
13:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: Op: please read
about what vandalism is, and, for good measure (and because of your comment on said talk-page:"So, please, admit your incorrect reconstructions, finally stop correcting me and, consequently, leave my legitimate and incontrovertible corrections intact. Thanks !!!") perhaps a little of
this. I do not think this is a case for page-protection.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
If you read what I wrote, you'll see those aren't my comments. Those are the comments of the IP editor, which he/she inserted into the body of the article, and which I moved to the talk page rather than deleting entirely. That is the sole discussion and explanation for the edits; the editor who wrote that has never responded to the talk page discussion, or attempts to explain the reversions on his/her talk pages, but simply continues making the same edits over and over again, despite being previously blocked for making the very same edits.
P Aculeius (
talk)
14:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined I would agree this is not vandalism and should be settled on the article's talk page. Looking at the edits, it looks more to me like elimination of
WP:VAGUE, specifically your reintroduction of the phrases, "an obscure plebeian", "many Pacilii" and "a needy pauper". Let this play out on the talk page.
— Maile (
talk)
13:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
All of which has been explained on the article's talk page for nearly two months, without reply from the editor in question. All Roman families that were not patrician were plebeian, and there were only a few dozen patrician families—a topic much discussed, in which the Pacilii never come up, because there's no hint of any great antiquity or importance ever attached to them; Cicero is the only Roman writer who mentions any of them, and the only one he describes is the "needy pauper", as stated in the source cited in the article. From the nature of the edits it's clear that the IP editor is trying to make the very obscure sound noble and important, without even the slightest evidence—no source, because no sources for what he's saying exist; everything known about the Pacilii comes from the sources already cited in the article.
P Aculeius (
talk)
14:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: Perhaps this will further discussion. I also warned 2.44.156.165 about edit warring and unsourced changes. (They were warned before.) This is a content dispute, and discussion is now required from both. I agree, this edit warring is vexacious. Maile66's and Lectonar's comments offer sound advice.-- Deepfriedokra13:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Describing this as an "edit war" seems like a false equivalency—the edits have never been supported by any evidence, contradict the sources cited in the article, and appear to be nothing more than the editor's inventions to make a family that lived two thousand years ago seem more important—something best explained by the fact that the editor appears to be Italian, and is probably related to a family with a similar-sounding name. The editor has refused to discuss any of this on the article's talk page or anywhere else, and seems to have no understanding of Wikipedia policy or conventions. Reverting edits that are not, have never been, and probably cannot be supported by any reliable sources, from an editor who does nothing but make the same edits over and over again to the same page, without any willingness to engage in discussion or provide even a hint of evidence, is not edit warring.
P Aculeius (
talk)
14:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This is a page of an Indian singer having a good number of following, so want to get it protected so that only genuine wikipedia editors can edit it.
Rooptera (
talk)
13:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Large scale media coverage about proposed role at Hearts. Vandalism highly likely to continue over next few days due to speculation
.
BletheringScot18:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: This page has protected twice against (presumably) one editor who keeps trying to change the first sentence to violate
WP:ETHNICITY. The most recent one was on 14 November for two weeks (see
here). Before that, it was protected on November 6 for one week (see
here). Both times, the disruptive editor returned within 24 hours of the end of the protection period to revert the page. Since one week and two weeks did nothing, can we try three months?
Sportsfan77777 (
talk)
18:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Fully protected in 2007. No reason to fully protect a documentation page. It is no more vulnerable to malicious code insertions than other documentation pages.
Mark Schierbecker (
talk)
19:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Current content is the official information from the Manila Water Corporate Communications based in Manila, Philippines, originally uploaded last September 17, 2019. However, it was edited by an unofficial entity/Wiki user. Official information was reinstated today, November 28, 2019. We are seeking protection for this page to prevent our original content from being changed by unauthorized individuals.
Manilawaterph (
talk)
04:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined "The only topic which ArbCom has explicitly specified for use of ECP is the Arab-Israeli conflict. There is a general consensus that administrators should neither apply ECP to pages with only a tenuous link to the conflict nor seek out articles in this topic area to protect pre-emptively. Many administrators will only apply ECP in circumstances where there have been editing disputes involving accounts that fail the 30/500 rule.". The article was not edited at all since April this year. No disruption or edit-warring.
Lectonar (
talk)
06:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: If you are referring to the Orphan tag, I just removed it myself. The article is linked to at least three other articles, and is not an orphan.
— Maile (
talk)
01:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, but it was an orphan when I made this report. The IP editor is still re-inserting other changes I remove, like linking the subject's name to an external YouTube video.
MB03:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Pending changes protection: Maybe it's that she's married to a 70 year old but people can't seem to accept–with reliable verification–that she changed her last name upon marriage. For inexplicable reasons this has been a back and forth thing since she got married. Mr. Aspects seems to have a bone to pick with anyone who dares update her name. The Manual of Style definitely says that we lead with the legal name, which is given in the source. Protection is once again required.
Trillfendi (
talk)
21:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: Request can be disregarded and there is confirmation from multiple news outlets. I have provided a reputable source in the article. —
Mr Xaero☎️23:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – A new swarm of IP editors adding unsourced biographical details about this actor, who is the lead of a popular show that was just cancelled.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
18:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page's protection finished yesterday, and the vandalism (complete with court-ready libel) has today resumed. I'd suggest respectfully that this article would be worth protecting indefinitely.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
17:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)reply
It's worth noting that this article also some significant edit warring & advertorial issues - I support longer-term protection on the vandalism front, though indef might be unneeded as before Ymblanter's protection it had been unprotected for several years. But hopefully it will also help with other issues the page has faced. [[User:|Nosebagbear]] (
talk)
18:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Persistent
disruptive editing, and serious BLP violations requiring oversight. A new Netflix movie has aired detailing the allegations of sexual abuse, meanwhile Choudhury has apparently succeeded in avoiding prosecution by leaving the U.S., perhaps inspiring anons to get justice here.
Gleeanon409 (
talk)
23:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IP vandalism - I understand the edits might be differences of opinions, but I have set up a detailed discussion on the talk page and have received no replies. The user is now hopping between IP addresses and editing other Hi-5 related pages, and I am not sure what else to do.
SatDis (
talk)
14:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I propose a differrnt type of protection. This current protection still requires someone to revert the vandalisms and it pollutes the watchlist of watchers. --
Bageense(disc.)19:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Two editors, one recently turned up, the other working over the last several days have been trying to add unsourced content to article, include DOB, husband and college info and additional information. None can be verified per
WP:V. scope_creepTalk14:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Be sure I did that before declining....IP 62.xxx, who did most of the disruption in october, has been blocked in the meantime; about 2-3 instances of disruption per month do not a case for protection make.
Lectonar (
talk)
10:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism started again when protection ended. He is a controversial personality and therefore requires some sort of indefinite duration protection.
Störm(talk)07:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined Since last protection ended, the disruption was essentially by IP 139.xxx ; they have stopped after being warned. No great disruption otherwise.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. 3 Instances of disruption in the whole month of november is not a high level of vandalism.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined@
CAPTAIN MEDUSA: The issue appears to be whether <!-- Only for league appearances! --> should be used for caps9 in the infobox. I have no idea what that means so it is difficult to choose between semi-protection and full-protection to stop the edit war. Please put a brief explanation on article talk which, in principle, others can see. At any rate, the few edits I checked were not
WP:VAND.
Johnuniq (
talk)
06:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semiprotect roughly forever Anything less, and unregistered user(s) will add John Maloof to the "Portrayers" section. I've lost count by now. This had almost-real world consequences recently when Maloof was mentioned on an OSW Review podcast (sort of a big deal in its niche), as if he were an actual wrestler (nothing beside Wikipedia suggests this). So please stop the madness.
InedibleHulk(talk) 05:13,
November 29,
2019 (UTC)
05:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Just the one IP making two edits today and one IP edit on 25th. Nothing else since 6th November.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
00:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Some IPs and registered user have been persistently restoring an old revision of the page without explanation. Requesting semi to at least stop the IPs from doing so. I plan to bring the uaer to ANI once I get access to a computer in a few days. Thank you.
Aoi (青い) (
talk)
02:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection until 12 December 2019: High level of IP vandalism. I have my own views on LK's lack of journalistic neutrality, but neither they nor anyone else's unsourced opinion have any place on WP. I was drawn to the article because
a diff near this one had been posted on The Guardian's news blog. Vandalism is likely to continue until the UK General Election on 12 December 2019.
Narky Blert (
talk)
12:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Some unknown person / IP-user keeps changing his name without any source / credits.
LH7605 (
talk)
01:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined, I only see one LTA in the page history, and I do not see any evidence that they would ever return to this article, and not choose smth else--
Ymblanter (
talk)
21:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)reply
This probably shouldn't be indefinitely move-protected just in case we ever need to actually legit move the article, and it was just an article targeted at complete random as opposed to something repeatedly hit.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
06:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined, I only see one LTA in the page history, and I do not see any evidence that they would ever return to this article, and not choose smth else--
Ymblanter (
talk)
21:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Better yet, make it indefinite; only requesting for semi-protection to be temporary is ineffective when IP addresses and new accounts keep disrupting a page.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits)
21:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined This is one editor against everybody else; they are now at four reverts but seem to have4 stopped after the discussion started at their talk page. If they make one more revert, they must be blocked.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
14:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Seriously. This article consistently attracts persistent and ongoing vandalism + "oh-so-clever" nonsense. Can we please just fully-protect it and save reliable editors from having to review & revert all the ongoing editing noise? .
Shearonink (
talk)
18:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporal extension - for persistent edit-warring page is currently protected, and protection expires at 23:20, 30 November.
DNR is also filed and while we are waiting for its resolution it is imperative that edit-war stays under control, otherwise it will be hard to expect anyone offers mediation.--
౪ Santa ౪99°11:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary protection. I'm not sure the appropriate type of protection, but perhaps pending changes or something along those lines, since it appears the vandalism isn't limited to IP users. Additionally, a user with an account keeps removing sourced information about the subject (
here.
here, and
here), and it seems this user set up an account
with the sole purpose of removing this content. Other examples of recent vandalism include a user (again, not IP) repeatedly editing the article to say (falsely) that Williams died (
here and
here, as well as various examples of IP vandalism
here. —
HunterKahn12:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: The page has received constant disruptive edits, vandalism and additions and changes - mostly by IP's - going back a long time of information which is not cited either on this page, nor cited nor agreed upon on each individual party's respective page.
Helper201 (
talk)
14:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. The article has never been protected before, and indefinite semi is clearly an overkill at this point. Let us start from pending changes and see whether this protection can work.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
14:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Persistent addition of poorly written content, edit warring and incivility (ie: "f***k off) by IP's in same general area of Australia. Warned on Talk pages to no avail. Thank you.
David J Johnson (
talk)
12:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Declined@
Jingiby: Recent edits show one new editor and no IPs. I know it's irritating but it is necessary to politely engage with new editors and make them aware of the procedures that apply. Please put an explanation on each article talk pointing out that the country is
North Macedonia at Wikipedia as specified at
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). Link to the explanation in the edit summary of your next revert. Instead of putting bewildering templates on the user's talk, it would be better to say "Please see the explanation at [link to section on article talk]". No admin action can occur until the bases are covered.
Johnuniq (
talk)
06:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)reply