@
BlameRuiner: Your reverts are all of a single user, with no explanation in your edit summaries, or engagement with that user on their talk page or the article talk page. Even if their edits are uncontroversially disruptive (which certainly isn't immediately apparent to me), protecting the page wouldn't be the appropriate response here since there is only one disruptive editor.
WP:AIV would be the way to go for vandalism,
WP:ANI for other kinds of disruptions, and
WP:ANEW for edit warring. And if their edits are at all an attempt to be constructive, you should communicate with the user. GoodnightmushTalk19:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed:BLP policy violations – I would do it, but I am
WP:INVOLVED. Biden is the presumptive nominee to face off against Trump in the presidential election this year (November 3, for those who don't know the date). In recent weeks, the BLP violations, edit warring, and tendentious editing on Biden's page has increased dramatically. The recent edit history and talk page show much of it. A lot of it relates to a sexual assault allegation that
has its own page. Trump's page is extended confirmed protected. I think the same level of protection is warranted for Biden's page, at least through the election. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
15:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Muboshgu, 1RR and Consensus Requried are both applied to that article, yet I see at least one editor who has made the same edit three times. I suspect we need to enforce the rules we have. –
bradv🍁16:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Muboshgu, what Bradv said. We are already at the most enhanced level of restrictions. If there's a need for enforcement (with respect to violations), please supply documentation to that effect. I note that there's always the less intrusive
partial blocks which may be applied just for general
edit warring, even when it falls short of actual violations. But it's best to start first with any concrete violations and goes from there.
El_C16:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I have not made the same edit three times. I did not restore the opposed text in my edit. Please address the disruptive editors themselves; restrictions do not address the problem.
Kolya Butternut (
talk)
17:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
El C and
Bradv:, yeah, I guess you're right. I'll try to be more vigilant in reporting violations (too INVOLVED to sanction). Was there not at least one violation in the diffs I supplied above? Anyway, only six more months of this election, and it's looking like it will be at least as bad as 2016 and Hillary's emails. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
17:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I am not one of the disruptive editors; Muboshgu, you are too involved here. I am trying, perhaps poorly, to deal with the disruptive editors. Wait, are bold edits not allowed at all? I have to check Consensus Required right now.
Kolya Butternut (
talk)
17:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Not done Does not appear that ECP will solve the current issue. Feel free to re-report if there is an actual issue caused by new-ish editors.
King of♥♦♣ ♠
17:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I am having trouble finding the details on "Consensus Required" to determine whether I have violated that. Admins: please to not conflate disruptive editors with the editors who flail to protect the article from them; that feels like taking both the bully and the bullied to the principals office for fighting. I know you have a lot to do, but the root of the problem needs to be addressed by admins so that less skilled good faith editors like me don't get caught up in the mess.
Kolya Butternut (
talk)
17:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection or Rangeblock: Persistent block evasion from
Luis22pdxedu (
talk·contribs), straight after a 1-year semi protection recently expired. I also raised the issue at
WP:ANI here:
[11]. I hate to
forum shop for admin intervention here on multiple noticeboards, but this user has been very active in evading their block. There have also been constructive IP editors at this page, including myself, so I would be saddened to see this semi-protected once again, but it may be the only viable option here if a rangeblock causes too much collateral damage.
172.58.44.157 (
talk)
19:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism for perhaps over the weekend; this article is becoming problematic. After down really needs RevDels after semi-protection applied.
Djm-leighpark (
talk) 19:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC) Someone has blocked currently offending IP and done necessary RevDels but Semi-protection is likely advised per article talk to to threats of
WP:MEAT. Thankyou.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
20:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Within 24 hours of the page being unblocked, the same old stuff started again, and seemingly worse than ever. I had to restore a revision some 25 edits back to fix all the issues. .
Thegreatluigi (
talk)
03:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: The emergency alert system is not a joke. The article should never be messed with without the permission of the Administrators because not only is the article very well made and pleasant to read, as well as giving lots of information and even the audio samples, but the article is about a important system in the U.S. so I would like this article to be protected from any cyber-hacking or Vandalism. Thanks, Clockworkv .
Clockworkv (
talk)
14:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection or Rangeblock: Persistent block evasion from
Luis22pdxedu (
talk·contribs), straight after a 1-year semi protection recently expired. I also raised the issue at
WP:ANI here:
[12]. I hate to
forum shop for admin intervention here on multiple noticeboards, but this user has been very active in evading their block. There have also been constructive IP editors at this page, including myself, so I would be saddened to see this semi-protected once again, but it may be the only viable option here if a rangeblock causes too much collateral damage.
172.58.44.157 (
talk)
19:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism for perhaps over the weekend; this article is becoming problematic. After down really needs RevDels after semi-protection applied.
Djm-leighpark (
talk) 19:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC) Someone has blocked currently offending IP and done necessary RevDels but Semi-protection is likely advised per article talk to to threats of
WP:MEAT. Thankyou.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
20:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Within 24 hours of the page being unblocked, the same old stuff started again, and seemingly worse than ever. I had to restore a revision some 25 edits back to fix all the issues. .
Thegreatluigi (
talk)
03:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: The emergency alert system is not a joke. The article should never be messed with without the permission of the Administrators because not only is the article very well made and pleasant to read, as well as giving lots of information and even the audio samples, but the article is about a important system in the U.S. so I would like this article to be protected from any cyber-hacking or Vandalism. Thanks, Clockworkv .
Clockworkv (
talk)
14:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Character Ben Wyatt was listed as being from IN-9 in the Parks and Rec special last night and everyone's thinking it's cute to incorporate him into the page.
LibrarianDaemon (
talk)
16:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Due to ongoing edit war and disruptive edits without any consensus, I believe the page must be fully protected for admins to make edits as per the consensus on the talk page.
GSS💬15:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Non-stop vandalism from both registered and IP users including using improper defamatory local language.
Amkgp (
talk)
19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – An anonymous IP is adding a unreliable source to a good article. They are are referencing, to a documentary that is on YouTube and doing personal attacks. And is a Block evasion by
User:HarveyCarter using a new IP same editing pattern, and they they admitted to it.
Driverofknowledge (
talk)
13:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The 'unreliable source' is
David Reynolds (historian), Cambridge Corpus Christi, historian, - i beg admins not to knee jerk protect an editors pov preventing him allowing a RS to be added to the benefit of the article. He seems to have OWN problems. And who the heck is Harvey Carter, I am not he thats for sure. 'they admitted to it' ??? WTAF.
78.144.87.79 (
talk)
14:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed:Arbitration enforcement – Editing restrictions for new editors: All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.
.
Tsla1337 (
talk)
11:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Can this article be protected again for a longer period? With edits
like this, it's we may need to extend the protection. This is a show that ended nearly a decade ago, so protecting it from IPs isn't likely to cause any harm. Almost all new edits for the last several months/years are vandalism/WP:DE which just end up getting reverted. —
Starforce1320:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Persistent sock puppetry. Previously sock came up with registered accounts here
[13] and here
[14] once the page was semi protected. Immediately after the expiry of page protection, sock puppetry and vandalism started on multiple Ips.- .
Kthxbay (
talk)
07:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There are a series of users vandalizing these page. Plz look at some of the changes and it's clear (like motto=smoke marijuana). Help plz.
The page has been protected by an admin. TY. Wasn't sure whether to delete this or not, but thought better to leave so it could be categorized and archived properly.
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – None of the page creations are constructive. Pages created through this title are either vandalistic in nature or are attack pages.
Train of Knowledge (
Talk)
02:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Constant ethno-nationalistic disruption by IPs and new accounts, for the love of everything that's holy just please put a long protection on these two articles.
Ismail I was suffering from the same issue as well but is now protected, which has definitely helped.
HistoryofIran (
talk)
16:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Applies to Safavid dynasty, which currently has indefinite PC protection that appears to be working well.
MelanieN (
talk)
00:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Applies to Safavid Iran, a relatively new article that has some problem edits, looks suitable for PC as well.
MelanieN (
talk)
00:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by IPs and registered users; no or very few constructive edits made in the past several months, just constant nonsense and reverts. Thank you.
Jessicapierce (
talk)
17:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: All edits the last month are from the same person using multiple socks to add false information, and reverts of their edits.
Hzh (
talk)
13:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page is the subject of an ongoing series of vandalism, all focused on an inside joke with Gus Johnson. It seems likely to continue for a while.
Cerebral726 (
talk)
13:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Multiple IP edits refusing to supply reliable sources, using Original Research and Wikipedia as a reference for itself. Personal attacks: “Nonsense. Stop being obtuse”. Mathematical pages are hard to curate because small changes like these are imperceptible to most editors. That is why reliable sources have to be insisted on.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing from a single user with multiple IP addresses. Continues to add computer program template to a physical location article.
Gilbert.JW (
talk)
11:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistently high level of IP vandalism (a majority of edits seem to be vandalism, and have been for several years). Long overdue, and is in line with the semi-protection given to other high-traffic anime/manga pages like
My Hero Academia and
Naruto. —
Goszei (
talk)
22:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – persistent vandalism as article is feature on main page today, should be semi-protected until it is off the main. .
–DMartin05:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. This page is being repeatedly edited by some IPs to insert factually incorrect POV claims (deleting
Mohan Singh as the founder of the INA ( supported by material in the article and by all history on the subject) and inserting
Rash Behari Bose (incorrect, and very narrowly Bengali PoV) that has been reverted repeatedly by myself and by other editors of good standing in the subject area. Attempt to discuss this previously was unfruitful and has resulted in non-engagement and personal attacks.
rueben_lys (
talk·contribs)
13:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
pending changes: Climate changes being persistently added by different IP's but likely same individual. May have to be temporary at first but for as long as possible. Pending changes to accomodate any genuine IPs.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
22:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Over 20 edits in last two hours, many disruptive, by multiple IPs, three of which have warnings on their talk page for disruptive editing. Possible sock puppetry.
EdJF (
talk)
21:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Recommend against IPs and very new users for a few weeks to a month due to BLP vandalism. (This should also be revdel from the history.). ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯21:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: The COVID-19 pandemic is serious, so I strongly believe that until this Pandemic ends, This page, and all pages relating to the covid-19 pandemic should be protected due to possible vandalism and the possible insertions of false information. Thanks for your support to Clockworkv.
Clockworkv (
talk)
14:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Constantly changing and with the COVID-19 pandemic, it may need to be updated a lot. not yet, but soon. And this is serious.
Clockworkv (
talk)
15:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – While I wouldn't object to the article being re-created by someone who did a proper notability check, could this redirect perhaps be protected against sockpuppetry by an independent administrator? Thanks in advance,
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
11:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – He is the presumptive Democractic nominee for the U.S. presidential election, and there is definitely a chance that the redirect
Biden will get some vandalism, especially if he gets elected. The pages
Obama and
Trump are also protected.
I'm not perfect but I'm almost (
talk)
19:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent fancruft, ignoring of hidden notes and addition of false and unsourced content. Cool Marc✉20:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – This BLP has long been edited by subject himself (see article's talk page). In 2017, several users including me put their effort to clean up the page and remove unreferenced material. After 02 and half year, today I stumbled upon this BLP and found all the unreferenced material we removed a couple of years ago was quietly added back via using various IPs. I suggest this page be locked so that only registered users can edit it.
Saqib (
talk)
09:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Would you please, indicate just one line that is unsourced, not all the IPs are bad users, you blame, you misuse the project, to dominate your personal rules, your move falls under Wikipedia harassment. You deliberately violate the Wikipedia rule, reverting well-sourced 12,837 bytes of material from
[15] uttermost sourced content with top most reliable sources without explaination and discusstion on talk page, you should be forbidden to edit this article, Western editors should edit that. How you dare to claim what you reverted was legitimate, the honest editors are not the blind, you get your burden upon yourself or prove which passage was unreferenced, it seems your personal motives with the subject. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (
talk)
20:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – I don't even know if this is allowed for on drafts, but I'm not sure how else to handle this. This is a subject that has been a problem child for sometime (see the protections in mainspace). This is version two of this paid for page (per disclosure of page creator). It has been declined multiple times. Twice now, an IP editor has attempted to remove previous decline messages. This feels like an attempt to remain an anonymous UPE. Doesn't seem quite appropriate or egregious to take to ANI. So I'm bringing it here and hoping that page protection will help keep things above board by making sure all edits are made by registered users. Any other recommendations are welcome since this is a unique problem child. .
Sulfurboy (
talk)
09:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: For some reason the mainspace page wasn't create protected, but apparently the talk page was. Didn't notice this as the move from draft was done by the AfC script. Need the protection removed so talk page can be properly moved over. .
Sulfurboy (
talk)
11:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Page has been vandalised twice since Thursday by different IPs (and less often in the past), who’re deliberately inserting factual errors for no apparent reason. One or two IPs did add useful information, but they also added factual errors which can be caught by looking at the
Talking Tom and Friends franchise article.
RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (
talk)
06:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — going straight to indef with no previous limit duration semi-protection is overreaction. If the problem persists next week, then feel free to come back for a progressively longer period of duration. —
Tom Morris (
talk)
08:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. I would've preferred if someone had warned the IP but hopefully this takes care of the problem. If there's IP hopping you can let me know. Best, Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
02:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. It was a soft username block so it's not block evasion. One string of edits that were reverted doesn't warrant protection, but I've dropped paid editing warnings on the talk pages. Best, Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
01:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: With Hafthor's recent 501 kilogram deadlift there has been a massive influx of edits on the page, some of which have been necessary however a lot of them are going back on forth on whether the lift he completed was an official record. I feel protection of the page for a short amount of time in which people with higher levels of edit access can discuss how the lift and subsequent record should be displayed on the page would be beneficial to stop any more unnecessary edits occurring.
Brandon Downes (
talk)
02:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment- It appears to be a single person using multiple accounts (see SPI
Here) and besides blanking material they are also changing the BLP's name. Page protection would help until the SPI can be worked.
ToeFungii (
talk)
22:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed: Persistent
vandalism – There has been an increasing amount of vandalism in recent weeks with the 75th anniversary upcoming on Friday, 8 May. It might be wise to protect this till, say, the end of June. Thanks.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
13:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP users repeatedly add the middle name without a source. I tried identifying a source but only find wiki mirror type sites.
TJMSmith (
talk)
21:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Repeated promotional and biased edits from users with both declared and undeclared conflicts of interest. Yoleaux (
talk) 5 May 2020
Full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – appeals should be done on the master account, see investigation and misuse of templates and further assumptions of bad faith and attacks on editors. .
Hell in a Bucket (
talk)
14:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined. We don't typically protect talk pages except for severe abuse, however I am watching and will block the user's talk page access if they continue.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
14:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The page is being vandalised repeatedly. Probably only one person but it appears as the following IPs: 129.0.205.163 94.200.175.243 2600:1700:1DF0:DB0:8DCD:D616:890E:1E5C .
Martin of Sheffield (
talk)
08:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, consistent attempts to rename it the "River Gulu", some including that it was found by Ugandan explorer "Sir Allimadi". Seems to be spurred on by articles such as
this.
Shadowssettle(
talk)12:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection or at least Pending Changes. Disruptive IP editing has continued following the expiry of the previous protection template.
Muzilon (
talk)
08:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Several IP vandals have removed factual sourced data and replaced it with false unsourced data. Has been happening for several days.
TomCat4680 (
talk)
13:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection. For some reason this article attracts people who have "seen something on Google" and therefore think they can ignore the extensive discussions on this person's (presumed but unverified) death that have taken place on the article talk page. As the current IP edits are not exactly "vandalism" - simply ignoring consensus and being unwilling to engage - the only option seems to be to protect the page.
Ghmyrtle (
talk)
14:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protectedindefinitely. The vandalism occurring here seems to be slow-moving enough that, since it's not a BLP issue, pending changes may be sufficient. Though, after half-a-dozen previous protections (the most recent lasting a year), I'd agree that indefinite protection is required. If vandalism here accelerates to the point that it overwhelms the reviewers, we can upgrade to semi-protection.
Chetsford (
talk)
04:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm having a very hard time figuring out what's going on here but as far as I can tell it's not necessarily vandalism. The page in general needs better sources. Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
01:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
SangrurUser: No one's using edit summaries on that page which is making it very difficult to track down what's good and what's not. What's going on at that article? What's vandalism and what's not? Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
01:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Different IPs (but I'm having a feeling the same person or possibly sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry) adding personal opinion to this article repeatedly - and they were doing so prior to the previous semiprotection of this article more than 6 months ago.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
18:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I have thoughts of wanting to change this to indefinite semiprotection, but I'll leave it up to the admin that checks the article.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
18:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Problems started up almost immediately after a month-long protection ended, and there were still problems during protection. If
you see a lot of stuff getting through semi, either bring it up at
WP:SPI or request
WP:ECP here. —
Wug·a·po·des20:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Various ip addresses and not autoconfirmed or confirmed editors have been continuously disruptive editing the article again for the third time. The article was first semi-protected on May 4, 2019 for 2 weeks and then again on May 25, 2019 for 2 months both due to disruptive editing. —
YoungForever(talk)00:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism, page has been protected in the past but this is no longer the case and vandals have returned.
Akakievich (
talk)
21:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Continuous disruptive vandalism from a dynamic IP address. Protection has been requested and applied on numerous accounts, but as soon as it expires, the vandalism begins again and is relentless.
DarkGlow (
talk)
15:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Someone with multiple IP addresses seems determined to change the starting lineup for Super Bowl LII (replacing Blount with Ajayi). The NFL's game summary (clearly cited at the top of the section) disagrees with editor.
Catching lots of proxies this way and the edits are usually gone soonish (15-20 seconds in most cases), but as usual, if someone else feels like semi would be less disruptive, go for it.
Enterprisey (
talk!)
01:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. Article has been protected multiple times in the past, with the recent one being
for 3 months. Unprotected the end of March and still attracts vandalism.
Some1 (
talk)
12:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Not very heavily edited anyway.
Lectonar (
talk)
06:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined I see well-meaning, but perhaps a little inept, IPs trying to contribute positively to the article. As has been said before, the article needs better sources.
Lectonar (
talk)
11:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Return of IP-hopping
vandalism and BLP violations after recent end of previous protection. Page has been consistently vandalized despite multiple protections. Why keep doing this?
Putwood (
talk)
01:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protect for a week. I would do this myself, but I wrote the article, so I'd rather somebody else make that call. The subject was in the news today, and the IP vandals seem to have found the page. Some short-term semi-protection might be all it needs. --
RoySmith(talk)23:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. which hopefully should be long enough to talk it out. Let me know if the war resumes after the protection. —
Wug·a·po·des02:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Persistent
vandalism – Long term edit war going on for two years. Article has been protected and unprotected enough for us to know it needs protecting permanently. Thanks.
Roxy the effin dog .wooF17:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Three previous protection attempts haven't succeeded and the warring editors, who are all extended confirmed, seem to be careful not to violate 3RR. That said, the edits they're undertaking are completely useless; an endless string of reverts and undos. While this situation seems to be one of those for which full protection is designed, I think indefinite full protection may be presumptive at this moment. If this resumes in three months, however, it may need to be revisited.
Chetsford (
talk)
03:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Given the high volume of unsourced additions it's clearly too much for the PC reviewers to handle. The previous protection of one month didn't do anything so three months seems like the next logical step.
Chetsford (
talk)
03:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Re-report if a large wave of IPs keep on adding this. The tweet has been out for 13 hours and only 1 IP has added said text. There has not been an edit on the page (bar the IP and then the revert) in over a month.
Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions22:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing - disruptive removal of sourced controversy section, quotes from Rassias in article were labeled as "bad faith" by a logged-in user.
Second this. A young social media celeb subject to almost continuous unsourced editing. Some of it is just name dropping (her childhood friends and their' social media accounts etc) but much of it is BLP vios (name changes, fake death, accusations of being a stripper, family relationships, etc)
Meters (
talk)
20:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Seems like only one user in the last 2 months has vandalised it. Feel free to resist if any more socks appear.
Woody (
talk)
14:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined, looks like the disruption from yesterday stopped, and new IP edits have not been reverted. Apologies for not reacting on time.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
07:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Oops, sorry @
Ymblanter: rare that I protect and you won't :). Anyway, the article was protected until yesterday, and disruption promptly restarted after it ended. If you want it unprotected, go right ahead.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – Been back and forth from a stable name, should be required to force users to utilize the RM process. nableezy -
00:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 00:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
NO. A contested move was made without discussion, and now a disruptive editor is trying to prevent restoration to the the previous name through forum shopping. The proper process is to open a RM on the talk page..
JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (
talk)
00:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your concern, but as the policy says - "Use this process [i.e. Requesting a move] if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. ". The fact that the original pagemover managed to fly under the radar for a while doesn't circumvent this.
JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (
talk)
01:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – An IP user (not working from a static IP) is changing the basic description of the subject of
EverQuote despite reversions by multiple registered users and a discussion opened on the Talk page.
Largoplazo (
talk)
02:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – See protection log. Vandalism (much of which is possibly from one IP-hopping user) picks up almost immediately each time protection expires. .
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
03:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Disruptive protracted level of IP or new account vandalism. This will be more and more problematic given that her conspiracy theory video has recently gone viral.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
20:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, probably because the article subject is trending on twitter right now.
EAWH (
talk)
21:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Previously protected, it appears to have brought out some IPs to edit war. EVeryone is shouting to go to the talk page but no one heeds the call. A brief cooling off may be in order.
Ifnord (
talk)
19:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Full protection should not be necessary. A week of semi-protection may induce people to go to the talk page. --
MelanieN (
talk)
21:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Two users have been blocked, but there are probably more where they came from.
MelanieN (
talk)
22:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – We have what looks to be the same, connected user, in a limited IP range, continually returning to do the same, promotional and disruptive edits here. I'm sick of cleaning up after them. A range block would probably take care of it, or semi. Thanks. . -
CorbieVreccan☊☼19:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Entirely predictably, given that this is a viral conspiracy video, there is drive-by IP whitewashing. Guy (
help!)
18:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – A few accounts/SPAs and many IPs try to blow up the twitter-riot completely out of proportion
. The Bannertalk18:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Permanent semi-protection: The pages are generated by and overwritten by bot every two weeks. There should not be a reason for IPs to edit the pages except vandalism
like this.
GreenC03:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely. The article does not need ECP at this time because none of the vandalism edits were from autoconfirmed users. However, I think indefinite semi-protection is appropriate.
MelanieN (
talk)
21:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The subject has been recently killed in an encounter, and his being a top militant commander has already lead this article to some disruptive edits. His encounter came with the mobile phone and internet ban in
Kashmir valley. I assume that this article may be prone to vandalism, however, not been that much; till now. But, semi protecting it would be a best option. Thanks.
Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk)
16:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring over the description of the article's subject has been going on for ten days now.
Largoplazo (
talk)
15:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Failure to follow hidden instructions in the "episodes" section by IP users. Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced
content.
Yowashi (
talk)
15:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Page views are up dramatically in the last couple of days (from ~2K to >50K), and we're getting childish vandalism and BLP violations such as
[22][23][24] There's also some edit warring and POV pushing going on among more experienced editors, but my request is for semi-protection for something in the week-to-month range, to stop the blatant vandalism and BLP violations.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
17:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Short-term addition of unsourced content, along with BLP policy violations, from a few editors. -- LuK3(Talk)13:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Same anon IP, continually removing references (see
this edit) and removing the information sourced by those references. IP then inserts non-neutral POV statements.
JimKaatFan (
talk)
17:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Stop lying. I'm using a verified source from USA Basketball that clearly states that all pros except for NBA players were allowed to compete. You're desperately trying to hide that information and replace it with a dubious statement.
89.113.98.96 (
talk)
17:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Same anon IP, continually removing references (see
this edit) and removing the information sourced by those references. IP then inserts non-neutral POV statements.
JimKaatFan (
talk)
17:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – First on Google for various "wikipedia pages to edit" and "edit page on wikipedia" searches. High level of vandalism. dibbydibboop or snoop02:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Persistent removal of COVID-19 sourced info by IPs and new users. Not sure if I have requested the appropriate type of protection or duration.
Lyndaship (
talk)
18:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite protection of some kind:High-risk template – Discussed
here. Template is used by a bot to create protected content that then appears on the Main Page a day later, so there is potential for subtle vandalism to it to make its way there. I'm not sure what the best level of protection would be; I could see semi-, ECP, or template-. But it shouldn't be nothing. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – the page is continuously vandalized by rival fans by changing squads without official confirmation or just for the sake of vandalism.
Coderzombie (
talk)
13:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection – IP editors repeatedly removing info about his sexuality, especially after previous protection expired.
George Ho (
talk)
01:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This article has been the subject of many months of the addition of unsupported genre changes by numerous anon IPs. Despite warnings, the unsupported additions continue unabated.
Egghead06 (
talk)
07:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Widely used template that we wouldn't want modified without oversight by a brand new user. {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
DeltaQuad: The template for some reason was having everyone transclude it until I just changed the documentation yesterday, so that's why it doesn't have a high transclusion count. I'm not sure exactly how widely it was substituted, but I've seen it enough that I think semi-protection might be warranted. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IPs, possibly the same person, repeatedly removing sourced information. Multiple Wikipedia editors have reverted the IP edits to restore the article.
JimKaatFan (
talk)
14:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing to the "Sociolinguistics and nominative–accusative alignment" section pending outcome re. possible move per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. --Kent Dominic 14:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Due to a particular accident (on going crisis) in India which happened very recently, multiple users are trying to add unsourced updates frequently. This can be dangerous and help spread fake news. Hence temporarily needs to be protected.
Unique1997 (
talk)
09:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:: Over the years there have been some very bizarre edits, all from similarly located IP's, took a long time for anyone to notice the strange form of vandalism
Abcmaxx (
talk)
02:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – The same two users have been at it all day with adding and removing each other’s work. They asked for a 3O and I posted to the talk for their summary and GPinkerton has ignored the request for information and is adding all sorts of information to article. According to users talk page he is up for AN for edit warring but I didn’t see his name on the board. I’m requesting FPP to get then to actively engage in dialogue with me so this can be sorted out. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up09:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi protection: Persistent
vandalism – As Tekashi 6ix9ine is a controversial figure, the article is a prime hotspot for vandalism and it has already seen quite a lot of vandalism already. I would propose semi-protecting it for a week or two then hopefully the vandals will get bored and find a different article to vandalize. A lot of edits to the article have been unhelpful and this will only get worse unless preemptive action takes place.
182.53.37.30 (
talk)
22:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
This is the only user talk page with a
Multiple unclosed formatting tags lint error, and one of only 2 pages with this error in all of English Wikipedia. It uses the markup <s>...<s>, which was formerly parsed the same as <s>...</s>, but now the unclosed <s> tag leaks to the end of the page, which is no good. To fix this and other lint errors, please replace the wikitext with the contents of
User:Anomalocaris/sandbox/Lint Test. —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
00:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Spate of vandalism in recent days from several IPs and new accounts, including adding unsourced claims that the subject suffers from several medical conditions. A short semi ought to help stop the blp violations. .
Neiltonks (
talk)
09:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and disruptive editing happening. Article is an ongoing television series.
Emperork (
talk)
01:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection Persistent disruptive editing by IP addresses (probably one person). Nonsensical threats in edit summaries, and edit warring about a character's age using unreliable sources (
Urban Dictionary, Wikipedia mirrors, etc.) to support their claim.
XOR'easter (
talk)
14:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IPs are now edit warring with each other. As this is a topic related to pseudoscience, it is a target for NPOV warriors. .
Natureium (
talk)
14:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP edits to the article have been unhelpful including changing the artist's gender and repeated additions of factual inaccuracies.
→ Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (
Talk) -
21:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Constant POV pushing and edit warring by autoconfirmed accounts trying to push the .co fork over the .ca site.
Romartus Imperator (
talk)
22:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection Persistent addition of unsourced content and non-constructive edits due to the recent death of the subject. IWI (chat)
15:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism – Consistent vandalism over the past several months: even after the recent page protection which determined that en.uncyclopedia.co should be kept on the page as the URL, various vandals, possibly
sockpuppets of PKHilliam (as demonstrated by edits of a single style such as
here), are still attempting to "spread their point".
KevTYD (
talk)
21:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Page has been extended confirmed protected for 3 months by EdJohnston (because of the SPI mentioned above). This request is basically no longer needed.
KevTYD (
talk)
00:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:The_Banner keeps reverting an edit with reliable cited references for a section which does not belong to Restaurants. He clearly writes on food and seems to know Atul Kochhar leading to a clear conflict of interest
Requesting redirect protection removal for Moomoo as it's the name of Moomoo, Inc and their online trading platform Moomoo.--
Ron John (
talk)
16:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: It has already been explained to this user on the IRC help channel that if
their draft is accepted, the accepting reviewer will manage the process of sorting out redirects/disambiguations/etc.. Currently, I do not see that their draft demonstrates that Moomoo Inc. meets notability guidelines, so I do not see any reason to take action on this at this time.
Waggie (
talk)
03:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: The second entry in the list has now been deleted and added back too many times, mostly by IP users. The sources say that the entry should be included.
188.252.197.45 (
talk)
21:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Just back from protection to stop IP socks of Matthew_Terrones. More of the same. SummerPhDv2.021:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
Woody (
talk)
18:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism; I am trying to restore the article to a clean state but it is difficult to even find a single revision that appears to be clean.
Paradoxsociety02:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: Was unsure whether to SP or PC. All the anon edits for more than a month were reverted, so I went with SP --Deep fried okraUser talk:Deepfriedokra 02:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC
Note:@
Deepfriedokra: Yes, because the ESWATINI pages contains more than 70000 bytes, but there is a almost 10000 byte pages permanently fully protected, to prevent 30500 vandalism. --
SiSwati Swazi (
talk)
02:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
On the talk page, SlimVirgin claimed -- without evidence -- that a representative of the sarticle's subject could be attempting to "correct" the page. Given that, I believe her rejection of this request should be overridden, and another admin should make the decision.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
22:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism - The city has received mass amounts of attention after the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery. Due to this, the page has been vandalized several times.
EEllis2002 (
talk)
00:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
Woody (
talk)
10:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Pending changes seems to be working at the moment.
Woody (
talk)
11:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – IP
User:2601:986:8001:D134:B1C7:54F4:A9A8:3192 has constantly and consistently entered their POV and Edit warring despite being told numerous times by myself and being told by others to not insert their POV into the article.
Reduce the level of protection right away - The editors are civil enough at this time to make necessary changes without breaking Wikipedia polices and project polices. Its common sense.
Regice2020 (
talk)
06:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected "Please post requests in this section for removing or reducing the protection level of a page if the protecting admin is inactive or you have already asked them." Editors were continuing to edit war despite an ongoing RFC.
Woody (
talk)
10:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism by accounts made with zero history of activity on Wikipedia or straight IP addresses (no account). Most of the IP addresses come back as Indian which is expected given the historical situation between the two countries. This page has seen extensive work to be made presentable and appropriate as well as detailed so it is very disruptive to have to deal with such vandalism.
Xeed.rice (
talk)
04:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism by users with no account (IP addresses going back to India) or accounts with no prior edits (with the exception of other cases of vandalism - usually relating to the same category of pages as this one). The page for the Pakistan Army is by nature going to continuously be vandalized given the nature of the India-Pakistan conflict and therefore temporary protection will not help.
Xeed.rice (
talk)
04:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Moxy: The article is currently (and for a long time) indef semi for editing and admin-only for moving. What do you want changed?
Favonian (
talk)
14:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:, preferably three months, Persistent IP vandalism resumes after protection expired to making unsourced allegations and will require
Wikipedia:RevDel once protection re-established. Thankyou.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
06:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Sudden spate of disruption/vandalism since yesterday, from numerous IPs from the Philipines, some of which are identified as blacklisted and/or proxies by IPQualityScore.
IamNotU (
talk)
03:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: This page is accessible from the front-page, and is therefore likely to be vandalised further in the past. Some vandalism has already occurred, for example
here. .
Acalycine (
talk)
03:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Ongoing edit war involving many editors (inc. EC and PCR) over "ROC"/"Taiwan" and "country"/"state", etc. Looking at the last few months of revisions (about 150 or so edits), almost all of them are back-and-forth reversions: putting in "Taiwan", taking out "Taiwan", etc. There is an RFC ongoing, but the edit war continues (slow but steady). This may benefit from being full protected until the RFC concludes, or at least PCR (although some editors involved have the flag, so I'm not sure if that'll help).
Levivichdubious –
discuss05:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Constant edit warring with no one going to the talk page to discuss the edits.
Nihlus18:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There is no discussion on the talk page yet or any requests to discuss on any of the user's talk pages. Please open up a discussion first. I only see one revert so far.
Woody (
talk)
20:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page is been persistently vandalized by 'Angeluser' despite many warnings.
The administrative language of the Alupa Dynasty was Kannada language. This has been confirmed from numerous inscriptions and references, almost all are in Kannada language and very few are in Sanskrit language.
Numerous Kannada language inscriptions and references are available from as early as 5th century. All coinages issued by the dynasty is in the Kannada language. There is only one Tulu language inscription from 12th to 13th century (the same inscription is also having Kannada). Further, this Tulu/Kannada inscription needs to be thoroughly verified and confirmed if it is indeed in the Tulu language.
Here the primacy in 'Common Language' section should be given to Kannada language and not the Tulu language. There is no proper evidence to prove that Tulu language existed then, let alone putting it in 'Common Language' section, and let alone putting it above Kannada Language.
This has been conveyed to the 'Angeluser' multiple times with warnings in his talk page. But he is very keen to edit the section without giving any proof.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Various ip addresses and not autoconfirmed or confirmed editors have been continuously vandalizing the article again ever since the semi-protection was removed 2 days ago. It was previously semi-protected for 1 week. . —
YoungForever(talk)23:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Not done If you want me to increase the protection level, the onus is on you to provide evidence that disruption is continuing; I'm not going to increase the protection on a high-traffic page like this just on your say-so, and there's literally not a single problematic edit in the history since the semi-protection was applied. I'm certainly not going to protect it for 18 months just because you think that's when a vaccine will be developed; it's not like the scientists are working to a set deadline. ‑
Iridescent19:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. 2020-05-09T20:04:28 Yamla blocked 100.2.34.35 talk with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Block evasion: Andrew5)~ ToBeFree (
talk)
20:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi Protection This page obviously need to be protected to stop people from entering infected links and disruption. @
Woody: and other experts need to review asap,
Regice2020 (
talk)
20:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Article has been semi-protected. Edit rate was too high for PC at this point. It seems the TFA vandal waited until PC had expired. --
MrClog (
talk)
16:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Consistent pattern of whitewashing and NPOV issues/edit warring to remove negative sourced content about Rajkumar.
Zefrrr (
talk)
23:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: There has been recent vandalism of changing movie titles and adding instagram handles and messing up the page.
GODUBNATION (
talk)
19:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. For all of them; the first three have been editd last in April. The others see some disruption, but not even rising to the level of needing semi-protection.
Lectonar (
talk)
09:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent editing and reverting from non-registered users that are seemingly biased. I'm requesting semi-protection so that editing can be done only with registered wikipedia editors. --
Osh33m (
talk)
16:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism over the last couple days by what appears to be a single user on a dynamic IP, semi-protection is probably the best way to nip this in the bud.
Hog Farm (
talk)
20:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Long-term semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism violating gender on a BLP. This BLP is about a person who is known for getting extensive plastic surgery, last month or so they came out as transgender.
Gleeanon409 (
talk)
21:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Second this request, original IP user was blocked for 30 days and when their block expired and after the protection was lifted, they started up again and were blocked for six months, they switched to a IP mobile device and they were blocked for sockpuppetry, and are now using multiple IP mobile devices and continuing their disruption. Multiple editor's have been fighting this disruption on a continual basis since the previous protection was lifted, and the disruption is still ongoing.
Isaidnoway(talk)10:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Removal of semi-protected status: No longer the earliest surviving revision on Wikipedia so the incentive for vandalism no longer exists. Protecting admin (Risker) has not been online since I asked him a couple of days ago. Thanks! –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs)
04:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Done I have lowered the protection to pending-changes, in case "being the oldest surviving page" wasn't the only incentive to vandalize.
Lectonar (
talk)
10:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent BLP violations in the form of changing biometric entries contrary to reliable sourcing. Previous semi-protection but problem started again immediately following expiry.
ElAhrairahinspect damage⁄
berate11:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Requesting increased protection level due to consistent edit warring and vandalism in pending changes by conspiracy theorists, despite the current protection level.
Ed6767 (
talk)
15:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Maybe even temporary extended protection may be necessary if more disruptive edits are made by confirmed users.
Ed6767 (
talk)
15:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP Vandalism and BLP Violation - as far as I can tell, coming from viral social media (that started about 20 hours ago and is likely to continue) (see Twitter #justiceforwdw, including post circulating encouraging Wikipedia editing).
Whisperjanes (
talk)
23:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: 2nd request. 1st request was declined, and since my first request, dozens of IP edits have vandalized. Like
this one and
this one: "first kiss with a girl in 2018 at the age of 31 years old".
This edit removed an entire sourced paragraph and no one caught it. Yes there's some good edits mixed in with the vandalism, but I am watching the page and I think 72 hours of protection would not be unreasonable.
JimKaatFan (
talk)
14:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Practically just as soon as the protection expired, people have been coming here adding ridiculous unsourced unvalidated gossip about an alleged 7th child.
Trillfendi (
talk)
20:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Repeated vandalism (all edits since 2 April) trying to claim it is part of India, not Pakistan -
Arjayay (
talk)
17:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Recent spate of vandalism changing head coach and NCAA tournament results. The team is the subject of a sports blog series at
SBNAtion, see
[25]. Persistent vandalism.
Hog Farm (
talk)
03:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Being an AfC reviewer, I had reviewed this article draft at
Draft:Amjad Saqib on March 21 and declined it for possible copyvio. I have been following it since then. All of the promotional tone is down, and subject is unquestionably notable. There are however some minor issues in the draft, which will require copy edit. I'm requesting mainspace title unprotection. Thanks.
Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk)
13:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Constant vandalism, which is what you'd really expect from an article about Wikipedia. Don't know why this wasn't protected earlier. dibbydibboop or snoop07:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Over the last 10 days there's only two pieces of clearcut vandalism, plus a couple of potential other edits that either are GF messups or editing tests.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
08:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Due to persistent unconstructive edits. Actor associated with a television network which had its broadcast controversially stopped.
Hariboneagle927 (
talk)
14:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IPs and new users editing the page with non-neutral point of view, including insertion of false content with fake references (see talk page post). Practically all recent edits have been POV edits of fake information and blanking of reliable sources that contradict a certain POV, including from
this Bangladeshi IP that has also inserted copyvio information.
Wallachia Wallonia (
talk)
16:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: For someone not famililar with the topic it is difficult to evaluate the sources used; discussion at the talk-page has barely started. This article needs more eyes.
Lectonar (
talk)
11:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – this page has been a victim of various POV pushes from various new editors and ips.
Mr.Sarcastic (
talk)
07:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Repeated additions of unsourced personal reminiscences "I recall working for him", "he told me", "I remember" etc by IP hopper -
Arjayay (
talk)
10:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Page has been salted requiring admin privileges to create since 2016. The protecting administrator,
NeilN, is inactive. The article was salted because of 'BLP violations'. The subject has since gained considerable notability. I have a
draft at my sandbox that I would like to move into main article space, but this is currently not possible.
Mbdfar (
talk)
04:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Previous request was denied but I must insist on at least temporary semi-protection. Right after I requested semi-protection, a non-registered users removed with a biased agenda. Editing must be only available to registered wikipedia editors, otherwise this page will undergo an edit war. --
Osh33m (
talk)
13:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. This looks like its probably a single editor operating within a blockable ip range. If this persists I suggest going to ANI and requesting a range block.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
01:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring over the past week, especially during the past 24 hours. Article is subject to discretionary sanctions (1RR). —
MelbourneStar☆talk13:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent re-addition of unsourced content, and changes to content that break reference integrity, by anon IP hopper (2402:7500:...). Anon IP refuses to engage on talk pages. - -
RovingPersonalityConstruct (
talk,
contribs)
03:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent removal of paid editing notice by new accounts and IPs, maybe cover up but that's not for me to say.
Ed6767 (
talk)
21:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Ed6767: I have restored the template and protected the page for a few days. But if challenged you will need to provide evidence to support that tag. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
02:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Constant references to IQ after supposed self-testing on Twitch streaming. CaradhrasAiguo (
leave language)
22:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Unregistered IPs keep changing the original version's Hot 100 peak to #1, ignorant of the fact that remix actually was credited for #1.
heyitsben!!talk22:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism.
I-82-I (
talk)
22:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
This article keeps getting vandalized by IP users who are not following the Koppen Climate system. Please semi-protect this page to stop this.reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – For the past couple of years has seen a consistent flow of vandalism, often containing BLP violations. A look at the article's edit summary shows the majority of the edits being vandalism and subsequent reversions. Please protect so this issue is resolved. .
Hillelfrei talk 17:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: The article has become highly unstable being frequently changed by ungestered ip users and new users. A lot of disruptive edits along with subtle-vandalism going on the article. Needs a immediate measure.
Dey subrata (
talk)
22:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: The article was semi-protected but lost its protection a couple of days ago and since then the article has become unstable being frequently changed by ip users and new users that have either deleted templates and information without an explanation or adding unsourced and doubtful info and statistics that cause confusion and misinformation.
Davidmejoradas (
talk)
23:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated vandalism from a variety of dynamic IPs and new accounts which causes patrollers to only revert the most recent vandalism but leaves older vandalism in place.
Epistulae ad Familiares (
talk)
16:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Upgrade to 6 months semi protection Seems to be their chief target, the pending changes protection appears not to be working as after they made 3 in a row the third edit went through without review.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
00:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP/New registered users removing important contents and adding twitter username, materials and etc. Temporary semi-protection is necessary.
25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣07:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Well watched; Ips both contribute positively and disrupt.
Lectonar (
talk)
11:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Page has been victim of disruptive edits and unreferenced content has been added. The subject is notable Islamicist from Pakistan and was recently arrested and later released, I assume this article may suffer edit wars from his fans as it has suffered since yesterday. Requesting pending changes. Thanks.
Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk)
13:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – A week-long semi-protection just expired and we've been getting some IP vandalism already. Wouldn't hurt to extend this to a month until the subject dies down in the media.
Kingofaces43 (
talk)
17:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Article info is being reverted, removing relevant info and facts from the article. Possible edit war.
musimax. (
talk)
18:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Vandalism is seen from time to time by ips and new accounts. The said page documents a doctrine mostly unacceptable by the mainstream results in vandalism, thus needs permanent protection.
USaamo(
t@lk)18:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: High level of vandalism from registered users. After previous protection lapsed, vandalism resumed.
XPEric (
talk)
23:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing - I was the GA reviewer on
Tumbbad and I still have the page on my watchlist. It seems like there's a lot of anonymous editing to muck around with the the production credits, the GA nominator is
happy to have it protected. Seems like it was already
semi-protected for similar reasons back in 2019. Last good version is
this one. Thanks!
Mujinga (
talk)
23:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There's been pretty frequent vandalism on this article over the past few hours, some from newly registered accounts and some from IPs.
Waggie (
talk)
04:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Persistent addition of unsourced and poorly sourced materials to BLP. IPs and some new registered editors claiming the subject of the article was recently appointed to a new role, whereas Nigerian presidency is still yet to confirm the role. —
Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬17:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Various ip addresses have been continuously disruptive editing the article by ignoring a hidden comment which states, "As per consensus on the talk page LEAVE this at TBA until we hear official word on how the season is ending. Go to talk page for discussion.". —
YoungForever(talk)02:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP hopping editor making the same changes, been reverted by multiple different editors, been warned on several of their IP's and continues. Need short-term semi-protection to at least try to force them to use the article talk page. Ravensfire (
talk)
02:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes protection:The edit filter won't let me post the title of this article, so you'll just have to use the external link above instead. Persistent
vandalism. Very steady, long-term vandalism but may occur too infrequently for semi-protection.
2601:1C0:C:BEC:3C65:8197:16CE:183F (
talk)
18:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Persistent edit warring by several IPs and a registered user, in spite of reverts by multiple editors. Discussion on talk page has gone nowhere, and the disruption continues unabated. Thanks. .
BilCat (
talk)
00:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Multiple IP vandalism in the recent days. Article is being vandalized because of the recent statements made by the actress.
Emperork (
talk)
00:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IPv6 editor attempting to put a second screenplay writer in with a reference that does not back up source. IP editor attempted to "I want to speak to your manager" appeal at
WP:AN at
[26].
Hasteur (
talk)
17:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:: Usual Nepali nationalism claiming the kukri is solely Nepalese, 3 IPs + 2 new accounts today, has had to be protected 3 times before for this. -
Arjayay (
talk)
13:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection, The article is target of multiple disruptive unsourced editing and edit warring by unregistered ips and socks. I have reported some vandals, one of them created a sock account to continue the disruptive editing. The article has been semi protected for such behavior a few times before, it needs urgent semi protection again and the sock will be dealt with later.
Dilbaggg (
talk)
05:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – It looks like there's probably a high school student that is making unusual reverts on the article and the talk page, with no comments except "Nope".
Dawnseeker200006:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Since it is a game that teenagers like, some of them just come to the wikipedia page and add random stuff or just delete the entire thing.
NamelessLameless (
talk)
16:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined The article is already indefinitely pending-changes protected and currently the subject of a deletion discussion. There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify additional semiprotection.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
23:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Repeated changes of date of death to April 4 by IP
[27],
[28],
[29],
[30],
[31], despite reliable sources stating his body was found on April 6
[32] and IP providing no other sources to back up their changes.
Richard3120 (
talk)
22:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent editing by various IPs - likely the same individual - including text that multiple editors have argued is not NPOV and despite invitations to discuss on the talk page.
FyzixFighter (
talk)
13:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The topic is no less controversial or vandalism-prone than when it was previously protected for extended periods. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Temporary full protection requested to cool a few heads down and stop the disruption to this BLP. (Recommending to set the stable version without the potentially libellous wording on conspiracy theories) . —
kashmīrīTALK22:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Came to request also. But to add to this and give a little context, an actor of the same name has recently died and editors are confusing the two people. Incorrect death has been added at least six times today.
Alex (
talk)
18:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and blanking by sock ips, reported to ANI
[33]. The page was previously semi protected, the vandal returned after the semi protection was lifted, requesting urgent longer semi protection.
43.245.123.21 (
talk)
20:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
the page need serious revision before semi protection! it was filled and fulled by duplicate contents there which have bee perfectly summarized in not only one but in two articles. see:[
[34]] and
History of Bangladesh after independence
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Promotional editing resumed after protection expired. Requesting indef since this keeps happening after each protection period expires, and is likely to keep going.
Jalen Folf(talk)20:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since it appears that this undertaking by Markiplier will only last until November, I have protected it until November, which seems the time when, if it were going to become notable, it would.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓20:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: multiple IP edits due to article subject recently tweeting about their article. Second request - 6 different IPs in the last day. --
Netoholic@01:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I only added the diffs of Lebanese nationalistic pov pushing, if you look at the articles history, there are more of the same fighting with egypt, iraq and israel. The account that showed up recently is a newly registered account and is editing the article without having at least 500 edits:
[67]
Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. functionally edit warring, not just unsourced content. Followed by:
Semi-protection (or whatever is appropriate): for this article as well as
Penelope Garcia; same situation with both). Edit war going back to March between a new registered user and a rotating IP (assumed to be the same second party). I believe neither party is correct and neither of their content belongs. Please advise if there's a better place/way to deal with this - it is not at all my area. Thank you,
Jessicapierce (
talk)
04:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Repeated insertion of blatantly promotional material from IP addresses (see Talk page comment).
Dyork (
talk)
15:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Fake info being added, please protect for 2-3 years minimum. Was protected for 1 year before, but excessive vandalism since September 2019, especially in last month (April-May 2020)
37.210.217.123 (
talk)
11:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High risk module; moved per move discussion, recreated as a redirect, redirect still has the transclusions and should be protected.
DannyS712 (
talk)
11:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – Moved from draft space to article space without review three times, and draftified three times. Please move-protect so that only an administrator can promote it to article space after review.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
16:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Seasons 2 and 4 are being targeted as well. I reported seasons 3 and 5 above, still waiting for someone to review those. Now seasons 2-5 are ALL being targeted by IP vandals. I would appreciate if someone could help with this.
Ikjbagl (
talk)
01:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. Both IPs and autoconfirmed users so we can't just block the IPs. I have warned the current edit warring editors, blocks will follow.
Woody (
talk)
10:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Addition of unsourced promotional contents and removal of the maintenance tag by multiple accounts and IPs'.
GSS💬07:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection Repetitive addition of unsourced content/mass change of prior content to a BLP by IPs and now a new account. Unsure if it's the same person or not.
RandomCanadian (
talk |
contribs)
03:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
Woody (
talk)
22:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
Woody (
talk)
22:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP editors vandalising the article over the past few weeks or so, especially on this month and April. This page's unprotection is useless, as there are still tons of IP editors ruining the page and it's hard to report them or block them.
DoanVN (
talk)
06:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. 2 edits in two weeks means PC is doing it's job.
Woody (
talk)
16:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Content dispute/edit warring. One user in particular keeps reverting edits being made to this page. They claimed they were not well sourced. They are now, but every change that is made, they keep reverted back to what it was before.
Cytkory (
talk)
00:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That will take care of the recent addition of unsourced content by IPs. It will not do anything about last week's edit warring between two autoconfirmed users. I hope you have worked it out by now; if not, take it to the talk pages.
MelanieN (
talk)
03:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – IP editor making ongoing efforts to insert BLP-violating material. This has been a problem for some time and the article has been protected before because of it.
Freeknowledgecreator (
talk)
01:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely. This article used to have indefinite semi-protection. It was changed to PC protection a few years ago as an experiment. Since then the article has needed add-on semi-protection more than half the time, and it is too heavily edited for PC to work well in any case. So I have restored indefinite semi-protection.
MelanieN (
talk)
03:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I took a look at this, and while there is a little conventional vandalism, I suspect the editors could handle this. There are also some unsourced issues, and some edit warring aspects. A more detailed review is in order. Indefinite protection definitely not needed. Note several editors are on the verge of being autoconfirmed.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
19:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
These IPs are popping up from all over the US to insert the same POV. It looks like the article was mentioned on an external site /social network and there is some coordination going on.
Toddst1 (
talk)
23:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Maybe this happened after Nosebagbear took a look at it, but recently there has been a ton of IP vandalism.
MelanieN (
talk)
02:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Not sure what the appropriate level of protection would be, but this page has been continuously victim to the addition of
vandalism and unsourced information.
Aza24 (
talk)
22:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined No real vandalism observed, and is already semi-protected (which likely keeps away the majority of the punters).
Primefac (
talk)
23:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent change of content by IP and novice editor in the infobox without sources or reference to the article text. They have been referred several times to the talk page, but they fail to discuss there. –.
Austronesier (
talk)
15:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Continuous slow-motion vandalism since previous round of PC expired a few years ago (and during it, as well). ‑‑ElHef (
Meep?)
18:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Only two edits in the last month, and only 5 this calendar year. I do see a few good IP edits scattered in the history. If things start back up then there is no prejudice against posting here again.
Primefac (
talk)
23:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined The article page and the talk page cannot both be semi-protected. It would be extremely unusual and would have to be for egregious vandalism rather than an editorial dispute. IPs need to have a way of requesting edits.
Woody (
talk)
23:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I only really see one "vandal" edit, plus the unexplained blanking from last week. If it persists feel free to re-request.
Primefac (
talk)
22:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent POV pushing along with addition of unsourced materials in to the article by new users and ip users. The user has been addressed for his disruptive edits several times but seems to have ignored. A protection is necessary now, needs a semi-protection for atleast a month.
Dey subrata (
talk)
13:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Not done I know this is a bit of an odd twist, given the blatant edit warring, but the song title under dispute is now linked, and the other offending editor has started an RM on that page's name. I'll keep an eye on the page, and if they insist on continuing I'll hand out some blocks (as there are a few editors who are at-or-almost-at 3RR).
Primefac (
talk)
22:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I see only one disruptive edit today, and the user agreed not to edit further. The last vandalistic edit was four days ago.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓21:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: "anime tities expert" has been added there since September 2016 by Ips/newly registered users. It's not going to stop.
Jerm (
talk)
02:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism prior to temporary protection; vandalism within 10 hours of temporary protection being lifted.
userdude23:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. As it has been unprotected in the past, I am opting to not go indefinite. Though if things continue after this block is up, it should probably get upped to indefinite.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓23:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary move protection: Page-move vandalism – Users are trying to move the page without any reason. The page has existed for a few months without any disputes and is a stub. .
Sanjida more (
talk)
22:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined Firstly, definitely not vandalism, as that's willful attempt to damage the encyclopedia, which is not the case here. However, I'm about to start a discussion at the (currently draft) talk page on the issue
Nosebagbear (
talk)
19:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – ASAP - There is a warrant out for Deandre's arrest - prev vandalism of page has become a Twitter meme, I need to add info but constant edit conflicts and new changes alerts and constantly rvv.
Ed6767 (
talk)
23:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Indonesian DOB vandal is targeting this page now. There are global range blocks but the user seems to have many more ranges available for them. .
kyykaarme (
talk)
08:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The Indonesian DOB is targeting this and another page at the moment (see above). I would like to see how they react when one page is semiprotected and another has pending changes. The vandal has been active for two years or more.
kyykaarme (
talk)
08:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeatedly vandalized by various IP addresses originated from Tangerang, Indonesia.
Flix11 (
talk)
08:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Both pages have seen long-term genre warring and unsourced genre editing. Activity comes particularly from a person with a 2804 IP range. A potential rangeblock could come in handy, too, if necessary. As well, possibly some other related album pages could also be protected.
Mungo Kitsch (
talk)
04:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Relatively slow-moving but protracted vandalism, often in the form of changing the name of the article subject to some other name. Requesting another admin do the protection per
WP:INVOLVED.
GorillaWarfare(talk)16:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Unprotected I'm game! Seems like it got caught up in continuation after the initial PC trial. I've gone and unprotected it. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)15:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Full protection to Semi-protection: The article has yet to be updated to reflect the most recent episode, despite multiple editors making edit requests that the admin has denied.
Gagaluv1 (
talk)
19:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Cheers for the ping. The edit protected requests were denied for two reasons: 1, they didn't provide a specific set of edits required ie change "this line X" to "this line Y." I made one change after a specific request on the talk page. The second reason is because the changes do not have a
consensus and are the cause of the edit warring that has caused the page to be temporarily protected in the first place. Instead of the edit protected requests please contribute to the discussion as to how to move the article forward and prevent the edit warring. Of course, if another administrator feels differently I am happy for them to act as they see fit. I will leave this for an uninvolved admin.
Woody (
talk)
22:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure if my opinion would matter much on this but I mainly edited this article back when it was semi-protected and it was appearing frequently in the semi-protection edit request queue. However the issue that lead to the edit warring and subsequent full protection of the article is currently under discussion at the respective WikiProject and hasn't achieved a consensus. The edit warring has spilled over to
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11) which lead to it being fully protected as well. Looking at the user groups of some of the editors involved in the edit warring prior to full protection being implemented even extended-confirmed protection would not work in this situation as some of those editors are extended confirmed. Today even I have proactively declined 3 edit requests because they were all about editing the contested content under discussion. From my perspective constructive edits that are being proposed in the correct format are being made to the article it is just taking a bit longer than normal. I strongly urge to keep the full protection in place until a consensus is reached on the contested content. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?22:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The section entitled "Sectarian Violence", that describes Syed Ahmad Barelvi's anti-Shi'ism has been removed consistently by a user Usaamo. Scholarly sources have been cited and the importance of this section is described in edit summaries, but they won't stop vandalism.
Filter's doing fine for now; if there's another edit after the 00:35 edit, protection is a good idea. They'll probably move on anyway.
Enterprisey (
talk!)
00:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent POV pushing, with unsourced materials by some new user, they were warned even addressed them with policies and guidelines, but this continues in edit-war.
Dey subrata (
talk)
09:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined I warned the editor. It's already semi protected temporarily so I don't want to disrupt that with a short-term full protection for edit warring. If an edit war continues after the warning, leave a note at
WP:EWN. —
Wug·a·po·des20:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent POV pushing, with unsourced materials by some new user, they were warned even addressed them with policies and guidelines, but this continues in edit-war.
Dey subrata (
talk)
09:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent unexplained removal of materials from the article by ip users mainly for last 1 or 2 weeks.
Dey subrata (
talk)
09:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The one IP explained their removal and it still remains, only other recent problem is one mass removal today which isn't enough to justify protection right now. —
Wug·a·po·des20:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Requesting userspace protection. I'm currently on a wikibreak and may not be fully active.
KMagz04 (
talk)
08:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Bidhan Singh is a well known LTA - see
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bidhan Singh After a long absence he returned in mid April and is now attacking these four articles, 2 about 01.06 each day and the other 2 about 16.06 - for full details see
User:Arjayay/B S AFAIK the IPs he is using (see
User:Arjayay/B S} are too broad for rangeblocks - which would be preferable I'm sure he will choose other targets if these are protected, so there is the question of should they not be protected, to make clearing up easier? -
Arjayay (
talk)
18:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. each. There are a lot of helpful edits mixed in so I don't think a range block would be a good idea. Hopefully a month is long enough to discourage them. —
Wug·a·po·des22:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
To be honest, I do not remember why I indefinitely semi-protected it indefinitely without prior protections. There must have been a good reason for that, but I have not documented it. We can unprotect and see what happens.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
20:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Full-protection: High level of IP vandalism and probable socking as its is multiple IP's using the self same (highly POV) edit summery).
Slatersteven (
talk)
12:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Escobar Inc(
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) Persistent vandalism from sockpuppets, and users appearing to be Daniel D. Reitberg scrubbing his name (personal edits not allowed).
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Addition of unsourced content along with general disruptive editing (content blanking, etc.) I don't think there is enough constant disruption to warrant semi-protection. -- LuK3(Talk)15:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Requesting permanent Pending changes. The article has faced vandalism from IPs, even though referenced; but references are completely attack. Pending changes may help in scrutinizing the references and then reviewing any material added. Thanks.
Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk)
10:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Cairo-based IP-hopper is back to vandalizing the name of "samosa" again, as soon as the previous protection was removed. I'm calling it vandalism because they seem to use a different name every time.
IamNotU (
talk)
16:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: This article is experiencing an edit war from a number of users for over a week now, none of whom have attempted to use the talkpage. While current events are changing, I feel the article becoming slightly outdated may be preferable to an interminable back and forth.
CMD (
talk)
10:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Full-protection: High level of IP vandalism and probable socking as its is multiple IP's using the self same (highly POV) edit summery. Same IP's as
war on terror. And this [
[68]] "This is will never end old man".
Slatersteven (
talk)
12:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – This page has been repeatedly moved by its originator into mainspace when it is not ready for mainspace. Please move-protect it indefinitely. It should stay in draft space, because the place probably passes
geographic notability, but the current draft doesn't even say what state the place is in. An admin can move it to article space when a reviewer clears it.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not a regular at RFPP, so I won't decline this (and when another admin makes a final disposition please ping me so I better understand RFPP practice). However, the explanatory supplement
WP:DRAFTIFY states that Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD. I'm therefore reluctant to move-protect this page. Best, Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
05:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page belongs to a Film Actress & Popular Public Figure, Recently we are facing Vandalism on this page, which causes so much trouble to the celebrity. Kindly request you to protect it.
Vrisle (
talk)
08:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Seems like one person who's since stopped; if disruption resumes feel free to re-request. Best, Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
05:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Seen a spate of IP test edits today, but since I'm involved with the article, would rather not set up protection myself. bibliomaniac1500:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Article goes through frequent periods of vandalism. In the past 24 hours alone, it had been vandalized seven times by what seems to be five different users.
NJZombie (
talk)
04:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
NJZombie: In this case ECP is not authorized by policy;
WP:ECP only authorizes use of extended-confirmed protection "[w]here semi-protection has proven to be ineffective". Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
05:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Page was protected and as soon as it was unprotected (5 minutes) vandalism started again. Page has a history of protections. Requesting indefinite.
Idan (
talk)
14:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Notable Deobandi senior scholar died today, protecting article may help to counter puffery easily. Various puffery based edits has already taken place.
Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk)
14:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Long-term semi-protection: Non-stop vandalism. It is not reasonable to burden regular editors to have review and revert every single piece of vandalism that this page experiences.
Snooganssnoogans (
talk)
18:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism from a single user with a dynamic IP in the 1.129.x.x and 1.144.x.x ranges. User keeps adding unsourced, unverifiable information to the article, refuses to participate in talk page discussions (in fact, they repeatedly removed attempts to discuss it from the article's talk page), and has been repeatedly warned on their many talk pages. The article was previously protected for three months and then six months, and both times, within hours of the protection expiring, the IP user was back to their disruptive behavior.
Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (
talk •
contributions)
18:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Reduction in protection level: From Semi-Protected to None. A 10 year old lock does not warrant for further continuation.
Nightvour (
talk)
17:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism by LTA from 3 separate accounts over the last 24 hours. TP is a redirect to Meta talk page; so not often used.
Jack Frost (
talk)
09:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Reduction in protection level: From full protection to autoconfirmed. Proof the requirement to contact protecting admin has been met:
Kirtaner requested
NawlinWiki unprotect
420chanin 2017. NawlinWiki was retired at the time. They have recently returned in a limited capacity and not edited for over two weeks.
zzuzz recommended that Kirtaner write a draft and come here. They didn't, and that's where things stood for ≈3 years. When NawlinWiki returned, they did not reply to Kirtaner, leading me to believe they feel zzuzz's instruction is sufficient. Now that I have done (
User:Psiĥedelisto/420chan) what Kirtaner was asked to do, I feel that it's not outside the rules for me to do the second thing he was asked to do. Even if it strictly is,
WP:IAR should be the guiding principle in this edge case.
Psiĥedelisto (
talk •
contribs)
09:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent genre changes without reliable sources by numerous IPs. This has been going on for years for some reason on this article.
Egghead06 (
talk)
04:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There have only been two instances of vandalism in the preceding two weeks. While the vandalism does seem to be consistent over time, it's occurring at a slow enough cadence that the PC patrollers should be able to pick it up. I suspect this will need to be extended after expiration, but since it's only been protected twice and the last time was just for a week, three months is already pushing the envelope on what would be preemptive protection.
Chetsford (
talk)
04:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Enterprisey: Sorry if this is repetitive, but I see no reason to let vandals have a go at the TFA. Isn't it usual practice to protect the day's featured article exactly because of what is happening?
RandomCanadian (
talk |
contribs)
01:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Multiple IPs are constantly making changes without giving any sort of explanation. Page has currently PC protection, but it seems to be not enough in this case.
CycloneYoristalk!01:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Ideally, all the Help:Intro pages should be semi-protected this way. Many are already, but some still aren't, and we'll likely have to keep coming here piecemeal until the rest of them are. {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, considered asking for a block but multiple IP addresses have already been used.
18abruce (
talk)
22:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since the last protection was applied 10 years ago, going straight to indefinite seems like a too-rapid escalation.
Chetsford (
talk)
16:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Placed on pending protection on April 30, 2020, and since then all disruptive edits that caused for this protection have not only continued on this page (and now on others), but have all been accepted as valid. It is clear this is not going to stop anytime soon. livelikemusic(
TALK!)13:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There seems to be back and forth on this article. I think an RFC is needed. scope_creepTalk13:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Steve Downie is a hockey player that has not played in a few seasons. While he did make the NHL, he was not a particularily impactful one, except for a few misconduct-related events.
Today, a player by the name of Akim Aliu published an opinion piece that called out racism in the hockey subculture. Specifically, Aliu commented on a string of racist incidents with Steve Downie, calling him a "racist sociopath". This garnered a lot of attention.
The article had, in the previous 30 days, 2642 pageviews, and the last major edit went back to Feb. 2019. Today alone, the article was edited 30 times, with many of those edits being vandalism, such as adding "racist" in the lede (e.g. to create "professional racist" instead of "professional ice-hockey player")
For the next week or so, I think it would be wise to limit the IP edits of the page, as they are unlikely to be constructive, and due to the page's limited traffic, vandalism could potentially stay up for a couple hours. .
Acebulf (
talk)
00:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Speculative information based on future event. He is expected to be knighted, but not happened yet. Multiple IP and new editors adding Sir all round the article.
Joseph2302 (
talk)09:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Due to the last sentence in the lead, there have been instances in which the lead has been changed without appropriate discussion on the talk page.
Thanoscar21 (
talk)
15:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: The semi protection level is going to expire today. Must be extended to indefinite pending changes protection level. Hope the PC protection level might work.
DoanVN (
talk)
11:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IPs and Users (mostly random) are adding unverifiable/unsourced stuff and complete lies. Article was protected for a week till 11 May, and has been messed up thrice since then.
RedBulbBlueBlood9911|
Talk09:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined protection should not be used against a single account, and semi would be ineffectie because they'll shortly be autoconfirmed. I'd suggest pursuing dispute resolution or admin intervention at a noticeboard as appropriate.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?08:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-Protection' due to thirteen IP changes, some of which were vandalism, required rollback in the last 12months. Full protection not agreed in request direct to aeditor who has suggested using this method.
Kaybeesquared (
talk)
15:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: This page, along with /4 and /5, aren't protected the same as the other Help:Intro pages. They shouldn't be edited by new users completing the tutorial, and we've had chronic instances of bad test edits elsewhere in the series. {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. This is due to a social media account that has created a fictional coach, and named the fictional figure as coach of this team.
BrineStans (
talk)
03:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection:? As I predicted, as soon as the protection expired people have started to come by to make nonsensical vandalisms (such as putting “hot male” as his occupation). If I had it my way it would be indefinite semi-protection, but whatever you see fit is good enough to put a lid on this.
Trillfendi (
talk)
07:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I know it must seem odd to request protection of an article's talk page but there has been a recent spate of inputs by the banned user
User:HarveyCarter who is repeatedly parroting that the same unverifiable statement should be added to the article. Could you perhaps protect the talk page till, say, the end of this month? Thanks.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
09:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. IP blocked by Materialscientist and that's the only recent disruption I can see, if they come back with a different IP then I'm fine with protecting, it just doesn't seem justified at this point.
creffett (
talk)
03:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Busch was involved in an incident with a popular driver in tonight's NASCAR race, so the vandals have come out to play.
Zappa⚡Matic04:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Various ip addresses have been disruptive editing for weeks again ever since it became unprotected. This article has a history of disruptive editing and vandalism. Every time the article became unprotected again, the disruptive editing/vandalism by various ip addresses start again. —
YoungForever(talk)04:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This has been protected 7 or 8 times in the last four years and the cadence of vandalism shows no signs of abating. And it's not even the normal type of vandalism one sees with TV shows, such as original plot theories and so forth. It's much more basic and fanboyesque, such as posting exclamations of how great the program is
[73]. Indefinite semi-protection is a major escalation but is probably the next step.
Chetsford (
talk)
04:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The slow cadence of the vandalism should be within the ability of the PC reviewers to check. Going into this I assumed the nature of the edits would be much more inflammatory, given the topic, but those I audited seemed to be minor nuisance edits (e.g.
[74],
[75]) and not exhortations of self-harm, BLP violations like outing of non-notable persons, or the injection of dangerous advice into the article. If the situation changes we can revisit the length and completeness of protection. Thank you for monitoring the article.
Chetsford (
talk)
04:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 3 month protect expired 4 days ago, consistent vandalism as soon as it was lifted.
Leijurv (
talk)
23:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: The page was protected before for 3 months and expired on 20 April. As soon as the protection was removed the page has been vandalised several times, with
WP:NPOV,
WP:FORUM,
WP:LIBEL by mostly new users. The page needs an immediate protection, should be an indefinite protection since the article is about a fact-checking website and people out there don't like their lies come out through the website and trying the best to make the article a forum now.
Drat8sub (
talk)
19:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent edit warring going on since 10 May 2020 ever since the current flareup between Nepal and India regarding the boundary dispute. .
Ashinpt (
talk)
13:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: – I agree with the use of EC protection. There is a general question of what to do with brand new editors who come to Wikipedia to plunge into nationalist warring and don't use talk. Blocking them is one idea. See
a recent case at AE where the sudden arrival of new editors regarding India/Nepal was noted. In that case two editors were blocked indef.
EdJohnston (
talk)
16:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: – Yeah, I didn't want to start off big. But I guess EC is preferable as this sort of dispute can easily escalate.
Ashinpt (
talk)
19:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Edit request: Can't edit the talk page and the doc here says if the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please change |show_name= to |name= per the template documentation (can also remove the bad br tag in the image while at it).
Gonnym (
talk)
15:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: This page is currently at "pending changes" level, but there has been an uptick in attempts to whitewash the language, and "pending changes" doesn't seem to suffice.
XOR'easter (
talk)
16:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Protection should run through the election, if it returns after that point, then its probably fair to request indef protection.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓16:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Multiple accounts have posted editors' personal information here resulting in Oversight. Not sure why they chose this page, but perhaps it should be semi-protected as a preventative measure.
Hillelfrei talk 15:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Daniel D. Reitberg keeps trying to remove himself from the page and all international versions as well. Personal edits is not allowed. Many sockpuppets and vandalism. The page should be protected and only admin-approved edits. Over 6 accounts were found to be sockpuppets of his in previous investigations.
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Article was recently semi-protected. Almost as soon as the protection expired, IP vandalism resumed, with such witticisms as calling him a
ballbag in the first sentence. Request same protection for longer period.
JimKaatFan (
talk)
19:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of PoV disputes with likely use of new accounts as ongoing disputes of who is/are office incumbent(s) of Grand Mufti of India.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
20:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection. So this work is an album by
PDQ Bach, and in the style of the parodic nature of that, the individual pieces' titles are numbered as part of the title, not merely as the track listing. A persistent IP keeps removing those parts of the titles despite having been reverted multiple times with proper explanation by multiple editors. At this point it's vandalism caused by incompetence or failure to listen. Either way, it's becoming disruptive.
oknazevad (
talk)
06:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – As you can see in the article's history page, user
SLBtrue (
talk·contribs) (mimicking my username) has been trying to remove information from
João Vale e Azevedo for a long time now. Here are other accounts and IP addresses used to remove information: 2A01:4B00:8544:F400:407E:D45:9A19:A82, 93.108.226.115, 2001:8a0:6a02:3301:f1cd:fdb9:4297:b015, 212.243.217.45, 62.23.113.178, 79.168.208.81,
Alex.R.Z (
talk·contribs) (blocked), 81.12.209.58, 193.83.9.5, 217.112.96.74, 88.157.169.58, 81.84.178.219, 195.5.244.154, 89.214.246.5,
Jose Jorge T (
talk·contribs) (blocked), 74.70.146.1, 62.2.191.246, 109.49.137.252, 78.141.189.236,
Ana Rute Serra (
talk·contribs) (blocked), 212.38.191.42,
Tony Lombard (
talk·contribs) (blocked),
Jose Enes (
talk·contribs) (blocked), 95.93.220.31.
SLBedit (
talk)
19:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – A user who was blocked for disruptive editing of this page and gross incivility on their talk page, is continuing to edit this page from IPs, removing sourced material.
FyzixFighter (
talk)
04:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm hesitant to apply PC instead of Semi-Protection to a BLP because vandalism to a BLP is almost always of a higher order than vandalism to
Jean jacket, for instance. However, looking at the nature of the vandalism, it seems that it's all (or at least the portion I audited) nonsense and nuisance vandalism and not the introduction of defamation. That said, based on the protection log, indefinite protection would be a major escalation. On the other hand, a few days or weeks is clearly insufficient to deal with the long-term activity that's occurring. I've split the difference at a year, which can be extended if necessary upon expiration.
Chetsford (
talk)
00:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Users repeated are adding politically motivated page edits regarding current events. This cannon is a public installation operated by trained government employees. It is not a privately owned firearm subject to the recently implemented firearms restrictions. The edits being made to this page are intentionally misleading and are being made to push a political interpretation of current legislative affairs. .
Burnqq (
talk)
20:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Upcoming TV show with high level of IP vandalism/false changes frequently. Protection just expired and the same vandalism has already happened.
TheFallenPower (
talk)
22:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism by ip and new users. The page has been vandalised innumerable times for last 10 months, several new users were blocked along with ip users, mutiple times protection was applied but as soon as the protection expired a new user or ip will start vandalising the article. Most recent protection expired on yesterday but similar vandalism started. Need a indefinite semi protection.
Drat8sub (
talk)
18:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
MelanieN,
Cwmhiraeth I see we all decided to protect this page at the same exact time, Melanie went two years, I went indef, and Cwm went for a month it appears. I am open to changing the length back to two years or one month, just kind funny that we all did it at the same time
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓17:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
LOL! I considered indef but scaled back to two years. Long term protection is definitely needed IMO, based on the protection log. Since you got in the "last word" with indef protection, I am OK with leaving it at that. What shall we change here so as not to confuse the bot? You could cross out my report and add an indef one from you? --
MelanieN (
talk)
17:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
P.S. And then I'll go away for a while and leave the field open for you. From my essay
User:MelanieN/Page protection, "Before I begin to patrol the RfPP requests, I always look at the RfPP page history to see if any other admin is actively patrolling. If they are, I go away and do something else. Two admins trying to patrol at the same time only get in each other’s way - one protects a page and the other unintentionally supersedes that protection with another, or one declines protection just as the other is imposing it." Truer words never spoken. I'll get out of your way now. I was about to log off anyhow. --
MelanieN (
talk)
17:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is not vandalism, it is a content dispute. Please work it out on the talk page.
MelanieN (
talk)
17:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP-based DE for last month. Prior PP was 1-year over same (cited) content issues.
UW Dawgs (
talk)
18:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Permanent semi-protection and pending changes: Political-based vandalism. Page has been protected for the same before but vandalism continues.
TomCat4680 (
talk)
13:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Repeated removal of the same content with no explanation for three weeks by IPs in the 2a02:120b:2c24:c310:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx range. Or a range block, whichever is more appropriate. Thanks.
Sundayclose (
talk)
15:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – It has been unprotected for the past 3 days, and there is still IP vandalism on the page. This time with 2 unregistered users ruining the page with vague edits, and that was yesterday actually. No point in having the article unprotected, as it is popular.
DoanVN (
talk)
15:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: - Persistent genre-warring and forcing of unsourced or unreliably-sourced genres from United Kingdom IP sockpuppets.--NØ10:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. In the last 60 days I'm seeing one unambiguous case of vandalism that was promptly reverted (and which I've now
WP:REVDELed under criteria #2), and three cases of
overcategorization which, in the absence of any recent discussion on the Talk page, leaves me unclear as to whether it's vandalism or a content dispute.
Chetsford (
talk)
00:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The article is suffering IP vandalism continuously, would request protection, at least until the article is subject to AfD. Thanks .
Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk)
12:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Due to recent real-life events, this article is the subject of a multi-user edit war. Note that some users are inserting a likely copyrighted image into the article, so please protect a version without it.
This version appears to be the pre-edit war version, so that might be a useful diff to revert to for protection.
CMD (
talk)
06:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. In the last 90 days there have only been four instances of IP vandalism and three of them were reverted in less than 60 seconds. Indefinitely protecting an article that had never previously been protected and is only undergoing minor nuisance vandalism an average of once every two weeks, all of which is being promptly reverted, seems like overkill. I'm not even sure PC is warranted at this point.
Chetsford (
talk)
23:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Under the circumstances even though there's only been one IP here I've semi-protected for one week. Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
05:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined Agree with
Ymblanter. Vandalism is consistent but at a manageable level. Some anonymous contributions appear to be productive. I don't necessarily think protection would be the worst call here, but it may be a bit heavy-handed. I think the status quo is fine.
Airplaneman(talk)✈21:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP disruptive editing has resumed after expiration of previous protection. Serious POV pushing going on here with the same/similar edits being made by IPs from all over the US. Coordinated perhaps?
Toddst1 (
talk)
22:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Removal of semi-protection: This article was semi-protected in 2014 by an admin who is now deceased. Six years is a long enough time, and we should assume good faith of IP editing until it is demonstrated otherwise.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)00:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent violations of
WP:BLP – addition of unsourced POV content impugning the subject's professional integrity.
NedFausa (
talk)
22:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely. This has been protected a dozen times in the last five years, most recently for a full 12 months, and none of that has helped. While most of the vandalism is IP vandalism, the cadence of disruptive edits would risk overwhelming the PC reviewers if a lesser level of protection were applied.
Chetsford (
talk)
23:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IP accounts have been repeatedly adding unsourced or poorly sourced genres to the article's infobox despite a hidden note in the page source warning them not to.
Aria1561 (
talk)
20:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Continued IP additions of unsourced material involving the service's animated programming; nothing can be confirmed about it until the service actually launches on Wednesday. Two weeks should give a good idea of how we should list the programming, be it summarized or as a separate list-of-article. Nate•(
chatter)15:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandal adding the same edit over and over, despite being reverted on 11 different occasions by 3 different users. This user is switching IP addresses to evade IP blocks.
QuadColour (
talk)
19:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism. Please see the recent edit history of the article. The user insists on his opinion without bringing up any sources. Deleting a sourced paragraph or distorting it only because he don't like it and without discussion is vandalism.--
TheEagle107 (
talk)
16:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Exactly the same problem as the You've Been Framed page. While this one isn't getting hit as badly, it's slowly creeping that way, and every single edit since the page was unprotected was either vandalism, or me reverting said vandalism (aside from one bot edit). .
Thegreatluigi (
talk)
13:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistant IP vandalism from multiple addresses adding or changing the same or similar content. Previous BLP problems related to adding the caste background of living Indian public figures without sourcing. --
Spasemunki (
talk)
10:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: I started this page last summer along with a batch of other notable microbiologists. Since then, it has been subjected to a constant slow-drip of additions of non-notable awards to the page, first by a SPA, then by different IPs geolocating to Duke University (the subject's employer). My attempts to engage on
talk,
SPA's talk, and
IP talk 1 and
2 have gone unanswered and don't seem to have helped. This is giving me a headache, and I fear their patience will outlast mine. I'm suggesting semi-protection to hopefully funnel the user(s) efforts into an account, which will make discourse a bit easier (I'm skeptical IP editors ever really notice their talk pages). If others have alternative ideas. I'm all ears. Thanks.
Ajpolino (
talk)
23:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Disruptive editing from an Turkish IP user using at least two IPs
Special:Contributions/95.13.89.53 and
Special:Contributions/95.15.163.182. Combination of
WP:OR trying to pre-empt decisions of the French Football Federation COMEX and also repeatedly trying to change the 2019–20 season articles to reflect information that should go in the 2020–21 season articles when created. Likely needs temporary protection until the end of May when hopefully decisions will have been made, and the facts can be sourced from
WP:RS.
Gricehead (
talk)
15:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Lula is a highly controversial figure and, unfortunatelly, his article is being vandalized at daily baises. The last protection expired on April 11 and I believe it needs to be protected again.
SirEdimonDimmi!!!21:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I only see one disruptive IP in the past month, and I have given them a uw-disruptive3. That low a vandalism rate doesn't seem like an appropriate case for indefinite semi.
creffett (
talk)
20:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism (changing "Islam" with "Hindu", et al.) by various IPs and new users in the past few days & weeks (the page was previously protected just under two months ago; seemingly that wasn't enough)...
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
21:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: For past 2 months, several attempts by new user were made to remove "controversies section" from the article with a pure intention of pov pushing as the recent user started to doing it in other related news channel article.. A few users were also been blocked in the process. Need a temporary protection atleast for 1 months.
Drat8sub (
talk)
19:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This appears to be more content dispute than vandalism. I'm putting up full protection, take the next four days to discuss the issue and gain consensus. Should more time be needed, ask for an extension.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓16:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Last protection ended on the 13th...one instance of disruption in almost 2 weeks since is not enough disruption for semi-protection.
Lectonar (
talk)
11:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The protection was not in the requester's favor, I'm afraid, as the problem here is persistent addition of poorly-sourced and controversial BLP content by both anonymous and confirmed users. That includes you.
creffett (
talk)
23:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent edit warring by IPs and new users changing the subject's nationality back and forth between "Chinese" and "Taiwanese".
_dk (
talk)
08:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Pending changes is doing the job for the moment. I've blocked the IP.
Woody (
talk)
16:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined I can't see anything disruptive in a lot of those edits. Please be more descriptive of the problem in future edit summaries/admin requests so that anyone reviewing can see what the problem is.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?20:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary Full-protection up to 9 days: The last stable version currently this
page. A fork was created. This page seem to have lost control. It does not matter if the person is Extended or not. We need to resolve the issue, but we are unable do so. I like request Full Protection asap until we figure whats going on.
Regice2020 (
talk)
06:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
There's no vandalism on the page, just this user not liking that things are opposite to what he thinks. I honestly do not believe that page protection is necessary.
Gsfelipe94 (
talk)
17:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of disruptive editing and suitable vandalism of a
User:Ivica015 in conflict of interests after recent block for the same behaviour on the same article and past 3rd warning .
Jingiby (
talk)
18:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Long-term pending changes: For years, experienced editors have asked for any sourcing to the programs on this channel but have been persistently refused by drive-by IPs who continue to make the article an unverifiable
WP:CRYSTAL with their preferred 'fantasy' schedule for the network. Nate•(
chatter)18:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
On
Buttseks. I am nominating the redirect on
WP:RFD, and I can't place the rfd tag on it because it is admin protected. I didn't place the request on the talk page because it is a redirect that has been admin protected for 13 years at least so a request here was more likely to be responsive.
OcelotCreeper (
talk)
16:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Addition of unsourced content. Was placed on pending changes on February 25. But still IP addresses are continuing to add unsourced content. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
50.98.57.43 (
talk)
16:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistant IP vandalism who insists on using unconventional terms as opposed to the consensus. A section in the Talk page was created for this user to justify their rationale, however they have not used it, instead choosing to continuously re-edit the article despite multiple reverts.
RedPatchBoys (
talk)
17:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – There is a tussle going on between the interest groups related to the IPS and the CAPFs officers in relation to a lawsuit and its implementation. I have reverted several edits from the different articles including
CISF,
Border Security Force,
CRPF,
ITBP among others and put them in my watchlist. As both the
Indian Police Service and the
Central Armed Police Force articles are primarily related to this bureaucratic scuffle, I propose temporary semi-protection for both the articles for at least 2 months.--
Deepak G Goswami (
talk)
15:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – There is a tussle going on between the interest groups related to the IPS and the CAPFs officers in relation to a lawsuit and its implementation. I have reverted several edits from the different articles including
CISF,
Border Security Force,
CRPF,
ITBP among others and put them in my watchlist. As both the
Indian Police Service and the
Central Armed Police Force articles are primarily related to this bureaucratic scuffle, I propose temporary semi-protection for both the articles for at least 2 months.
Deepak G Goswami (
talk)
15:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Several instances of vandalism in the past few months (mostly) by IP and new users. I also suspect sockpuppetry might be involved because several days have more than one instance of vandalism by different IPs. Due to this, pending change protection might be more appropriate. Thanks.
KnowledgeablePersona (
talk)
02:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Unregistered users (most likely one user on multiple IPs) keep removing sourced information from this article. As Iranian weapons are controversial topics, I believe it would be best to temporarily semi-protect this page from the vandal(s).
ZLEAT\C15:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: The usual Turkish/Armenian in-fighting has resumed - page has been protected 4 times because of this -
Arjayay (
talk)
16:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – IPs and newly registered accounts vandalizing, being disruptive, and adding unsourced negative information. There is negative breaking news here, but it needs to be added carefully.
Eostrix (
talk)
12:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Every day since the pending changes protection level was applied the same daily vandalism occurs. Surely there is a better level that could be applied?.
Egghead06 (
talk)
05:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Continuous
WP:DE and edit warring among IPs and new user. User/IPs continue to fail to read the note placed or discuss on talk page.
Magitroopa (
talk)
23:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary Pending-changes: or Semi-protection: Persistent level of IP/New User vandalism usually relating to unsourced fake news claims; protection last removed in February.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
10:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Protection ended and article already been vandalized within 24 hours. Given her position I don't think the vandals will stop.
Nemov (
talk)
17:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Permanent semi-protection: The article has been vandalised multiple times in past few months, and the trend continues. The article is about a news channel which is very controversial and has lot of fake news and rumours controversies. Newly registred users and ip users are intentionally removing controversy section persistently and several users blocked in the process. Need a permanent semi-protection.
Drat8sub (
talk)
23:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: Joke edits have been made to the article 10 times in the last hour or so as a result of Collier's livestream on Youtube today.
Noahfgodard (
talk)
23:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Edit-frequency too high to make this viable; article is well wached to boot, and semi-protection would cut off the positive IP-edits.
Lectonar (
talk)
10:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I semi-protected this page at 15.50, unaware that Goodnightmush had already declined the request.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
17:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – A hopping IP vandal has been changing the infobox image for the past few months in short bursts. I think PC should work in this situation. -- LuK3(Talk)14:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Question:User:User456541, what is the reason for asking for move protection? I didn't see any evidence that this has ever been a problem, or that the category has ever been disruptively moved. I do see occasional additions of disruptive or misplaced text; did you mean to ask for semi-protection?
MelanieN (
talk)
22:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. An IP keeps restoring unsourced material which possibly contain original research into both of these articles. I'd be glad if an admin could protect them for at least a few months. Keivan.fTalk02:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. For both. Next time disruption occurs, please warn, and if necessary, report to an appropriate noticeboard ([[WP:AIV<AIV]] e.g.)
Lectonar (
talk)
10:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism by multiple IPs and new users. The nature of the website is probably not helping matters. Protected multiple times in the past...
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
01:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Lectonar: Personally I would have granted this request because almost the entire history is vandalism or unhelpful edits from IPs and new accounts followed by reverts. Although the edit rate isn't huge, the vandalism is persistent. I won't substitute my judgement for yours but could you look again? If you still don't think protection is warranted I'll put it down to reasonable minds coming to different conclusions. Thanks,
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?10:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
HJ Mitchell You're very gracious: I could be beaten down to use pending changes protection here, but I am very much a friend of Wikipedia as the "encyclopedia that every one can edit", so I won't semi protect in cases like these (and the page views aren't great, so the disruption has no great effect as for the encyclopedia as a whole). If all the history would be vandalism, then perhaps, but edits just being unhelpful shouldn't trigger semi-protection. In olden times I would have said: "just watchlist and revert". I have watchlisted, btw. But as I say on my user-page: I don't mind being overturned. Cheers.
Lectonar (
talk)
11:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – The leader of the band has made some foolish choices which have resulted in the end of the band and legal proceedings to ensue, however, anons are adding BLP issues. I doubt that there will be much news about the band for the near future that edit requests can't address.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
05:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Recent deaths aren't semi-protected simply because they are recent deaths. In fact, non-autoconfirmed contributions should be welcomed (as always), as long as they aren't overwhelmingly vandalism.
Airplaneman(talk)✈02:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – While I understand the wish to go with escalating protection, the article history clearly shows sustained vandalism over a long period by multiple IPs; and the nature of the website (mostly adult entertainement) surely doesn't help the matter...
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
03:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Constant editing and adding what is now vandalism. I requested page protection before, please look at the pages Revision history this time around as now the problem has gotten worse, with registered users now adding to the vandalism. --
Osh33m (
talk)
17:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Disruption from shifting IP address (but with same provider/location) over the course of three months. Reverted nine times by five different editors and change rejected on the talk page. No other changes to the page by IPs in 2020. Request semi-protection for six months.
Hawkeye7(discuss)23:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – A few user such as user Diptanshu Das(
/info/en/?search=User:Diptanshu_Das) has been editing disruptively.He deleted the name of the college principals from the wiki database due revenge purpose. This act is not only shameful but disgrace to the legacy of the medical college.One can't just erase the history.This page must be protected.
Civilguy1997 (
talk)
16:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined@
Civilguy1997: I'm not seeing recent disruptive editing. Also, Diptanshu Das appears to have not edited the article within the last year, so not sure what you're talking about. Perhaps you refer to a different page or user?
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓19:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: An IPv6/IPv4 admits to flaunting evasion (there is no point in blocking /64 for me as my /64 prefix changes every 2-3 days.) as a SOCK;
example. There are various other shifting IPs.
X1\ (
talk)
07:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The conversation was closed by a
WP:Involved participant. Based on a glance at the !vote totals, I don't suspect they closed it inaccurately, but some care should be taken to confirm the result (perhaps co-sign it) before adding this to the current consensus list. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Return of IP-hopping
vandalism and BLP violations after recent end of previous protection. Page has been consistently vandalized despite multiple protections. Why keep doing this?
Chessend (
talk)
09:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
So the article has been edited to include this joke. Can the "joke" text be removed and the page protected to prevent it being added in the future?
"Joke" text:
> It is known to be very powerful, as it can handle a file with 78 Billion lines in less than 1 minute on an average computer. It is said to have been written while the author was under the influence of highly experimental mind altering substances, hence the logic behind the codes ability to process extremely large inputs remain unknown to this day. [2].
Jamietwells (
talk)
09:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Sustained addition of external links to promotional sites - previous protection expired and may justify indefinite as I can't see this getting better any time soon.
ninety:
one11:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Permanent template-protection: Category header templates which employ intricate syntax. These templates are used on category pages and each such pages is wholly dependent on the template: if the template breaks, the category will break. Their usage level varies, but they work as an integrated set, and damage to any part of the set will have disruptive consequences.
Temporary full protection:BLP policy violations are leading to regular disruption. Care is not being taken to ensure NPOV. Voting record doesn't necessarily correlate with the potentially defamatory statements being made. Additions are being made on the incorrect basis of original interpretation or research. This is against
BLP policy. --
Getbrexitdone (
talk)
21:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Constant attempts to white-wash the article and remove sourced content by anonymous or new editors.
Jorm (
talk)
01:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and disruptive editing by many multiple single purpose user names and ip addresses. I have made my point in
Talk:Christianity in Egypt and
Talk:Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and have been asking them to discuss, but they wont. Dont know whether it is one individual or a group of connected people. User "Detyu15" regularly uses the edit summary to cast aspersions using uncivil, bad language. From talk page comments by other users' I understand that this sort of number vandalism to inflate religious adherence is common for articles related to Egypt.
Longsword9 (
talk)
03:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: If we aren't going to protect the group of humor disclosure templates, we should at least semi-protect this one. It has 354 transclusions, above the normal 200 threshold, plus its topic makes it vandalism-prone. {{u|Sdkb}}talk21:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Sdkb, Was there a conversation about giving it template protection? Could you link that? I'd personally opt to give it template protection, but seem to recall there being a conversation against that...
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓02:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Sdkb, I liked "CaptionEek"...my subtitled alter ego. Hmmm, well I have gone ahead and given it template protection anyway. However I'll be honest, I'm not sure if that's the best decision, and would support any other admin changing the protection to just semi.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓03:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. It hasn't had much protection in the past, and in this latest spate the user in question has been blocked. I see no need for indefinite or temp protection.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓03:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: This user
User:182.186.28.21 is keep deleting mass of content in the page even after being warned he or she is still deleting and adding tv channels in.
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – I have requested page protection in the past but was declined, and yet the page keeps getting disruptive edits. I am requesting it again. Thank you.
Avalerion V ☪19:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. @
AvalerionV: The right time to ask for protection would have been on the 22nd. But it has now been 3 days since anyone but you edited the article, so it seems the threat has dried up. Please note that we generally do not put indefinite protection on pages except when the disruption is severe. Usually we block for a period of days or weeks.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓02:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: An IP-hopping vandal who has been haunting both articles in order to put in and edit-war to protect
WP:original research about the extinct animals being spotted like leopards has returned to resume its edit-warring. Blocks don't do much to stop this vandal, as it simply moves to a new IP and begins again.
Mr Fink (
talk)
03:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: disruptive editing, with IP editors trying to add "spoilers" or otherwise. I would suggest the protection end towards the end of June after its release.
Spy-cicle💥 Talk?21:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Registered user was edit-warring; after he was warned, multiple IPs began to perform the same edits. Temporarily protecting article will avoid this. .
‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk13:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Template protection:High-risk template – Used in edit notices, which are inherently template-protected. This template being only semi-protected defeats the point of the title-blacklist entry limiting editing of editnotices to template editors, page movers, and admins.
* Pppery *it has begun...14:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Lede paragraph needs cleaning up. Birth year content is original research and offers no sources as other so-called "demographic cohorts" do. (No response from talk page request.)
Ledboots19 (
talk)
12:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined A long history of vandalism makes unprotection an unwise choice. I do believe this request brought attention to your talk page post, though, which now has a response. @
Ledboots19: if you place
this code on the page in the future, the request may be answered sooner.
Airplaneman(talk)✈17:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
And, because it is controversial, why does Wikipedia allow a sort of narrow definition? I have monitored this page over years, and I'm sure, the main source of vandalism is the lede paragraph. It is constantly revised and I have no doubt that is the main reason why the page is locked. Therefore, why not have a broad definition such as "...generally born in the 1960's and 1970's", which is stating the truth?
Ledboots19 (
talk)
19:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I have tried to add information that has been cited by a reputable source, and a certain user continues to delete it and appears to be creating new accounts constantly to remove the information. The information cited is not discredited in any other source, and the user in question appears to justify the deletion of the info by citing their own opinions only. I only intend to add this information in good will, and yet have not ben allowed to touch the page. At least two other users have also opposed the deletion of the information, including by using Twinkle to check the page. In an attempt to mediate with this user I have added four other sources that support the information originally provided by the main source, but the user in question does not allow this.
AmSam13 (
talk)
14:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Dynamic IP removing sourced content and changing text unsupported by citation, i.e. persistent vandalism, including breaking 3RR.
Griboski (
talk)
17:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
This article is create protected, however its an article of a prominent music group in Ghana that deserves a Wikipedia article. I came across a draft
Draft:Keche version and upon checking the history it seemed to have been created and deleted about 3 times in the past due to the fact that the article was created by a banned user. As mentioned the group is a household name in Ghana and having them on Wikipedia will serve our readers who seek such information. --
Flixtey (
talk)
17:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: I'm not 100% sure these can be Revdel'ed under criteria 2 or 3 as they are primarily "personal attacks or conduct accusations", which are exempted from Revdel. I Revdel'ed something recently in which a BLP was accused of pedophilia without RS which, in my opinion, met the higher standard of "smear" but I think these may fall into the realm of "ordinary incivility". However, I'd agree this is on the line; I'll ask the next admin who comes around to look at it and act as they feel appropriate.
Chetsford (
talk)
05:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
These are serious and defamatory BLP violations which require immediate revdeletion. I have now done so.
El_C05:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. The PC reviewers seem to have things under control.
Chetsford (
talk)
04:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection Working on cleaning-up the list following AfD results per
WP:Indiscriminate. Re-listing after it has been edited again by an autoconfirmed user and a couple of IPs in the last 24 hours. This appears to be not in good faith edits and/or reverts.
Itssheenabautista (
talk)
10:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. 3 instances of disruption in 3 weeks might be persistent, but it is also veryyy slow.
Lectonar (
talk)
06:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Given the recent events regarding the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, I don't think it would be a far stretch for people to begin drawing parallels between the 1992 LA Riots and the Minneapolis Protests/Riots, expecting additonal traffic in the coming weeks or even months may start to cause ill-intentioned edits.
HoadRog (
talk)
07:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: I think it is a good idea to protect this page (pending changes) because a lot of edits to this page are vandalism. Because it isn't persistent (over a period of a few hours), pending changes would be appropriate.
Train of Knowledge (
Talk)
07:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism returned almost immediately after page was unprotected. Can we get it protected for 1 month+?.
Burnqq (
talk)
00:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Continued disruptive editing/edit-warring. IPs continued to add a special that sources show is not part of the series. An
IP was already blocked for 72 hours for this behavior, and now they've returned on
another IP (from
the same range).
Magitroopa (
talk)
03:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – With the NFL recently announcing an extension of its contract with EA and Madden, IPs have not been happy. In fact, virtually every edit in May so far has been vandalism and reverting.
Zappa⚡Matic03:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Not done I have left a message on the user's talk, hopefully that will do the trick. If they continue to edit the article inappropriatly, I will simply partial block them from the article.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓23:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. 2 IP's in 24 hours, not in bad faith, does not seem to be an issue. If the disruption ramps up, don't be afraid to re-report however.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓23:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection Controversial BLP topic, with a lot of unreliable sources available, likely to attract flame war.
Bogger (
talk)
20:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined Well of the recent recreations, the first was by you, so I don't think you're going to create it again. And the second recreation was the result of some administrative maneuvers, and thus it doesn't appear likely to be created again. But if someone does recreate it, then we can salt it. But I'm not seeing a need here.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓20:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Several IPs keep vandalizing the article by adding that Dom Brown is an official member, when he is obviously not; there have been several rollbacks, but the vandalism won't let up.
Interlude 65 (Push to talk)
17:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Internet celeb, constant unnotable or disruptive edits along with BLP issues and vandalism, some subtle, some clear.
Ed6767 (
talk)
21:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Please place indefinite extended user protection to template as the project is being re-amped and will be published throughout Wikipedia as we complete more articles. Audio files have already been pushed to some articles. This is the project template header. Thanks, Galendalia
Talk to meCVU Graduate09:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
This is not a page, it is a project header template that is used on many pages and I am requested extended confirmed access only so it does not get broken because it will break the hierarchy of the project. Galendalia
Talk to meCVU Graduate17:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The template itself is only used 7 times. As CaptainEek says above, pages (templates are also pages) are not protected preemptively and also the template itself is not
high risk as it has a very small amount of transclusions. If disruption occurs, then the page can be protected.
Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions17:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes:BLP policy violations – Variety of IPs adding unsourced controversial material (probably as a result of a twitter comment earlier by the subject) requesting PC til it blows over.
JW 1961Talk20:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Edit warring, partially due to sectarian issues discussed in the article. Alex 09:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. While there is some IP disruption, there is also helpful IP's, who have been undoing disruption, and the rate of disruption has been pretty low.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓15:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Recent violations of WP:BLP (in effect accusing a person of murder) and statements contradicted by sources.
Sjö (
talk)
15:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Various ip addresses and not autoconfirmed or confirmed editors have been disruptive editing/vandalizing the article continuously. —
YoungForever(talk)16:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced and inaccurate content primarily from IPs. The article is about one of the two chambers of the Indian Parliament which elects its members through indirect elections. The edits are mostly crystal balling future compositions of the chamber based on partisan vote calculations. The page has had to be repeatedly protected but every time the protection is lifted the issue returns. Tayi ArajakateTalk09:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Although the vandalism was sporadic rather than continuous, this is not a page that any new user needs to edit.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
12:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Persistent BLP violations going back six or eight months at least. There was a thread about this, I believe at BLPN, but it's been so long I'd be hard pressed to give you the actual link. .
GMGtalk11:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Just underwent a major change to make wording gender neutral. Last time this happened (in March 2020) there was significant IP edit warring over the wording. Request a temp semi protection to avoid a repeat and keep article stable while the change is high visibility.
Garuda28 (
talk)
21:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Constant vandalism, "Dominic Vanner" and co. back and forth editing him as the creator of the "Forever Alone" meme image. He does not appear to be the creator.
82.6.223.11 (
talk)
00:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined I'd be more comfortable fulfilling this request if the abuse was more than a 30-minute drive-by over half a day ago. Talk pages are rarely protected, and I don't think this case meets the ECP threshold for talk pages, at least from how I interpret
WP:PP.
Airplaneman(talk)✈07:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – information about the corona spread in Gujarat & possible linkage with Trump's visit is very important and reversal of it by an IP is rather disturbing and nonencyclopaedic.
Hindustanilanguage (
talk)
06:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
It appears that this page was indefinitely semi-protected since 2016, before being full protected by
Ymblanter in mid-April of this year due to a content dispute. After the full protection expired, Ymblanter applied pending changes. I'd personally advocate for a reinstatement of indefinite semi-protection given the level of vandalism since the application of pc (and from before the indefinite semi). I just wanted to ping Ymblanter first to ask his opinion on the matter.
Airplaneman(talk)✈07:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I understand why this request two was declined two days ago, but I also understand why it's being made. There seems to be disruption that comes and goes, and it's incoming now. I think it's similar to what triggered the protection from two years ago, and I'll stick to a similar protection length this time around as well.
Airplaneman(talk)✈07:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – (for a longer period, if not indefinite) Persistent addition/introduction of errors into article; this was last protected for a period of a few months but obviously the vandalism is continuing; since the bot removed the protection template on April 13th nearly every edit has been either vandalism or reversion of such.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
23:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
IMHO, doesn't require full protection, semi should be enough. IP reported at AIV. The content added and the edit summaries are a clear link that this is the same LTA vandal that plagues TFAs. @
Enterprisey: since you handled this kind of thing previously...
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
00:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism – People are still vandalizing the page using old accounts and adding incorrect information about the fake "Couchmen Drum and Bugle Corps"
(
https://www.couchmen.org/pages/history) which is a meme in the community. Why? I Ask 01:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Looks like a case of short-term drive-by vandalism. I think short-term semiprotection should save everyone some time. Pinging previous protecting admin,
Chetsford, as courtesy.
Airplaneman(talk)✈03:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: IP user continually engaging in edit warring. Insisting on using a new term "disbandment" instead of the consensus "cancellation". I previously posted for page protection a few days ago - the user was blocked for three days. Today, upon the end of the ban, IP again began making the same changes. Also page
Yes, DearRedPatchBoys
(
talk)
18:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. Since this appears to be a static IP and it's only one disruptive editor, I'd rather block than protect. Reblocked for a week, no objection to protecting the page if they come back with a different IP.
creffett (
talk)
19:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Editor 85.84.35.226 is trying to promote book on WP. No evidence has been presented apart from a supposed magazine ref, that reads as a dud and promotional ad skit. The other ref is an announcement. . scope_creepTalk11:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support I was going to report this here yesterday but decided against it at the time, but this high-visibility critical page is clearly in a state where any change would require some form of consensus so I fully endorse the above proposal.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
15:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Two bold edits in the last month is hardly the scale of disruption that would justify increasing the protection level from the current semi.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
17:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined –
Warn the user appropriately then report them to
AIV or
ANI if they continue. I found three instances of the same IP editor repeatedly removing an image of Tsai Ing-wen wearing a face mask which can be addressed in a different forum. Beyond that, I found some one-off reverted IP edits that aren't exactly what I would describe as vandalism. IP editors are editors, too, unfortunately. Until that's changed, the mere participation of IP editors itself doesn't justify protection.
Chetsford (
talk)
18:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Due to a tweet by the President of the United States, the talk page is being spammed with demands to make a change to the page that has been rejected as lacking reliable sources. IP users seem either unwilling to read the prior discussions, unwilling to accept the consensus, or are being coordinated to spam the page with this demand. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite19:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 12 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I doubt it's being coordinated; anyone with the wherewithal to coordinate a campaign would probably be more savvy than just using a bunch of IP addresses to make semi-protected edit requests. A very short protection period has been added to give everyone a chance to catch-up and with the idea that this situation will probably evaporate on its own at the end of the current day's news cycle. If not, protection can be revisited.
Chetsford (
talk)
21:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The nature of these edits probably make them appropriate for Pending Changes, however, the cadence would overwhelm the PC reviewers. I think you're correct, therefore, that semi-protection is warranted.
Chetsford (
talk)
21:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Not done I wouldn't say immediate, it took three days for the first, and so far only, disruptive edit. Give it a bit, and if they return in force, ask for protection again.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓16:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: This page has garnered some recent activity due to its connection with the
Death of George Floyd. Apparently, there has is a 2020 version that is planned in July? Asking for semi-protection to avoid promotional content per
WP:NOTADVOCACY until then.
BriefEdits (
talk)
20:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Declined - these requests are inconvenient but not sufficiently disruptive to justify protecting a talk page. I've made a request at
WP:EFR to create or tweak a filter to catch these edits.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
17:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent attempts at aggrandisement by an IP hopper - claiming a village of 9,472 people is a city of 19,472 people -
Arjayay (
talk)
13:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There are a couple instances of vandalism but there are also edits, such as two possible spellings of a word, that are indicative of a content dispute no one is trying to resolve.
Chetsford (
talk)
18:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Highly visible page – This is a highly visible article about a current event. It should not be moved without a formal move request. Please see move history. -
MrX 🖋10:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Both salted in 2007; no reason for these to be protected anymore now that users who fall into these categories aren't necessarily minors. Passengerpigeon (
talk)04:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The page protection only ended a little over an hour before you wrote that response. There's a dispute resolution process taking place. Can we please have the page protection back until the dispute resolution process concludes? Thanks.
Dharmabumstead (
talk)
07:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: per
WP:GS/COVID19. after months of protection, the article has been added again with fabrications and disturbing content from the virus and the death of one passenger.
85.27.28.178 (
talk)
11:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: This article is confused with Chandler Sterling (Bishop) as opposed to Sterling Chandler (Photographer). Reason for request is to edit article. Also include redirect page to Chandler Sterling
Ellswiki (
talk)
21:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Ellswiki, there is no confusion, there was massive hijacking of the bishop’s page while it should have been at the correct name. Moreover, seen those hijacking attempts I doubt that the photographer is notable. So .. create it through
WP:AFC in the draft namespace, and submit it. If it actually is sufficient, any admin can move it over the redirect and remove the protection. For me, unprotection is Declined.
Dirk BeetstraTC10:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: None of the disruption that I see from the past two years comes from autoconfirmed accounts, so I don't see the benefit in applying ECP here. It's also slow-moving. I understand that ARBDS applies, but I'm unsure of how that would advocate in favor of ECP in this case (am I missing something?). I'd personally be fine applying an indefinite semi-protection on the article, but I know that's more heavy-handed than many other administrators may be comfortable with. I'm curious to see what other admins clerking this page think.
Airplaneman(talk)✈07:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Section blanking by IP, as well as a trend over the past week of changing the numbers and rankings of countries in the table without explanation.
Garuda28 (
talk)
16:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Spam adds articles and other junk that is not helpful to this page and constantly requires rollback which can delete an actual article that should be listed. Galendalia
Talk to meCVU Graduate17:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – This template was vandalized by an IP, when the main FDR page is protected. The resulting inherited vandalism resulted in three separate talk page requests to undo. This template should have the same protection as the target article.
Dhtwiki (
talk)
22:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Hammad: I suggest warning problematic autoconfirmed users on their talk pages; if they continue after that, blocks can be issued.
Airplaneman(talk)✈05:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply