Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Persistent blanking of content in lead, addition of new content without discussion at talk.
Hobomok (
talk)
19:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)reply
As a general rule, people don't edit other users' pages. Talk pages are for communication but user pages are your own space provided you stay within our guidelines. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
22:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page will inevitably be vandalized. Instead of editors pranking the page, have the page prank the editors by not allowing them to edit. Imagine the look on their faces when they have been April Fooled!.
Painting17 (
talk)
00:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – You name it, people have done it to this page.
Black Lives Matter got indefinite semi for the same reason. It seems that the people who wanted to vandalise (or just disruptively edit) that page have all come here instead. Asking for indefinite this time because it’s already been protected numerous times in the past and each time, the disruptive editors have returned as soon as protection expires.
Helen(
💬📖)
03:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of vandalism by accounts changing the picture to the Ugly Dolls poster. It's a featured article, we have to move quick because this vandal is on wikipedia changing stuff right now. Please semi-protect this article as soon as possible.
SteelerFan1933 (
talk)
01:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree that SteelerFan1933 was reverting clear vandalism; I'm admonishing them for trying to handle it by themselves (my mentee, my responsibility). I myself have made poorer choices, but it's a bad habit to start, without a fuller understanding. We appreciate your block of the malefactor. SF1933 and I will discuss a better way to deal with these issues in the future. It is entirely possible I should have stayed off this board at all and let another admin deal with it. I am not involved in the pagespace, but I am mildly involved as mentor.
BusterD (
talk)
03:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page is being vandalized by User
DedicatedFollower13 and other IP. Instead of editors adding additions and sources to the page, they are simply deleting articles and its sources and links, please make this page secure.
Amanjol (
talk)
03:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: There appears to be a lot of recent editing and reverting, including by IP addresses, due to having Donald Trump as one of the examples. Some level of protection might be a good idea.
Gusfriend (
talk)
07:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repetitious IP vandalism, from two IPs. I don’t know if this is one person who can somehow change their IP (although I saw that the first IP address had previously vandalized two other articles almost a year ago) or if multiple people got together and decided to do this to amuse themselves for some reason. I’ve never requested page protection this way before, but the other way isn’t working, so hopefully this works.
VictimOfEntropy (
talk)
08:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Moderate level of partisan vandalism. Subject matter of the article is running in the Philippine presidential elections this May. Maximum one month of semi-protection would be recommended if possible.
Nuwordlife0rder (
talk)
09:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
So it would seem, but at the same time we can't have edit warring going on, so I was hoping to nip that in the bud. Tell you what, though, if they want to edit war I'll give them the
rope. Hopefully they can refrain from using it, or they'll end up at
AN3.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)09:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The IPs seem to have stopped so perhaps the increased interest in the article had more to do with it being on the main page than anything else. PP seems unwarranted at this time so this request can probably be closed. —
Marchjuly (
talk)
10:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. My experience with main-page articles is that it rarely gets better over the day they're on. As people in different timezones wake up, and their first looks go to Wikipedias mainpage...followed by postings for the lulz before getting up, so to speak. Might be exacerbated by it being April 1st.
Lectonar (
talk)
11:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent vandalism from IP and newly created account (probably it's the same recently blocked user who made the same kind of edits).
Xexerss (
talk)
10:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Pls, as a student I want to join the forum,I just want to acquire knowledge and share knowledge.like it's said "no knowledge is a waste and knowledge is power".😔😶. please!!!!!!!!!!!
105.112.105.123 (
talk)
17:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page is constantly being vandalized by
DedicatedFollower13 and other IP. previously added links to sources from other editors are removed... Please protect this page! with hope and respect,
Amanjol (
talk)
04:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I went Pending-changes protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If the burden of edits is too high for pending changes feel free to re-request semi-protection.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)13:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Sockpuppetry. New target for the 'punches you in the face' person since their others got protected. Interestingly, one of the socks has a very familiar name, I don't know why...
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
13:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Asking for protection of my PGP key page so that it cannot be edited or changed. This helps ensure that it is truly my valid key. Expiry should be on October 4th, 2023 as that is when this key expires and I will need to update it. MrAureliusRTalk!03:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@
MrAureliusR:Done, but I recommend you take ToBeFree's advice. If you decide to go the css route and want the current page deleted, just ask me on my talk page.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)15:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The issue is that putting it on a .css page disables the templates from working, which is a feature I want. If it weren't for that, I would definitely take the advice! As is, there's no reason why I would need to edit it until it expires, and I trust admins to not edit it. MrAureliusRTalk!21:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. 38% of the past 50 edits are vandalism. Reason I'm suggesting indefinite is because there have been 7 past protections, the most recent of which was for a whole year. InterstateFive (
talk) - just another roadgeek
16:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Frequent vandalism, always by IP accounts that add the same fictional content (an fictitious calendar for the following season-now its happening with a so called 2023 calendar, but happened in past with 2022, 2021 and so on). I propose Semi-protection.
Rpo.castro (
talk)
16:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Upcoming awards show article with disruptive editing mainly coming from IPs. May be a good idea to protect the article for a little over a week so there is not more disruptive editing from IPs during the actual airing of the show next Saturday night.
Magitroopa (
talk)
18:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. However we follow him on an emotion rollorcoster ride of emotions — that's right, low-hanging fruit over here (I'm terrible).
El_C17:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined Only a handful of recent edits from IPs. Looks like a lot of the challenged edits are coming from more experienced editors.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
20:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@
TenPoundHammer: Semi-protection would be ineffective against the recent additions of fancruft (the editor(s) involved are extended-confirmed). This is a content dispute. Please encourage other editors to discuss on the talk page and remind them of
WP:BURDEN to add material. Otherwise you can request full protection to lock the page while the content dispute is being resolved. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
20:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Recent controversy around actions pertaining to religion and potential for edit-warring warrant extended-confirmed protection. (
talk)
20:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Being the defense minister of a country engaged in conflict, this article is prone to edit-warring and other forms of inaccuracy and bias. Request for at least semi-protection if not extended-confirmed protection. (
talk)
20:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: ISP edit warring, persistant vandalism since protection was removed in Jan 2022. Over 100 edits on this page in the last two days making it extremetly difficult to pick through what are good faith edits and which are vandalism. I reverted to the version at the time the last protection expired. BlueRiband►04:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – We have a lot of IPs and new accounts either vandalising or adding unsourced or speculative information. We also have frequent changes of the article image to copyrighted images. However, we do still have some IPs providing good contributions, I think pending changes is appropriate here, much like the main
Formula One article.
FozzieHey (
talk)
08:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes protection: Persistent Vandalism. Persistent target of vandalism and DE. Looking at the page history, I can't even tell when the last constructive edit was.
Curbon7 (
talk)
08:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of four days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Strangely for such a potential ip contribution magnet, there's no previous protection log, so let's start with brief semi-protection. We'll keep eyes on it and if we need to escalate we will. Looking at prior months there might be a bit too much editing traffic for pending changes to be maximally effective.
BusterD (
talk)
08:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done I'll keep an eye on it and if they really cross the line I or another admin will block their talk page access.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)05:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I've warned both
FilmandTVFan28 and
Armegon. They need to leave the blocked user's talk page alone. As I note
here, both of their conduct has been subpar. Which is to say, even if a user is NOTHERE, that does give license to also violate policy in response. @
Ks0stm: courtesy ping.
El_C07:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP editor frequently reverting edits. Many times, they implement non-neutral, non-encyclopedic language (across-the-board usage of endonyms which aren't commonly recognized in English, using the verb "understood" instead of "believed" in the context of subjective belief systems, etc.), but they have also reverted minor copy edits for no apparent reason.
Noahfgodard (
talk)
05:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined@
Noahfgodard: I have given the editor a soft edit warring warning so that they (hopefully) discuss their changes on the talk page instead of revert again, but if they start to edit war with you feel free to take them to
WP:AN3 or
WP:ANI. Other than that one editor the amount of disruption wasn't enough to justify protection at the moment.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)06:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Every April Fools day people try to mess around with this page. I'd suggest indefinite XCON or temporary full protection to prevent pranks from being played on this page.
Aasim -
Herrscher of Wikis15:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done OP unhappy that DAn nominated it for deletion. OP is partially blocked for removing AfD template. OP encouraged to discuss at AfD and to make edit request on article talk. --Deepfriedokra(talk)11:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Nearly all recent edits by IP addresses since at least January have been adding spam links. Article is infrequently edited so this can be tacked with appropriate pending changes, like other articles subject to spam links such as
Commercial cleaning.
FozzieHey (
talk)
13:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I already wrote to you in your talk page, why are you requesting a semi-protection page? And why are you reverting perfect edits to satisfy potential biased vandals and block evaders? There was no violation of neutrality/non-neutrality and you know that. Why are you asking now for unnecessary semi-protection and why don't you respond to me in your talk page? Anyway, I already fixed the section to satisfy parts in disagreement and made it even more neutral and also shorter.
Presistant ISP edit warring. The following ISPs, and one named account, have made no other Wikipedia edits except to this article:
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Exact same guy back socking once he got autoconfirmed on new account. More protection would be useful now it has expired.
10mmsocket (
talk)
14:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Most recent problem user was blocked, but there are undoubtedly more where that came from.
MelanieN (
talk)
19:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Recurrent, although not very frequent, IP vandalism. I think this should be indefinitely semi-protected as I don't see a benefit from IPs and new accounts editing this page and would prevent vandalism.
A. C. Santacruz ⁂
Please ping me!11:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time.
High-risk templates is a guideline, not a strict rule. The template is stable, has few watchers, and part of our licensing infrastructure. Vandalism would have a serious impact while being difficult to notice, and the stability of the template means changes would be rare. The benefits of lowering protection are outweighed by the potential for disruption. Anyone may make an edit request on the talk page. —
Wug·a·po·des21:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. The existing draft has been declined and the page deleted multiple times. Recreation is rightly restricted to extended confirmed editors. —
Wug·a·po·des22:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Emphasis on the recent: Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Feel free to re-request protection or take it to
WP:AN3 if edit warring resumes.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)00:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism over the last three weeks of article on a movie that is controversial in India. IP vandalism occurred within 10 minutes of my most recent reversion to less blatantly offensive version. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(
talk,
contribs)
02:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Getting persistent vandalism from a bunch of IPs all starting with 181.176, I'd assume too much collateral to block so temporary protection seems like the best route here.
Bsoyka (
talk)
04:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page is being left outdated for a very long time due to its level of protection, please consider reducing the protection level so everyone could edit and update the page. Thank you.
Subulakshmi (
talk)
03:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There are frequent disputes and page edits over whether or not to display the name under which she was born (Einar Wegener) and originally worked as a painter.
KateS01 (
talk)
07:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. PC protection seems like it is working, not enough constant disruptive edits to warrant semi-protection. -- LuK3(Talk)11:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose protection. There is a discussion and the anonymous editors who were vandalizing have stepped back for a while. No edit warring occurring.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
00:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism and removal of sourced information by even some account users. Includes attempts to move this page to "Koli Darbar" and attempts to remove references to non-Koli groups that were referred to as Darbars according to sources provided. This has persisted even though a user previously reverted the page move and asked for discussion to be had before such a move was made.
TSAray (
talk)
17:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There is a content dispute going on and only locking editing on this page will bring the parties to actually discuses the changes (ideally the state of the page before the dispute should be returned to before protecting the page).
Gonnym (
talk)
18:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Change protection template from Full Protection - which the page is not protected as, to template protection as it looks slightly confusing and nearly made me think it was full protected when it isn't 19:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Zippybonzo |
talk
Okay, so I've looked into this and firstly, I think this is a request to decrease protection, not make an edit. Second, the template and module are
cascade protected which is why they are listed as full protected. The issue
Zippybonzo points out is that these modules and templates are tempalte protected in addition to the cascaded full protection. @
Primefac: you protected the module, so thought it would be worth asking you: is it worth upping these template protections to full protections in order to match the cascade protection level or should I just leave it alone? —
Wug·a·po·des21:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The module is transcluded on over 2 million pages, so it absolutely must be full-protected; even if it weren't cascade-protected from being transcluded on the
Main Page, it would be under fprot, which I will now do.
That being said, to answer your last question - if something gets cascade-protected normally, I do not think we need to match that protection unless it's something that will permanently be cascade-protected (like this module), because in all likelihood the cascade protection will eventually be removed. (please
ping on reply)
Primefac (
talk)
09:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because “We Continue The Change” is not a registered political party in Bulgaria and their funding isn’t available to the public. It has become clearer that this movement is funded by oligarchs with close ties to Vladimir Putin.
24.59.251.207 (
talk)
21:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The article should be protected, yes, but not with that only administrators can edit protection, the user who made the protection certainly do not cares who Rhodes is, the article must be updated since the return of this wrestler last night at
WrestleMania 38.
TheBellaTwins1445 (
talk)
20:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Contentious trans celebrity's talk page is being used by IPs as a forum. Requesting protection for a year hoping her celebrity fades a bit, based on past protection that recently expired.
A. C. Santacruz ⁂
Please ping me!21:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Only one really problematic edit recently. We try not to protect talk pages unless they are really under attack, especially when the main article is already protected.
MelanieN (
talk)
02:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Very slow motion disagreement. Try to get the disputants to discuss at the talk page.
MelanieN (
talk)
02:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Continuous
WP:BLP violations by multiple accounts that carry out the exact same edits (most likely sock/meat puppets) eg-
1 vs
2UtoD05:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Until consensus is reached on the wording in the lede. Keep revision at 1080876116. Thank you.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
00:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: idk why but seems like there is like a little problem on this article by IP users that is editing at the original network section. Please pending changes protect this article, theres something wrong on the IPs edits that needs review
120.29.76.21 (
talk)
06:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Lots of low level unconstructive edits - mostly by the same IP editor - that are not contributing to the quality of the article. Short term semi-protection would hopefully see this editor get bored and move on.
10mmsocket (
talk)
06:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protectedindefinitely. For editing. Upload and move protected at admin level. Revert and/or tag for deletion as you see fit, I'm having a hard time figuring out what's what here (maybe It'll come to me with more coffee).
El_C09:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
El C, good call, I just found out the photo itself (the one by Brian Snyder from Reuters) has some independent coverage like
[11] so
WP:GETTY possibly won't apply in this case. Complicated case. — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me)
09:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page has recently faced rampant vandalism from pro-Russian IP accounts attempting to delete information or otherwise insinuate that the Ukrainian Air Force has been destroyed, which is harmful misinformation. A quick scan of the 50 most recent edits (going back to 25/3) shows that most of them have been IP vandalism or reversions thereof.
Toadspike (
talk)
00:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Forgot to specify that I am requesting indefinite semi-protection, to be reviewed once current events make it no longer necessary (not in the foreseeable future).
Toadspike (
talk)
00:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
This user is lying about what is transpiring at Kingdom of Khotan. If one visits the page, one can see that the newly added information is not only sourced and cited, but that there are around 16 citations from primary academic sources that corroborate the claim made. In addition, the claims of edit warring are unfactual and more applicable to the user HISTORYOFIRAN that reverted more than three good faith, sourced edits in less than 24 hours without proper rationale or reason. In addition, there are no misrepresented sources or unsourced content provided in edits made. I request the administrators and editors to visit the page, view the Talk page and see for themselves. This user also asked me to provide my sources and rationale on the Talk page of the article, and failed to respond to my concerns when I provided burden of proof. This user is simply assisting the other user in pushing a false narrative without any evidence.
69.143.174.241 (
talk)
04:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Nonsense and personal attack. Did you wait for the other involved editors? No. The IP user didn't wait for other involved editors @
HistoryofIran and
Hzh: and just restored his/her edits.
[12] Timestamps are crystal clear. To admins: please take a look at
Kingdom of Khotan: Revision history and IP user's edits and behavior on the other articles. See how many of them were reverted by other editors; e.g.
[13][14][15][16]. I opened a section on
Talk:Kingdom of Khotan to stop edit warring. The IP user already violated 3RR and other WP rules. He/She clearly does not know how to use talk pages. I requested page protection because he/she just ignores other users' edit summaries and reverts their edits. He/She even never heard of patrolling and he/she thinks just because me and other users reverted his/her edits, then there must be a conspiracy against him/her. I don't edit Kingdom of Khotan so why do you expect me to participate there?! It is for you and the other editors. I just tried to convince you to stop edit warring and solve the issues via talk page, which you just ignored. Anyway, I don't edit Kingdom of Khotan and other articles edited by this IP user so I don't involve myself in this discussion anymore.
Mann Mann (
talk)
05:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Complete nonsense. You accused me of using unsourced content and misrepresented sources and when confronted with the facts, you are now trying to change the narrative and bring in examples of "reverted" content in an attempt to damage my credibility. You are wrong again my friend, for one the changes made to the articles in question were restorations of older, legitimate content that had been deleted en masse by random trolls and users without explanation, even though the content they contained was perfectly legitimate, accurate and correctly cited. I didnt even write the original content of these articles, I just reverted them to their original state before they were vandalized. You can check and compare them for yourself. The Racial classification Article has been reverted dozens of times by dozens of many established editors ever since the user AmericanHistorian went on a rampage to try to completely change the article and fill it with false statements without citations. The South Asian article was a restoration of a previous version that contained exhaustive sources and facts, because it was recently vandalized and a lot of information regarding Afghanistan was deleted. Finally, the Sayyid brothers article was edited and large parts of its content was removed by a banned user, which I simply restored with additional sources, only to have it reverted by another user without explanation. I reviewed the article again and it contains perfectly sourced content and numerous sources that support its claims so its removal was illegitimate and amounts to vandalism. Besides, people often have their edits reverted regardless of how legitimate and correct their edits are. it says nothing about the credibility of the person. You on the other hand, are simply lying about the nature of my edits and misrepresenting my intentions.
69.143.174.241 (
talk)
06:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Your edits are disruptive and unsourced
[17][18][19][20]. Even your last edit
[21] is disruptive. You added an unreliable source
iran chamber and there is zero mention of South Asian. Seems all of your citations are just like that and that's the why I call your edits disruptive, misrepresentation of sources, and falsification (the very same reason HistoryofIran and Hzh mentioned in their edit summaries). You just refused to use talk page and started edit warring which was the reason why I requested page protection. Your case is beyond this specific board. Other editors may take it to
WP:ANI or
WP:AN/3RR. End of discussion.
Mann Mann (
talk)
07:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Absolute Rubbish. More lies and misrepresentation. None of the edits you linked to are disruptive or unsourced or inaccurate. Absolutely none. I have also added 16 sources to the statement I added -- SIXTEEN -- and yet you are trying to find weaknesses in one source that is supposedly "unreliable" when the page, hosted on a reputable website, clearly states that it is an exact quote/extract from an article published in a scholarly journal by a reputed historian. Every one of the other fifteen sources clearly shows how Indian/South Asian kingdoms, people, religion, culture and influence were present in Khotan from its inception. You are clearly trolling and abusing your privileges at WP. I also find it hilarious that you are talking about how there is supposedly "zero" mention of South Asian in my sources, when the sources clearly outline that Khotan is a part of South Asian and Indian history and clearly mention its crucial inclusion as a part of South Asian kingdoms and culture. The sources literally have the name "South Asian" in many of them. Do you know even know what South Asia means? Whats even more ironic is that there is zero, nada, zilch mention of how Khotan is an "Iranian" kingdom, a claim that the article peddles without ANY sources or citations to back it up. ZERO. And yet you NEVER bring up this fact, perhaps to satisfy the other users whose agenda you seek to peddle. Shameful.
69.143.174.241 (
talk)
07:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection / Reason: Controversial topic. Recent page history is a mess of newly registered users edit warring, and repeated removals of a massive chunk of sourced content.
Homeostasis07 (
talk/
contributions)
11:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: After significant vandalism between 2010 and 2013, interest in this article has been neglible, with only 4 gnome edits each year in 2020 and 2021 and 1 constructive edit in 2022. Protection does not seem to be needed anymore. (Admin who applied the protection is inactive.).
Schazjmd(talk)15:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary, I'm not even sure why it was added to begin with — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nswix (
talk •
contribs) 21:40, 3 Apr 2022 (UTC)
There is indeed, and it indicates that it was semi-protected as a redirect to prevent repeated recreations. Obviously, it no longer exists as one. @
Sandstein: I'm inclined to unprotect, given that things have changed since then. Thoughts?
Sdrqaz (
talk)
00:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP vandalism and high risk for more fake news. Just dealt with an IP editor claim a trailer was released two days ago with a June release and Pokémon reveal. There’s no doubt more will come
CreecregofLife (
talk)
16:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined It certainly appears that you are edit warring in the article in questions. I would stop that if I were you.
Jayron3216:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
There is no high level of vandalism on this page; the last two reverts of any edit have been on 2022-04-04 and 2021-12-21, which is a frequency of two potential vandalism edits in over 3 months.
Pending-changes protection exists, but pending-changes protection of table-/data-heavy pages is a pain for volunteer reviewers whose main task is to revert plain and obvious vandalism and accept non-vandalism.
I got really tripped up by this comment, I kept looking for a topic regarding this issue, under the interpretation “Consider what went on here when it was reported to the edit warring noticeboard for a an even clearer picture”. It wasn’t until I came back when I realized you were directing them to it
CreecregofLife (
talk)
19:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined This article was protected 3 times prior to me protecting it. Each time the protection expired, vandals returned almost immediately. I have no reason to believe that that won't happen again if we unprotect. An article on this type of subject is probably more likely to get indef semi-protected than unprotected. My vote is to keep it protected, but I'm fine if anyone disagrees and wants to test the waters.
—ScottyWong— 21:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm unsure of how effective that this would be, since they'll just find other ways to troll me anyway. In addition, I would rather that this be used as an absolute last resort, since I would like to be able to communicate with unregistered and new users due to the work I do on RC patrol and AfC. I personally am not too worried, but feel free to protect it if it really is necessary.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
06:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
After review, the ruling on the field is for unprotection. Based on the current version and the last two previously deleted version, there is too much difference to justify G4 deletion, therefore the article should be moved to the new name as this article and the previous versions of the differently named article are for the same person. I'm dropping the protection level and will move it over, but it should be noted that the article has been nominated for deletion previously on the talk page for fair disclosure.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
12:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Vandalism and adding misinformation without valid source by proxies. Needs to be protected at least for 6 months at the level of admins and extended confirmed users. Please make sure check last edits are correct before protection. Thanks.
GharouniTalk06:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The user Toixo has attributed nacional socialist ideology to a Catalan pro-independece party with no references and no correlation to any other language version of this page.
Ayla Cat (
talk)
09:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
" My Bondage and My Freedom (1855). Following the Civil War, Douglass was AN active campaigner for the rights of freed slaves and wrote his last autobiography "
Ktoeda (
talk)
14:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Talk page protection. This has been subject to a number of editors outright denying/downplaying the massacre or alleged war crimes took place, a clear violation of
WP:NOTHERE, or promoting a
WP:FALSEBALANCE between Russian actions and Ukraine by IP editors and new accounts. Issue has been raised on the talk page itself, even though the article does not seem to suffer from the same disruptive efforts.
QueenofBithynia (
talk)
12:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The article doesn't get disrupted because it is already protected. As for the talk-page: we have a higher disruption threshold before we protect an article talk-page; this threshold hasn't been reached imho so I wouldn't protect (yet). Decision deferred.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I'd like to pause this request and to fully rescind it if there is no additional wave of edits in the next hour. It wasn't malicious anyways, the name change(for his character) DID happen, it just so happens that when the edit wave happened it was just revealed and there was no information readily accessible. Thank you for you time.
2804:F14:C060:8A01:3DBA:71D8:8B0B:E34B (
talk)
01:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I have raised the issue in the article talk Background section and other sections are clearly sourced.There is no vandalism but Censorship.
183.82.108.172 (
talk)
07:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Deepfriedokra: Not a content dispute but failure to drop stick by the lone IP editor who edited no other subject for months (
WP:SPA). If you know editors like Winged Blades of Godric and Sitush, they also concluded that this subject is fictional per
this discussion. Now this IP comes out of nowhere to reject it all and edit war. That's why the page needs ECP protection so that only ECP users can edit.
Wareon (
talk)
16:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting semi-protection to try and stop a persistent edit-warrer with a shifting IP address from continuing to change information without source; this page was fully protected briefly once before to combat this user but evidently it has been fruitless.
Lllogan (
talk)
21:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Continued addition of extensive plot against guideline notes by various anonymous editors; see previous protection log for protections for the same issue. --
Alex_21TALK00:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Aggressive push by an anonymous editor to have their version of an article published, despite it being contrary to Wikipedia guidelines (particularly
WP:OFFICIAL and
WP:COMMONNAME). Refusal to engage on the talk or consider comments in the edit summary, references to non-existent policies and avoiding discussions/confrontations by hopping across anonymous VPN IP addresses.
CentreLeftRight✉22:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@
CentreLeftRight:{{Declined}} – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. Based on what you had said, I thought there was perhaps a discussion you had started on the talk page that the IP user had not touched. I thought that maybe they were hijacking the page to "have their version of an article published". I was wrong on both counts. I won't be surprised if an administrator decides to block you both for edit-warring.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
00:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
If going by the book is a content dispute and reverting edits contrary to Wikipedia guidelines is the start of what would be considered an edit war, then I will leave it as it is. I have no interest in being accused of the latter over a relatively small disruptive edit spree from an anonymous user.
CentreLeftRight✉00:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Sdrqaz: No worries, I can see where you are coming from having reviewed my request and reverts to that article. I should have been more clear that this particular change has been pushed on the article before, and it has been frustrating, presenting anonymous editors with known guidelines but then being ignored and dealing with a new IP. I apologise too if I came off aggressive. All the best,
CentreLeftRight✉02:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The disruption is not terribly heavy, so semi-protection would be overkill. But we have a recurring problem. Pending changes protection should be fine here, as it won't allow the edits to go "live". I have watchlisted too.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Hubert Davis is in his first season as the coach of UNC's men's basketball team. His team has also had a deep postseason run. There has been increased editing to this page as a result of his team's season, several of which are non-encyclopedic and juvenile (i.e. taking shots at
Mike Krzyzewski).
Mungo Kitsch(talk)23:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Could an administrator remove the temporary protection from the
D. C. Douglas article in order to eliminate the term actor (something for example
[28]) which covers his work as a theater, film, television and voice actor because it is his occupation, also I understand that someone protected the page definitively without giving the clear reason that IPs or obsessive users have violated the biographies policy of living people and yet nothing changed.
148.101.45.58 (
talk)
01:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
No, it's not that, it's that I thought that by asking for the decrease of the article I was going to separate the two different professions from the actor to be able to cover all his work attached to the filmography of others, including this one and
Mark Hamill for example, because not all the users here say that they can apply the opening sentences to articles related to American actors. (see
here)
148.101.45.58 (
talk)
01:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm still confused for what you're asking for, and why you need the protection of an article about a harassment target decreased when an edit request on the talkpage would've sufficed
CreecregofLife (
talk)
01:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – In the past week alone there have been no less than three attempts to push different ethnic slants in this article, respectively trying to make Avicenna Tajik, Uzbek and Turkish. Basic page protection is urgently needed.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
09:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
There is a high amount of vandalism on this page, presumably in response to a recent announcement about the politician. Please protect this page ASAP.
Jalen Folf(talk)16:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: several IP mass edit warring with many manual of style issues and copoyrght concerns like copy/pasting stuff from websites directly to the article, refusing to discuss at talk
Snowflake91 (
talk)
11:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Not so fast. Check out the revision history on top of
User:Snowflake91's talk page. He is a troll who blocks literally any edition whether backed by one or multiple reliable sources. No explanations in the edit summaries besides the old triggerhappy undo message. He is literally a menace for many new and veteran editors who try to contribute to article involving football. Not the first of him getting blocked and warned either.
2A0D:6FC0:1903:7100:E428:9058:3791:BE6E (
talk)
11:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: It seems there's been a return of activity from editor(s) adding non-notable, unsourced awards again, which has been a perennial issue before once page protection was removed/expired. Requesting protection of the page.
Itssheenabautista (
talk)
12:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Almost all recent edits consist of vandalism or reversions thereof. Please semi-protect so that editors can fix the damage.
Toadspike (
talk)
16:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: An IP editor is repeatedly adding a claim that is not supported by any reference, which two experienced editors have reverted. The IP has refused to engage in discussion on the talk page or their user talk page, and is continuing to edit war. Please semi-protect the page.
Modest Geniustalk15:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting indefinite full protection as my former user page and user talk page, extremely likely targets for vandalism, and there will be no need to edit said redirects. — csc-111:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: BLP Policy Violations. Repeated BLP violations and POV-pushing. Possibly just person socking, but I can't confirm that.
Sunmist (
talk)
17:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There's been a recent string of vandalism on this page with folks adding in potentially defamatory statements about family members. It may be best to temporarily protect until whatever's going on dies down.
PureRED |
talk to me |
17:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The article is often target of IP vandalism, it was protected back in February but when the protection expired the vandalism returned.
Pob3qu3 (
talk)
19:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes protection: Persistent Vandalism. Longer term pending changes seems appropriate here. The article is edited infrequently but is vandalised sporadically.
FozzieHey (
talk)
20:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It's hard to justify indefinite ANYTHING when the last semi-protection was for a single week. If needed, please call on me.
BusterD (
talk)
01:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indefinite protection is only for articles which have tried it for shorter durations. Only one previous protection, and I'm not convinced semi-protection will weed out vandals, since almost all of the edits are from registered users. Keep me advised if this goes off the rails again.
BusterD (
talk)
01:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Trolling and disruption by non-ACs and IPs. Obviously falls under ARBCOM/EE, but more pragmatically this is a current news thing so that explains it. Plenty of soapboxing. Needs a break to this madness.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
22:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated vandalism from IP editors. Most/all of this is related to the invasion of Ukraine, so this page will probably only need to be protected for a few months.
Endwise (
talk)
03:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting temporary protection due to persistent unsourced edits and vandalism by IP users regarding his "marriage" to the Kardashian sister.
Altair11003:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
A bit low of an edit rate for semi, so Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Feel free to re-request if the edit rate becomes to much for pending changes to handle.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)05:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The majority of the activity on the page is IP addresses making silly edits, or vandalism or trying to insert political views about a former president. They are invariably from IP addresses or phones and this has been going on for months. If we semi-protected it indefinitely, this would solve it I think.
CT55555 (
talk)
21:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I can see your problem, but there's one questionable edit in the last two weeks. Never been protected before. No way can we indef anything under those circumstances. Please keep me advised if this needs to be re-protected at some point.
BusterD (
talk)
01:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The gift that keeps on giving, with
top-notch comedy (though, if you have to point out that something is funny, it probably isn't). Anyway, see y'all in 2023.
El_C09:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Unsure why this needed an indefinite semi-protection, as most vandalism seems to be blanking which I'm sure we have a filter for, PC could work to make sure that unregistered users can present their ideas (or even unprotect altogether since
Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox is unprotected). Since it seems to not be watched often a bot could clean it every so often much like in the regular sandbox.
172.112.210.32 (
talk)
02:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Also I am aware that (as with many cases of semi-protection) creating an account is an option, but my personal preference is to edit from an IP.
172.112.210.32 (
talk)
02:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Lectonar: Can't really take credit for the protection, which was put in place by
Seddon 12 days before I upped the move protection to EC. The latter should remain, but I'll let others with a more cuddly attitude to IPs decide on the former.
Favonian (
talk)
18:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Prior to protecting, there was quite a bit of IP vandalism, some of which was simple blanking (which was clearly not prevented by any edit filter), some of which was not blanking. I don't pretend to fully understand the purpose of this page, it appears to be a place to park alternative versions of the main page. If so, I can't imagine a reason that IPs would need to edit this page. Are anonymous editors frequently involved in making design changes to the main page? Should they be? I'd say no. The protecting admin has been inactive for a few days, and not particularly active in general. My vote would be to decline this request, as there's a clear history of IP vandalism, and no real genuine need for IPs to edit this page. I understand that your preference is to edit from an IP, but please understand that your preference comes with many consequences, so you'll need to accept that there are many things you can't do on WP as an IP. Just out of my own morbid curiosity, is there a particular reason that you prefer to edit as an IP? For the life of me, I can't see a single advantage to it.
—ScottyWong— 19:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I concur with your assessment
ScottyWong. I don't see benefits to enabling IP editting here and any that exist are outweighed by the burden the page has generated in the past for editors. Seddontalk22:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
It seems that the page was meant for design experiments as
Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox appears to say to move attempted redesigning of experiments there as "there is a risk that unwelcome / unapproved changes to the Main Page might get copied across" according to the text on the editnotice.
As for the inquiry about me editing from an IP I did actually have an account once, ended up having real-life issues associated with having a Wikipedia account and decided to stop using it. I haven't bothered trying to switch back anyways since I would consider myself to be in some good standing (despite the warnings decorating my talk page saying otherwise).
172.112.210.32 (
talk)
02:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined I will go ahead and decline this for now. While I see where IP172.xxx is coming from (and I sympathize with their arguments), in that case I think the disruption might be too much to handle, even when using pending-changes protection (depending on editing frequency, it might put an undue burden on recent changes patrollers or the pending-changes reviewers), and concur with the arguments of my esteemed colleagues above. As for the idea of an automatic cleaning, I guess this might be brought up at the village pump. We can always revisit the protection.
Lectonar (
talk)
14:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because it would be better if more users could edit the page. By doing this new information will be added to the page faster so more people can learn.
Edertor (
talk)
08:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: University was deleted in sloppy way by IP (already fixed). The comment was antisemitic and the page itself is about a sensitive topic. A limitation to changes by confirmed users would be appropriate.
BenjaminFeldman (
talk)
10:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Note: The IP edit in question was not antisemitic, it merely said that
Messianic Judaism was not Judaism, and removed such a school from this list. As the Wikipedia article on this topic makes clear, many Jews, Christians, and others view Messianic Judaism to be a syncretic branch of Christianity. So unless one argues that mainstream scholarship on this is antisemitic, then this accusation is unfounded.
QueenofBithynia (
talk)
11:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The article is semi-protected until August so perhaps we can re-visit another semi-protection then. Courtesy ping to protecting administrator
El C. -- LuK3(Talk)22:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Temporary semi-protection. See
Gengiev (
talk·contribs)'s edits. He claims pictures are unsourced, but they have on wikimedia. And also has misleading edits like "non-Turkic and Turkic Old Uyghurs" which is totally incorrect. There is no non-Turkic Uyghur, also "
Old Uyghur" is not a name given to people, but a language.
Beshogur (
talk)
15:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Beshogur, You are misinterpreting my words, and thus making false statements. I think you lie because you want to justify the deletion of my new content. So we need a page protection against you rather. I already replied to your allegations:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Gengiev. You didn't respond. This shows me you are lacking knowledge in the Old Uyghur subject. --
Gengiev (
talk)
15:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – As soon as latest protection expired, vandalism resumed. Page has been protected numerous times this year, with many revdel'd edits. Request longer-duration of protection.
Schazjmd(talk)23:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. IPs keep changing it to say the "criminals" are "North Korean spies" which, based on what I'm seeing on the talk page, is incorrect ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654513:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Can administrators put this page into protection? Many IP users keep on editing this page. They were adding info without reliable sources. I hope you you can put this page in protection. Thank you High level of IP vandalism.
Selenne (
talk)
09:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Same BLP violations by the same IP range, hours after the protection expired. -
SUN EYE 103:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page 2022 in Philippine television will expire on April 9, 2022 01:57. Kindly request semi-protection of the page for ANOTHER 1 MONTH to prevent vandalism, hoax and unsourced schedule of the page. If unlock the page they created their edited of unsourced and hoax their. Thanks.
Rvreyes 11 (
talk)
02:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Probably no need to pc, either, because there does not seem to be much lag between respective revisions.
El_C10:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – The vast majority of the edits for this page over the past several months have been cases of vandalism related to
Dwayne Johnson. There's no indication that this will change as long as Johnson is an active public figure.
Qwaiiplayer (
talk)
14:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There has been a high level of IP vandalism in past few days where they change the primary visual identification for the article. It is getting annoying having to re-add it all the time.
LOVI3314:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – The fixture is approaching (it will be played in 10th of april) and each time this is played there are tons of edit wars between IPs. I suggest a protection. AdigabrekTalk14:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I will add this page to my watchlist permanently and respond to calls for further protection.
BusterD (
talk)
20:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Continued edit wars over the ethnicity of the actress following expiry of recent protection. BLP issue. –
DarkGlow •
17:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: A user MrOllie keeps vandalizing this page by repeatedly removing a section "Proof-theoretic versus model-theoretic formalizations of non-monotonic logics" that has been added about nine years ago, 02:34, 30 June 2013. The said removals have been labeled as vandalism yet user MrOllie keeps vandalizing the page.
172.88.197.74 (
talk)
23:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This isn't "vandalism" on
MrOllie's part, but rather, likely
WP:PROMO on yours, IP. Whatever
WP:SILENT consensus that addition might have enjoyed, it's now been contested. You may try using the article talk page (
Talk:Non-monotonic logic) to establish expressed consensus for the addition, I suppose, though again, it seems awful promo'y. And because of that, I place the
WP:ONUS on you. Thanks.
El_C01:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the protection.
The section "Proof-theoretic versus model-theoretic formalizations of non-monotonic logics" has been there for about eight (8) years. It has been valid, informative, and important part of the main article. Now, user MrOllie appears to claim, without a shred of proof, it is "WP:PROMO". It is an absurd claim, and if user MrOllie makes it then he has a burden to prove it.
Any presumption that it is "WP:PROMO" just because user MrOllie claims that it is lacks rational and policy basis. And an expectation that he can remove anything he doesn't like unless there is a consensus of the visitors opposed to the removal does not serve anyone's legitimate interest.
Would you, please, explain how did you determine it was a "WP:PROMO"? To make it easier, I include relevant quote from Wikipedia policy in this matter:
"Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources, such as your résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – This page has consistently been vandalized because of its closely named episode to the video game
Among Us. Pending changes protection was added in September 2021, and from then until now, there has been continued vandalism by 1 IP and 4 autoconfirmed users, including some recently that has made me make this request. Pending changes doesn't seem to be working. -.
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
00:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Deepfriedokra: Fine about not changing protection, but this isn't edits [I] disagree with. It's clearly vandalism, hence my request. It wouldn't have been made if I just disagreed. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
20:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: editor with an apparent COI is persistently removing sourced criticism from the article. Editor has not responded to talk page messages and has changed IP in the past so a simple block is insufficient.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
04:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Because the article itself is protected, IPs and sock puppet accounts have begun posting to the talk page with various 4chan conspiracy theories (with links to obscure twitter accounts which then link to 4chan) Volunteer Marek 09:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Due to a fight that occurred at last night's race, this article has become a target of vandalism by several IP users.
Areaseven (
talk)
12:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Due to a fight that occurred at last night's race, this article has become a target of vandalism by several IP users.
Areaseven (
talk)
12:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: The page is extended confirmed protected, but autoconfirmed users can still move it. Makes no sense. Should be extended-confirmed or fully move-protected. interstatefive (
talk) - just another roadgeek
15:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The page already is autoconfirmed-move protected, but is extended confirmed protected against editing. Doesn't make sense. interstatefive (
talk) - just another roadgeek
15:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't see a point in changing the protection either way at this time. The page has been a long-time vandalism target and I think that will continue if it is unprotected, I also don't see a point in upping the protection. However, I don't really care and any admin can upgrade or downgrade the protection if they feel like it.
MoneytreesTalk🏝️03:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Excessive IP vandalism, particularly claiming that the Lost Cause is a "truth" rather than a pseudohistorical mythology.
Joe.Del73 (
talk)
13:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Anonymous IP keeps attempting to change the location of death, without providing annotation. Multiple attempts go as far back as Dec. 4th 2021 as far as I can tell.
Leitmotiv (
talk)
16:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP's consistently removing sourced genres and being reverted when I revert their removals. This is a prominent issue on the article and is the only way for the page to deal with IP genre warriors.
Rockmusicfanatic20 (
talk)
17:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page should be given some kind of permanent protection level. For months (even years I'd say) it has been a frequent target for Greece-based POV pushing, disruptive editing and vandalism, but in recent weeks it has just become untenable, being swarmed by multiple single-purpose IP accounts (of which two,
109.242.76.6(
talk·contribs·global contribs·logs·block log) and
109.242.76.249(
talk·contribs·global contribs·logs·block log) have been blocked a combined total of four times in the past two weeks only, both for vandalism and block evasion) conducting disruptive edits (such as randomly changing and or editing party figures, which most of the time take days or even weeks to notice) and/or unjustified blanking of content or adding copyrighted logos over and over again. Very recently, single-purpose logged-in accounts seem to have taken an interest in the page as well.
It should be noted that the article was protected between 10 and 24 March, during which there was scarcely any disruption, if any. The disruption level skyrocketed upon unprotection, though.
Impru20talk17:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Heavily being edited by IPs. No citations being added. Subject is the deputy speaker of Pakistan National Assembly. Pakistan politics is currently under chaos. Requesting protection increase to protect the page from vandalism and spreading of fake news.
Thewikizoomer (
talk)
18:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Seems unwarranted since the IP's edits were on 5 March 2022. The other editor
User:Disansee has previously created one new article in February 2022,
[45] which seems to involve
good faith edits judging from their preparatory sandbox. Given that background, the
WP:3RR warnings
[46][47] are puzzling.
Mathsci (
talk)
16:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Edit-warring has little to do with good or bad faith. You stalking me, however (you never edited that page before -
[48]), is not the first time, and I've already respectfully asked that you stop doing that.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
17:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Me using a ridiculous argument to show how the other editor's
appeal to authority is not convincing is just that, a bit of ridicule. You never editing a page before, and then coming here to dispute my actions, is clear evidence and needs no further commentary (particularly not off-topic tangents about an unrelated page).
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
17:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Potential edit war from incessant reverting of the removal of the network column in tables relating to his TV work... This has been happening since March, please make it stop! lIl-†V!wanna talk?`17:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I log on almost everyday at least for the last week or so to find an IP has "updated" the page with misinformation. If you look at the edit history you will see what I am referring to, at no point does the source say what these IPs are saying it does. Thats another thing I would like to point out, it is always a new IP every time, often ones that have never contributed to wikipedia. For these reasons, I am hoping to get the page semi-protected to prevent this from happening so much.
Thank you
AFrickingNerd (
talk)
14:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I am questioning this result. The vandalism appears to be based on Max Park getting an apparent record on the 3x3 average at the Bay Area Speedcubin' 29 PM 2022 competition. However, even though Max Park participated (I made an error in one of my reverts at
Speedcubing where I assumed he didn't participate), as of currently the WCA is still working to upload the results. Since the results have not been released yet the record cannot be confirmed currently, and under the assumption there is still reverting going on, this page (as well as
Speedcubing) should probably be protected.
172.112.210.32 (
talk)
19:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism returns again immediately expiration of previous protection. This happens over and over and over again. Why keep doing this?
Foxworthian (
talk)
23:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, page is being hammered by vandalism.
sdpdude9(
talk)
>250 edits and/or reversions in the last 24hours. It's impossible to pick through that many edits and distinguish which are in good-faith and which are vandalism. BlueRiband►02:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Three edits total in the last year? Please read protection policy, linked several times on this page.
BusterD (
talk)
03:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I see no disruptive editing happening recently. I do see one new account today twice removing uncited information on a
WP:BLP. This is not vandalism. This may be a content dispute, so you might take this to the talk page.
BusterD (
talk)
03:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IPs, as well-meaning as they are, add "World Series champion" to this page pretty much daily, and it repeatedly has to be reverted. Could use a lock for a little while (at least until WS festivities calm down).
Nohomersryan (
talk)
04:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Requesting protection during ongoing AfD due to disruption by various IPs. Unfortunately a block on an IPV6 /40-range didn't work and they came back with an IPV4 address. –
NJD-DE (
talk)
18:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This article is being targeted with refspam from changing IPs advertising a website that claims to sell counterfeit money (not toy money or prop money for legitimate uses but actual counterfeit money to pass off as genuine in illegal transactions!) I have no idea whether the site is "genuine". It seems too unsubtle to be genuine but also too unsubtle to be the cops. Either way, we don't want it in Wikipedia and a bit of semiprotection should persuade them to go away. Not sure if the edits need to be revdelled.
DanielRigal (
talk)
10:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Rather low edit rate (last 50 go back about three months), so Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Feel free to re-request for an upgrade to semi-protection if pending changes can't keep up with the disruption.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)10:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Talk page of unprotected article is currently protected. Maybe it is normal but it seems weird that unconfirmed accounts are able to make edits but not discuss those edits on the talk page.
AdrianHObradors (
talk)
21:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Looking at recent edits on the article, it seems page protection expired a few hours ago and some questionable edits have been happening. An increase on protection level might be in order for the page, specially if talk page is going to still be kept protected.
AdrianHObradors (
talk)
23:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I want to cancel this request as it was done to address a mismatch between the protection levels of the article and talk page, but article page has been protected again for a period longer than the talk page. That fixes the issue. Thanks.
AdrianHObradors (
talk)
23:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Edit warring over inclusion of accurate information that some editors consider
spoilers. Requesting temporary semi-protection. (I believe yesterday's episode was the season finale.)
Funcrunch (
talk)
06:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Continuous and persistent vandalism -- vast majority of edits are reverted. Previous semi-protections didn't stop everything and now expired anyway.
Tiredmeliorist (
talk)
15:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Page has never been semi-protected but the previous pending changes seems to have helped. Let's try a slightly longer period. This controversial page might eventually require an indef protection of some sort.
BusterD (
talk)
16:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done for now. Hard to tell what's happening here, which is a longstanding staple of League pages requests. Ironically, very much like Flix11's many requests here, which I declined on that basis. Anyway,
Hhkohh, best to at least see what happens in that SPI first, for those reasons and more.
El_C15:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. You're welcome,
User:TrangaBellam. There are bigger problems on this page. Please read the protection policy linked several times on this page. This page has never been protected before. We can't apply an indefinite semi-protection unless we've tried a lesser solution first. This also seems to be a content dispute on a CV-type BLP, with talk page mentions of the subject's twitter feedback on this page. Somebody on the page is acting the meatpuppet, doing the subject's bidding.
BusterD (
talk)
16:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I spotted the bidding but this is one of those rare cases where the subject does have a point. I was unaware that the page has been never protected; my apologies.
TrangaBellam (
talk)
16:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your engaging. Please remember folks here are volunteers trying to help. Let's not discourage them by casually disrespecting their efforts. If you have any problem with my actions, please feel invited to discuss these with me civilly on my talk.
BusterD (
talk)
17:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not all ips making edits on this page are vandals, so I kept the protection very short. This page would benefit from much better sourcing, and perhaps a statement on talk explaining sourcing required.
BusterD (
talk)
17:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Some is vandalism, some is perhaps good faith but disruptive along with a mix of BLP violations. Likely a couple day protection or so will do.
S0091 (
talk)
22:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Problem edits are not frequent enough for semi-protection, but the vast majority of edits to this page are problems and are added by non-auto-confirmed editors. So let's see what PC protection can do.
MelanieN (
talk)
03:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent IP vandalism: since the start of March there have been 56 edits, of which 26 have been reverted by at least 16 others. Of 53 non-autoconfirmed editors since the start of the year, I counted only 5 that made somewhat useful contributions.
Reywas92Talk05:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite template protection: Highly-visible template. Recent (discussed) color change has been widely contested (see
Module:Storm categories/categories history,
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather § Comments) and both of these pages have had disruptive reverts. /colors is included since this is able to override the colors in the /categories set. {{Storm colour}} in particular used to be
template-protected. Template has 4,855 transclusions anyway (module has 4,889), so template protection wouldn't be too much.
Temporary pending changes:BLP policy violations – Two serious BLP infringements (possibly the second is by a sock account of the first) but as neither was autoconfirmed it would help to semi-protect the article for a few days.
10mmsocket (
talk)
07:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. That said, I have changed the visiblity of said edits, and watchlisted the article.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Can the page be protected for ever? Its vandalism has been going for years. The page was unprotected about a two weeks ago but in about seven days the page was vandalised four times.
DrSalvus11:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because limiting editing amounts to a suppression of free speech. I regularly read the subreddit GenZedong and it’s current characterization as controversial is without merit. Most of the assertions posted are backed by valid sources and for me at it is a welcome respite from the usual garbage that infests Reddit. This includes a subreddit called “r/classicalfascist”.
Rkissinger82 (
talk)
04:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Look, what free speech means might allude you, but it doesn’t justify unprotecting a page. You are more than welcome to make edit requests on the talkpage--
CreecregofLife (
talk)
04:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That's what I was originally thinking,
Lectonar, but the article was last protected from Oct to Jan and it is still plagued by these same issues (though it ebbs and flows). Anyway, obviously applied prior to reading the above. I'm open to amending, in any case.
El_C11:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi Protection: IP user and bot user of the 2022 in Philippine television they make hoax, vandalism and unsourced schedule of the upcoming program and channels. Kindly semi-protection of the page to prevent vandalism of the page.
Rvreyes 11 (
talk)
08:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Also, there's no need to link to the revision history, it's already linked at the top of this request under history. Anyway, you need to explain better, with diff evidence and summaries — what is a hoax? Why it's a hoax. So you're encouraged to do that. Again, the documentation can be found at
WP:DIFF. Thanks again.
El_C14:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Okay, but everything in that very long list is unsourced. What source are you using? Doesn't look like there's a lot of sources used in general on that page, not just from one random IP. If this is to be resolved in a meaningful way, at least.
El_C14:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Various ip addresses have been starting inappropriate discussions/spamming the Talk with nonsense that have nothing to do with improving the article at all on the Talk non-stop, please see the Talk page history. —
YoungForever(talk)17:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request semi protect for controversial military figure involved in Ukraine invasion by Russia. Repeat vandalism from different IP-accounts. Page is currently unprotected.
ErnestKrause (
talk)
17:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of nationalist/sectarian disruptive editing of late, people insisting that because a TV show is set in Northern Ireland the show is clearly Irish (or Northern Irish) despite the fact that the company that makes it is very much a British (or specifically English) company. I'm very much involved here so I cannot do it, but with the new series just starting the disruption is about to get much worse so I think a extended semi-protection for a fair period of time is justified here. The disruption is nothing new, it's just ramping up for another go around right now.
Canterbury Tailtalk19:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing and vandalism by IP users. I regularly find cases of this when the page is not protected. He's a frequent target and I'd like to request a longer, if not permanent, protection for this page. I don't see it ever stopping by IP users due to the nature of Tyreek Hill's past.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
21:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I am trying to write a Paper for School on Pearl Harbor and found all your information helpful but I need the page to be unprotected so I can put this source in my paper and give the writers credit for all their hard work in putting their time and energy into this wonderful page on the Attack of Pearl Harbor
137.118.157.194 (
talk)
13:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
FYI - the Pearl Harbor page has had 4,261different editors, since it was created on April 8, 2001 - some of them were IPs and some were registered Wikipedia editors, but probably too many for you to list on your paper. The individual sources they used can be found at the bottom of the page in the Bibliography section. There are 1,186 editors watching the page, some of whom might not be active anymore.
— Maile (
talk)
18:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Recently one of the members got into a scandal, and so there are many people who keep trying to edit that she left or that she never existed in the group, despite her being a current member still. I also tried addressing it in the talk page but people continue to ignore it.
K-popguardian (
talk)
21:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP jumper continues to add links to videos as references against
WP:YT and are not verifiable as the episode numbers/dates in the YouTube video title.
AldezD (
talk)
01:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Because of JackSucksAtLife spam that was relentless the first time around and which is still a potential issue based on the talk page posts. That being said, I can see an argument to bust it back down to semi. —
Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori01:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I bumped it to ECP because there were a number of AC editors who kept adding it. If folks are fine with me handing out "you should bloody well know better" blocks if the disruption resumes, I'm fine with dropping the protection.
Primefac (
talk)
11:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Change 'British teen drama' to 'Irish teen drama' as anyone who watched even one episode of the show would recognise that the teens strongly identify as Irish and it is one of the main premises of the show
Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the curly brackets below.
if you need a reference for the change from 'British' to 'Irish', I have it here:
If the production company is British, then it is a British series. This is something that has been discussed on the talk page, and consensus is that this is a British show for the reasons I just stated. —
Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori21:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Moderate level of IP vandalism. Unexplained removal. Also at risk of partisan vandalism due to incoming Philippine general elections in May.
Nuwordlife0rder (
talk)
04:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Clearly there was a basis for not permitting page creation. This included an unsourced BLP, and unambiguous promotion and copyright infringement.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
20:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I've been protecting this page for quite some time. It has been a center of IP vandalization and sock abuse but just today I realized it needed serious protection after some IP user decided to completely vandalize the page.
Ayaltimo (
talk)
06:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined I've applied a final warning to the IP's talk page. They have not edited the page in the last 24 hours; no protection is required at this moment. However, if they do misbehave soon, someone, perhaps I, will block them to prevent further mishap. Thanks for your page watching.
BusterD (
talk)
08:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
User talk pages are there to communicate messages and warnings if any. Your repeatedly moving of pages, creating a copy artie, blanking an article, despite multiple warnings on your talk page may lead to you being banned from editing wikipedia. Read the warnings before you delete them. You can't have your talk page protected.
Sajaypal007 (
talk)
08:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: the page needs protection because constant addition by IP address without
WP: Consensus. Banned suspected sock account with IP addresses are reverting edits from time to time to push their points.
RS6784 (
talk)
09:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The page doesn't quite have the protection history I'd want to see before going indef on the semi-protection. Also note I left the indefinite pending changes up, so after the semi-protection expires it will go back to pending changes with hopefully less vandalism.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)13:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Someone on different IP keeps making changes without explanation or apparent notice of my edit summary: "Back to last stable version, this broke refs, added dab links, blocks of unsourced/likely copied and unattibuted text, and changes made with no explanation or edit summary".
176.97.70.48 (
talk)
12:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Obviously, a page about a popular TV series gets a lot of the stereotypical "schoolboy vandalism" and a lot of other disruption. A look at the history shows that most recent edits are indeed that or reverts of that... (and seemingly the recently expired PC didn't really prevent that, nor has it stopped since then).
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
14:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Someone on different IP keeps making changes without explanation or apparent notice of my edit summary: "Back to last stable version, this broke refs, added dab links, blocks of unsourced/likely copied and unattibuted text, and changes made with no explanation or edit summary".
176.97.71.80 (
talk)
15:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Someone on different IP keeps making changes without explanation or apparent notice of my edit summary: "Back to last stable version, this broke refs, added dab links, blocks of unsourced/likely copied and unattibuted text, and changes made with no explanation or edit summary".
176.97.71.80 (
talk)
15:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Someone on different IP keeps making changes without explanation or apparent notice of my edit summary: "Back to last stable version, this broke refs, added dab links, blocks of unsourced/likely copied and unattibuted text, and changes made with no explanation or edit summary".
176.97.71.80 (
talk)
15:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: BLP violations with unsourced or poorly sourced claims that he changed his last name. They even desperately insert the poor sources in the title of the infobox.
Trillfendi (
talk)
16:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. Persistent edit warring involving multiple editors on nationality, ″Chechen born″ vs ″Russian born″, requesting that the current protection is increased to extended confirmed so that they are forced to use the talk page and gain consensus.
TylerBurden (
talk)
18:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Continuous disruptive editing and vandalism (mostly from IPs). Keeps happening immediately after the temporary protection expires.
ArojamDharkon (
talk)
19:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Well, that category has to be populated in order to exist. There's isn't some principle of equivalence, it doesn't work like that.
El_C02:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing by IP vandals. One won't believe how many times I and other users have had to fix mistakes made by vandals.
TheVHSArtist (
talk)
21:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Repeated attempts by multiple users to create an article from the redirect, ignoring the hidden note that the subject in question fails
WP:NACTOR. Requesting for extended confirmed because all of the users have been anonymous or registered, and indefinite because the subject is unlikely to pass
WP:NACTOR in the foreseeable future.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
00:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely. All of this is from IPs or newly registered accounts which makes me suspect sock/meat puppetry. If someone thinks the subject rates an article they can discuss it with an experienced (EC) editor or take it to WP:AFC.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
00:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection.
A. C. Santacruz: In general we are reluctant to protect article talk pages, unless the vandalism is out of control or violates WP policies, and even then we protect only for a short term. That's because when the main article is indefinitely protected, as this one is, the talk page is the only place where new or unregistered editors can have any input. Yes, this page does get vandalized with some regularity, but the solution is simply to have regular editors delete the vandalism edits - as I see happens very promptly at this article.
MelanieN (
talk)
22:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – No fewer than 30 edits in the past two days attempting to change this football manager's team and then repair that damage. Can we please double the last term of protection?.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
04:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I thought for sure the week would be enough the first time, but I guess I was wrong. As requested this time, we'll go Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)04:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request for semi-protection in order to discourage an IP-hopping vandal who's returning to put back in false information and edit-war to protect said false information
Mr Fink (
talk)
03:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
However, I did take a look, and it seems it's been protected since June 2011. It's been protected for over ten years. Whoever the vandals it had, they're probably long gone
CreecregofLife (
talk)
06:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Lots of disruptive editing over the past few days primarily by IPs. Only going to get worse in the coming week. Would recommend a 1 week semi protection.
IIBxtrerII (
talk)
04:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Victoria is Britney Spears' current assistant and is routinely being accused of being a part of Britney's controversial conservatorship. There is a very active conspiracy theory that Britney's conservatorship was never terminated and Britney is not free. I have seen no evidence this is true. Victoria has been experiencing ongoing online harassment.
73.134.49.225 (
talk)
04:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: COI/Paid editors trying to force "their" version of the article. A long term problem which has has previously been dealt with by 4 rangeblocks, still in force, but are now using other Wind Telecom accounts to avoid these blocks. For details please see
User:Arjayay/Italian Telecom -
Arjayay (
talk)
10:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Unprotected Based on what I can see, this page appears to have been pre-emptively semi-protected shortly after it was created, without any obvious evidence of active vandalism that I can see. It has been indefinitely protected for 10 years. I'm going to unprotect it and see if any vandalism occurs.
—ScottyWong— 15:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Glad for this. The first time it was requested it was declined because of circular reasoning, but as you have found, there actually was a case
CreecregofLife (
talk)
15:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Please can we have another time-out on this article as the same author is persisting in pushing content for which there is no consensus.
10mmsocket (
talk)
16:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Removal of content by an IP user who wishes to censor content. It appears as though that IP user registered an account and continued to try to censor the page. Requesting Extended confirmed user be needed to edit this page.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
17:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: COI/Paid editors trying to force "their" version of the article. A long term problem which has has previously been dealt with by 4 rangeblocks, still in force, but are now using other Wind Telecom accounts to avoid these blocks. For details please see
User:Arjayay/Italian Telecom -
Arjayay (
talk)
19:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:: Valid and well researched material connected to the subject being constantly deleted by a number of disagreeing editors.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bonggrow (
talk •
contribs)
Temporary semi-protection: An unregistered editor is using multiple IP addresses to edit the article to insert promotional language. They make no effort to explain their edits in edit summaries or the section opened in the Talk page specifically to discuss these edits. Multiple editors have reverted these edits and attempted to discuss them with the editor and they have not responded in any way except to revert their preferred edits back into the article.
ElKevbo (
talk)
01:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:Temporary semi-protection - significant amounts of vandalism from IP and non-autoconfirmed editors related to the results of a recent game. Should just need a couple of days.
Egsan Bacon (
talk)
03:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Probably falls under some Arbcom sancctions (can't remember which ones exactly). In any case, persistent disruption despite previous protections doesn't seem to stop. Edits are sporadic, but very few if any is anything coming from IPs/non-ACs is anything but disruptive or vandalism. Long-term SP seems like the solution, I'm not sure PC would stop anything as disruption is likely to come along ethno-nationalistic or other similar grounds, where people are unlikely to be stopped by it.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
01:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Note: I've inadvertantly involved myself because filer's edits looked to me to be so outrageous, so someone else will need to decide on protection. --Deepfriedokra(talk)12:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Unregistered or IP users are making contant unconstructive edits and vandalism the page.
SadX (
talk)
12:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Every single IP or non-autoconfirmed edit for the past year has been disruptive, time to stop this now. Sincere souls can always make edit requests.
Shellwood (
talk)
14:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP vandals and potential for edit war. A small edit war between many IP addresses (which are being used for block evasion) and admins can be stopped with semi protection.
Wesoree (
talk)
16:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
It's been seven and a half years since the page was protted. A redirect seems reasonable, without protection, under the understanding that the redirect will get protected if there's any effort to hijack it for an article on the firm. What say you admins? —
Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori19:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Two IPs since the 11th is not enough, in my opinion. Both have seemingly stopped their disruption.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
16:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – The page was primitive vandalism, created by you. It's unlikely to be created by anyone but you, so I can think of a better precaution.
Favonian (
talk)
18:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent COI editing to add mundane trivia and remove RS content. It's the same group of editors who are on the Eurochem page (Melnichenko runs Eurochem).
Snooganssnoogans (
talk)
19:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There has not been a single confirmed case of vandalism on the page in the 19 years it has existed. The presence of protection is seriously hampers any efforts to improve and expand the article. Requesting that protection level be decreased or removed altogether.
BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (
talk)
19:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP address with a wide range still continues to edit war the lead section of the article despite being reverted several times by multiple different people. it's really getting old.
Second Skin (
talk)
21:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Repeated edit from multiple anon IPs of identical unsourced change. I have assumed
wp:good will for several iterations of this but user(s) appear(s) to be unwilling to provide sources for this change despite welcome messages on their talk pages asking them to provide sources.
KNHaw(talk)04:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High-level vandalism going on. IP users keep vandalizing the page without visiting the talk page and ignoring the sources that support these claims. They just repeatedly change words without bringing their evidence.
Ayaltimo (
talk)
04:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Consistent IP violation of 3RR standard and removal of sourced information on basis that IP believes material isn't true, despite extensive discussion and other editors reverting their edits. Assumed same IP violator that saw admin action on topics related to Syro-Malabar Church.
Pbritti (
talk)
03:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Sort of continual edit warring from several editors to change the name post marriage, failing
WP:V and
WP:BLP. So far I observed the editors not to be an EC-ers, so perhaps an ECP would deter disruption for the time being? —
DaxServer (
t ·
m ·
c)
08:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: An anonymous user with multiple IPs keeps removing funk metal from the genre field, despite being well-sourced, and has been reverted by multiple users over the past week. This guy also tends to make personal attacks in his edit summaries. Though the article is already under pending protection from IP edits, it could use a full protection from IP edits, as most IP edits have either been rejected or reverted in recent times anyway.
MoonJet (
talk)
09:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely. Beyond that IP, I think the original indef pc was probably a bad idea for a page as active (but it was 2013, so pc was not that well understood back then).
El_C11:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated vandalism by what appears to be a very persistent IP user. It looks as though this user vandalized the page multiple times, then registered an account and vandalized some more until that account was indef blocked, and now its continuing to vandalize as an IP again. Semi-protection for a stretch of time should hopefully put a stop to this.
Legitimus (
talk)
12:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There isn't really any significant disruption in this page after that timespan in 2014 (prior to the addition of the protection). Looking at the page's history, I think that there is no need for
WP:PCPP anymore, let alone an indefinite one. Engr.SmittyWerben04:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Way too low of activity for semi-protection at the moment, let alone indefinite. I considered pending changes, but the last edit was a few days ago and the last 50 goes back to last August, so I really can't justify pulling the trigger on that. Feel free to re-request pending changes or semi-protection if there's another burst of disruption.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)13:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Only one IP vandalizing this month, and they are one false step away from being blocked.
Favonian (
talk)
15:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: For the past weeks, there have been repeated attempts by IP users to add content to the article that ignores consensus (examples:
1,
2,
3). Sometimes those edits have become rather impolite (as in the edit summary
here). My hope is that this can be solved by limiting the rights of IP users to edit the article.
Renerpho (
talk)
20:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I wish to kindly request for an edit to this template to publish a biography article on wikipedia. The article is not copyrighted or duplicated from any other sources and it is of high value to the wikipedia space, as it is about a growing and potent figure in the African space.
Theviptalabs22 (
talk)
13:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: 2 weeks semi-protection. High profile event, attracting IP editors posting poorly worded demanding proofs.
Example. I don't want to wade through such events.
Harizotoh9 (
talk)
20:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I have been away for a couple of years and I am back but unable to edit my user page because it's semi-protected. Can some admin please unprotect it? Thanks in advance.
FayssalF -
Wiki up® 22:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I removed the protection a few minutes before your reply. Your user page is protected to the same level as semi-protection by an edit filter so no harm done, I guess.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
22:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP editing while logged out after user ZemenfesKidus recently blocked, same IP range was blocked from this page for editing while logged out back in February. Similar content altered by user and IP
Magherbin (
talk)
23:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Persistent vandalism from IP and new users ever since it has been unprotected. It was previously protected for a year. Time to consider an indefinite or a long-term protection at the very least given that it gets regularly high views and is a
featured article at that.
FrB.TG (
talk)
01:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
(Non-administrator observation) Note: The page is already semi-protected, so that should be enough to suppress most vandals. interstatefive (
talk) - just another roadgeek
23:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This was "declined for now"
recently, but the same SPA is back with a new account two new accounts, no indication that they would stop without semi-protection.
mfb (
talk)
07:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Request some assistance with a temporary page protection. A particular IP has been reverting edits and has been introducing an year of birth which is unsourced. I can not edit any more since I will be in violation of
WP:3RR. The IP has revert-edited 5 times now. I request this change to be reverted and the page to temporarily protected. Copying
user:Robby.is.on as an FYI.
Ktin (
talk)
03:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Persistent
vandalism. Additions of joke editts such as " crow", dollar thief etc to his name, additions of pseudo death date of living person.
Dove's talk (
talk)
10:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This BLP page of a politician is having a wave of edits(started <2 hours ago), due to what appears to be recent political happenings in Pakistan. There have been 38 recent edits by 17 different IPs.
I have found it hard to ascertain if any are constructive, but overall it appears the changes have been either unconstructive/vandalism/poor quality or have been edits reverting the previous changes. –
2804:F14:C060:8A01:39ED:2019:D269:496A (
talk)
12:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I request that the image on the "Killing of Patrick Lyoya" page be REMOVED immediately. It is disturbing and by having it included especially at the top of the wikipedia page, it fetishizes the violent murder of black people.
Cheysharvey (
talk)
15:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: As the concept is relevant to a number of religions, this article will be exposed to possible vandalism and differing viewpoints.
StolenFocus007 (
talk)
11:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I am Monica Gandhi and someone keeps on vandalizing my page. These 3 lines are not appropriate as I wrote articles changing this thinking and the Mehdi Hasan interview was completely libelous and inappropriate; there was no basis to put this interview in here when I have done 100s of interviews during COVID. This person who keeps on vandalizing the page should be stopped from editing. My institution UCSF keeps on trying to edit this page and is unable to. Please unprotect this page and allow editing by UCSF. These lines should be removed:
"The literature she reviewed suggested that masks can reduce viral load by filtering the majority of particles, and that countries with mask mandates had dramatically decreased death rates.[15][17] In an interview with CBS News, Gandhi said, “How much virus you get in is probably one of the most important determinants of how sick you get ... By having a mask over your face, it filters out the majority of viral particles. So, even if you do get exposed to COVID ... you are going to get very little virus in, and if you do get COVID, you’ll get less sick.”[18]
Gandhi was criticized by Mehdi Hasan during her appearance on his MSNBC talk show in February 2022 for her predictions during the pandemic and ending restrictions early.[19]"
Declined. Again, not undue to the point of being defamatory. And, any further
legal threats (soft or hard) will be subject to sanctions from this point on. I actually agree (to a point) that that addition is undue, see the discussion I started at
Talk:Monica_Gandhi#COVID predictions, criticism and undue weight. In any case, adjusting the protection or lifting it outright is, at this time, simply irrelevant to the matter at hand.
El_C10:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Due to the salacious nature of some of the laptop's contents, this article will always be the target of extremely graphic and BLP-violating attacks, such as
this one. Therefore I request indefinite and permanent protection. --
Valjean (
talk) (PING me)
16:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent attempts to add an unreferenced or improperly referenced date of birth. Latest series of the TV show she stars in has just started, increasing the problem.
FDW777 (
talk)
16:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – One or more user(s) from IPs make disruptive and vandalism edits by ignoring Wiki guidance and I can't restore the page again and again since it would lead to edit war.
AntanO17:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Temporary semi-protection - Page repeatedly
wiped by IP-hopper that really doesn't like Papua New Guinea and has been blocked twice so far today.
Egsan Bacon (
talk)
20:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:Temporary semi-protectionBLP set to appear on TFA 22nd of April. I understand the automatic TFA protection has ceased a long while back. Perhaps I could request temporary protection leading up to and until after it appears. No expectations of getting approved, but worth a try. Thanks --
Pseud 14 (
talk)
17:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
A bit of a low edit rate for semi-protection to me, but Pending-changes protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Feel free to request an upgrade to semi if the edit rate becomes too much for pending changes.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)22:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Of all the edits since the last round of semi-protection expired, all but three edits from IPs were vandalism by LTA-ers.
Aoi (青い) (
talk)
21:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page was given pending changes protection in 2013 for BLP violations. However, Christina was shot to death in 2016... BLP doesn't apply anymore because both she and the perpetrator are dead. I also checked the page history to see if anything has happened that would warrant further protection (e.g. vandalism, edit warring, etc.) and found nothing.
Helen(
💬📖)
22:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This article downplays the oppressive regime called Israel and its continual, systematic and brutal actions towards one ethnicity and especially the children of this particular race. In this particular case there was no evidence the children stabbed and there was no trial of this. The children were attacked, this is a cert, and the surviving child was left unaided for approx. half an hour, broken and bleeding while adult Jews were yelling profanities such as "die you son of a whore".
All of the above was omitted from the article and Wiki..... hasn't even added in the latest news, i.e. that the young survivor has sat in an Israeli prison for seven years and that on the 13th April the Israeli court released him.
122.104.60.197 (
talk)
21:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done. The ability to edit pages that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is restricted to logged-in users with at least 500 edits and 30 days tenure as a result of an
arbitration decision.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
21:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Subject is a popular internet meme, and keeps getting vandalized. The page has been protected before, but vandalism continued after it expired. - Poydoocan talkand edit02:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
No, bad bot! Erm: Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nate Speed broken caps lock, you know how it goes...
El_C09:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Cornerstone2.0, looks like you've given up on using edit summaries after Nov 2021. I know it might seem repetitive, but edit summaries help outside reviewers. This page, in general, has a surprisingly low rate and quality of edit summaries for some reason.
El_C09:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I think this page should protected because of many inaccurate information is being added by some IP users and some registered user. They are replacing the budget of the movie which is already sourced with a reliable source.
Ssvlogs369 (
talk)
09:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The rate remains fairly low compared to that preceding the last protection (Jan-Feb). Might be premature to set pc in case it picks up again (not too much correction lag in any case).
El_C09:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The majority of activities for months are either vandalism or point-of-view pushing from IP addresses. I assume this might continue indefinitely, but as it's usually from IP addresses any protection would be helpful, the longer the better.
CT55555 (
talk)
10:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Quite numerous vandalism today and in past couple of days ago. So, requested for protection at least 2 months.
Fade258 (
talk)
06:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The same edits pop up again from a diff IP, there have been a number of disruptive editing patterns on the article, which has been going on a while in a heavily edited article, this need perm semi.
Govvy (
talk)
08:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: I think this page should protected because of many inaccurate information is being added by some IP users and some registered user. They are replacing the budget of the movie which is already sourced with a reliable source.
Ssvlogs369 (
talk)
09:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Resumption of same vandalism of page after short period of protection expired; picture of comic actor Norman Wisdom again being inappropriately entered into infobox for actor William Simons.
Domhnallbeag (
talk)
12:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP keeps editing stats. I left edit summaries and a hidden note in the code that they ignore that it's only league stats. 5 IP edits in last 4 days. I requested a couple days ago, was told not enough, but is still continuing.
RedPatch (
talk)
13:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I think this page should protected because of many inaccurate information is being added by some IP users and some registered user.
Ssvlogs369 (
talk)
13:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Edit warring by anonymous IP, who has ignored a request to stop. Edits go against a consensus reached in the talk page.
Richard75 (
talk)
14:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I think this page should protected because of many inaccurate information is being added by some IP users and some registered user. He is one of the greatest actor in indian cinema has ever seen.
Ssvlogs369 (
talk)
10:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I think this page should protected because of many inaccurate information is being added by some IP users and some registered user.
Ssvlogs369 (
talk)
14:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I think this page should protected because of many inaccurate information is being added by some IP users and some registered user.
Ssvlogs369 (
talk)
15:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Hello there, need your assistance here. An IP editor is adding unreferenced date / year of birth and I have been requesting for sources but have not been getting them. The IP editor (though from a neighboring IP block) was doing the same action on
Chibuzor Nwakanma and
Tadao Takahashi earlier. I am copying
user:Robby.is.on as an FYI. Greatly appreciate temporary page protection on this article or alternately an action against the IP block. I will very soon run afoul of
WP:3RR and hence I might not be able to act. Thanks.
Ktin (
talk)
17:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I think this page should protected because of many inaccurate information is being added by some IP users and some registered user. They are replacing the budget of the movie which is already sourced with a reliable source.
Ssvlogs369 (
talk)
11:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I think this page should protected because of many inaccurate information is being added by some IP users and some registered user.
Ssvlogs369 (
talk)
14:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Favorite target of an IP-hopping LTA going back to 2019. Article was heavily vandalized within hours of the previous 1-month semi-protection expiring. The vandal also routinely attacks the talk page as well.
Sable232 (
talk)
19:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Please protect the Bakshi Jagabandhu page as the user solarson919 has been removing reliable sources cited on the page and is inserting unsourced information into the page for caste glorification,such activities distort history and provide false information to our fellow wiki readers.(
AuthenticSources2546 (
talk)
14:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC) )reply
I'm not disagreeing with anyone the problem is solarson919 has added unsourced content in the page again and again,he added information that is not present in the sources cited in that article which i believe is completely wrong.(
AuthenticSources2546 (
talk)
14:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC) )reply
Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This has an interesting page history. Seems to draw a lot of activity. Virtually everyone who has edited this article until recently seems a single purpose account or is currently blocked for sock puppetry, including the editor responsible for the last four edits (a blocked sock trying vainly to apply a protection lock template). This is always a bad sign on a BLP or a CORP and resembles some sort of long-term coordination. Makes me wonder about the integrity of the BLP pagespace, which possesses some citation but seems puffy. I appreciate the reporting by both editors trying to help.
BusterD (
talk)
02:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Untill the dispute between Extended confirmed users is sorted out, this page should be protected as frequent changes in the page by different editors having different viewpoints is making it difficult to track. It is therefore possible that some useful content may be deleted in this edit war.
Heba Aisha (
talk)
06:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC).reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – After the previous protection expired, the vandalism from IPs and new accounts resumed. Please protect for a bit longer this time.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
08:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent editing by an IP hopper against consensus, we need a semi0protection (please keep pending changes in place, this seems to be a long-term problem).
Ymblanter (
talk)
12:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Two users, probably the same user because the edits are the same, are removing content with source and putting "most prestigious" in the lead even though the sources rather say "top".
Like last time, they remove sources without using talk page, and they will probably say that they provide "many" even though the diffs show removing the sources.
Ransouk (
talk)
10:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)reply
(Not this again!) That user is autoconfirmed, in any case. See
WP:CONFIRM: user accounts that are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits.
El_C17:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – - Page have rapidly gained interest recently, pageview chart growing exponentially (combined with page view count of previous article name), and there are now some different IP users trying to make back and forth edits on some word choices in the article.
C933103 (
talk)
19:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – There are some users that keep removing his loan to Turris from the Infobox, despite the existance of a reference in the article that literally says his loan was cancelled the same day he was unveiled. You can’t cancel something that doesn’t exist.
8Dodo8 (
talk·contribs)
14:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Most of the IP edits over the past two years or so have been removing seemingly-random, large chunks of the article content without any explanation. WCQuidditch☎✎16:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: A very high level of IP vandalism that I absolutely cannot keep up with. It’s occurred four times now in the last twelve hours that some IP has insisted on changing the page to say that all of Buffalo Bill’s victims were obese, which is patently false. I can’t imagine why someone would do this. Maybe it’s the same person/people who were vandalizing the Will Graham page recently—that page was protected, so they came to this one instead.
VictimOfEntropy (
talk)
08:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Adding of honorifics against
WP:NCINDIC. As before, started again literally the day the page was unprotected. Can we please look at indefinite protection here, as the IP is not getting the message or just doesn't care, and I'm running out of patience to have to keep manually reverting.
Dāsānudāsa (
talk)
09:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Adding of honorifics against
WP:NCINDIC. As before, started again literally the day the page was unprotected. Can we please look at indefinite protection here, as the IP is not getting the message or just doesn't care, and I'm running out of patience to have to keep manually reverting.
Dāsānudāsa (
talk)
09:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined Looks to be a single user who is autoconfirmed so semi protection won't be effective. Warn the user appropriately and report them if the editing continues. Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
09:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Perhaps, but the IPs might not be the same person, and so might not be aware that the same request was declined so many times already.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Rapid pace of IP edits disregarding that current officeholder, GEN
MM Naravane is still in office, and that incoming COAS, LTG
Manoj Pande is taking office on 30 April 2022. Likely in response to
this story. Two reversions to intents to correct have been made within 2-3 minutes of such corrections. If possible, protection should last until 30 April, when Pande takes office.
SuperWIKI (
talk)
14:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Protection is not beneficial as page requires numerous updates and editors have failed to respond to update requests. This page is so out of date that it doesn't even mention that he's currently running for office.
74.93.197.34 (
talk)
23:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined. Absolutely not. This protection will not be lowered for the foreseeable future. If you wish to introduce proposals or updates or whatever for people to review, draft better requests (
[71]). The limitations of
WP:VOLUNTARY are not to be offset by risking imminent
WP:BLP vios, certainly to the point
WP:LIBEL. The article talk page alone remains perilous (
[72][73]).
El_C12:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined. That may be so, but most of the disputes are happening between
extended confirmed users, so I'm wary of upgrading to
WP:ECP just yet. The only other viable option would therefore be to fully protect, but I don't think that is called for yet, either.
El_C13:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page has repeatedly been vandalised by multiple IPs, and thus I feel it would be appropriate to semi-protect this page for the time being.
HenryTemplo (
talk)
16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism as well as disruptive edits by newly created accounts. Requesting protection against edits by users who are not at least extended confirmed.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
19:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Too many Users are engaging in Edit war after adding reliable newspaper source called Times Of India, i think it is worth considerable to further add a layer of protection to this page, thank you.
Sai Raghavendra Puranam (
talk)
16:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This article and
Battle of Benadir are bizarre. Both detail an obscure raid the Portuguese conducted against a Somalian city in the 16th century, and both have been persistently vandalized and protected on and off for years. They've been given several semi-protections, with the last one being an Extended Confirmed Protection, but vandalism continued as soon as protection wore off even despite multiple bans to many sock-puppet accounts, by the looks of it all belonging to the same obsessive Somalian nationalist. Since everything has failed despite our best efforts I now strongly request that an Indefinite Extended Confirmed Protection please be applied to both pages, because I've been cleaning them almost single-handedly for several years already, and that's getting old.
Wareno (
talk)
22:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. It appears the socks/vandals are getting blocked promptly when they appear, and that may be the best way to deal with this situation, since the vandalism edits are not frequent enough to justify protection. Applies to both articles mentioned.
MelanieN (
talk)
01:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: It seems that full protection on this is a bit of overkill, especially when the user who was vandalizing the page leading to the protection has 12 edits and has been inactive for 2.5 years. The protection level has also caused an issue with RfDs about the page due to the inability to edit the page to add a template.
TartarTorte02:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Unprotected. Sorry, I don't know what happened there. That redirect should have been protected at
WP:ECP level, not full. Sorry again.
El_C09:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The worst thing one could do to this page, I guess, is replacing it by a redirect, making the settings page inaccessible. I can't think of any other way to cause noticeable disruption. Pages are usually
not protected preemptively, but perhaps an administrator will protect it as a "highly visible page". Which it isn't at the moment, if I understand correctly... But I'll leave this open.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
21:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Okay, but edit warring is against policy, and a violation of BRD is nearly always the first step in edit warring. It is often cited as evidence of edit warring, and, AFAIK, is a often clear proof of who started the edit warring. Let's hope they'll stick to discussion now. --
Valjean (
talk) (PING me)
00:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Article is suffering from British and Singaporean company edit-warring. Protection was removed 4 days ago and seems to going to persist again. A note to Cullen328, the original administrator protecting the page, was given on talkpage also.
Justanothersgwikieditor (
talk)
10:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Recent rash of what appear to be COI edits by SPA accounts which turn out to be largely promotional and unsourced additions/subtractions. Chaos ensues and protection may help calm things down a bit.
Geoff | Who, me?18:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: This page has seen a lot of vandalism by IP users and users who have just registered. In the most recent edit I fixed them all. I don't think non-autoconfirmed users should be editing this page, and I believe most of them just got to that page by following the link.
0xDeadbeef (
talk)
04:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP edits claiming death of living person without sources, all from the same range
Storchy (
talk)
10:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of vandalism in facts and information. Someone adding bad words to the page with malicious intention. Please protect this page.
212.104.236.173 (
talk)
11:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: To avoid edit wars and to protect the integrity of the page, It must be made sure that only verified and logged-in people should edit the page which avoids the case of page vandalization so that the information is secured of the page. NameIsShaheer (
talk)
12:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Criminal conviction in personal life section is constantly being removed. The news story is true and correctly sourced. It has been removed five times since last September and as recently as today.
Thegeordieman (
talk)
12:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page is currently fully protect with protection (I think) due to expire today. Since protection was imposed due to edit warring, an RFC has been opened, but the creator of that RFC is currently showing the same poor behaviour (personal attacks and not assuming good faith) thus I have little confidence he/she is going to play by the rules. I don't think the RFC will conclude amicably any time soon so I would suggest leaving the article protected for longer. In the meantime any admin who wants to swing by the RFC and steer things back in the right direction would be very welcome.
10mmsocket (
talk)
17:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Followers of Rabbi Miller appear to be uncomfortable with the newly added, well cited information and are attempting to remove it wholesale.
DemocraticLuntz (
talk)
20:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Following the departure of multiple
User:SPWTulsaOK1213 socks after their attempts to add unsourced information, including an exact date of birth, e.g.
[74],
[75],
[76], as well as various attempts by IPs to add an unsourced exact date of birth, e.g.
[77], there have been two attempts today by IPs to add unsourced exact dates of birth and other disruptive edits.
Beccaynr (
talk)
21:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Multiple edits of vandalism on a controversial article that introduced false information different than what is provided in the source. See
this edit regarding vandalism.
WMrapids (
talk)
20:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Leave me bot, I was here 5th! Erm: Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Family wins again, this time in space (X).
El_C04:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Name of the article attracts a massive amount of vandalism from non-account editors; page should be permanently semi-protected from vandals.
Hussierhussier1 (
talk)
05:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Much to my surprise there is actually no massive amount of vandalism... last disruptive edit almost 1 month ago.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – The putting of unverified image by another user has warranted full protection as the another editor is not aware of
WP: MOSIMAGE, ,
WP:ONUS and other rules. They are just acting as
WP: STONEWALL to put image generated by themself without providing verification that it is of koeri people only.
Heba Aisha (
talk)
13:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – The reason is simple. The user generated image is not Verifiable in this case. The image is also violation of privacy policy of the individuals which are identifiable and their consent is not taken. It is nominated as of now for delition on the Commons on same ground. The edit and revert is getting ugly on some pages. Please protect it for some time to keep the content protected.
Heba Aisha (
talk)
13:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I went ahead and fixed it on their behalf based off of the block in their contributions and the fact that page was the only one on the disambiguation list specifically mentioning "historian".
Aidan9382(
talk)15:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: An IP-user changes "she" and "her" to "they", "them", "their". No consensus or discussion on the talk page.
Mann Mann (
talk)
14:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Hi my name is Malcolm London. I am the artist and poet this page is about. I am activist and organizer who has a lot for public visibility for a lot of my work. Work I am proud of but people random people come on here to slander my name and misreport facts. The first time I saw my wikipage it stated I was arrested and sent to jail for sexual assault which is entire UNTRUE. I have been arrested but never for anything like that. I have been arrested at protest and beaten by the police on several occasions. As a community member I have been called out for sexual misconduct and I've addressed those things publicly and aim to accountable for them. I would like to lock my page so that myself and other authorized users can make edits that have the correct information. The wrong information has costed me a several employment opportunities. My public twitter account has the correct and transparent information but Wiki is often the first page people see or respond to. I am begging you for protection so that people aren't reporting on sensitive information that is affecting my livelihood. I would certainly be willing discuss the sensitive nature via email or phone. Please protect this page so that people are not disrespecting me, my work or misnaming the harm of survivors.
Qu3stionThatN33dAnsw3rs (
talk)
17:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done Protection is not needed here; discussion on the talk page is. At the moment, in fact, the section of the article discussing the allegations is actually rather favorable to you due to your edits. But it cannot state that the allegations are false, as much as you believe, because a) they were published in the Chicago Reader, a reliable source, so only if it was reported there or in another reliable source that there was at least some doubt about their veracity could the article even begin to say that and b) all that it says now is that the allegations were made, not that it definitely occurred as stated.
Daniel Case (
talk)
17:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Considering the extensive history of protection and ongoing vandalism issues, Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)21:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There have been no edits of any kind since 16 April, and no edits by an IP user since 3 April.
Jayron3219:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. IP users (or 1 across multiple IPs), edit warring to include external links that are violation of
WP:EL in multiple regards.
Curbon7 (
talk)
02:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent additions of promotional material like You can now watch all television production of BITAG on its Youtube Channel, BITAG Official. from more than one likely undisclosed paid editors.
DanCherek (
talk)
03:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Someone has been continuously editing this page adding the same piece of unfactual information (that the fictional region of Sinnoh is based on the UK, rather than a part of Japan - you can Google this very easily to check it's wrong), which isn't being reverted quickly as it's somewhat niche and likely wouldn't be picked up by recent changes patrollers. They are using a new IP every 1-3 times they do it.
-- NotCharizard🗨01:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Recent protection by Ad Orientem reached end of period; immediately the same problem- IP addresses adding alleged biographical information (mainly about claimed royal background; these aggrandising edits coinciding with article subject's current heightened media profile) with no citations- returned. This page clearly requires some kind of long-term protection/ monitoring.
88.109.205.41 (
talk)
11:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Already protected. Article has been Pending Changes protected indefinitely since 2017. The level of disruptive editing does not justify an increase in protection level at this time.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
15:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Not really, the image is moderately recent one (2017). The subject hasn't changed much since, and no new free image is available. But an IP removes it every now and then, perhaps IP range block to this page would do (Diffs:
[78],
[79],
[80],
[81],
[82]) --
Ab207 (
talk)
12:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Found the button now, sorry. The TFA having an increased number of edits is expected. It has not traditionally been seen as reason for protection; rather, it's been tradition to leave the TFA open to attract newcomers unless the onslaught is really terrible. Has the view on this changed?
2A02:8071:184:DA00:E925:895A:60C7:D542 (
talk)
15:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Quoting policy, "Today's featured article may be semi-protected just like any other article. But since that article is subject to sudden spurts of vandalism during certain times of day, administrators should semi-protect it for brief periods in most instances." Yet, you've protected for two days.
2A02:8071:184:DA00:E925:895A:60C7:D542 (
talk)
15:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not an admin but I don't see any vandalism on that page. Maybe only the most recent edit but I'm not entirely sure on that. Regardless, I highly doubt that would be enough to warrant page protection. ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. (She's a local politician who said something stupid and offensive in a campaign ad. So naturally random people on the Internet are trying to prove they can be more stupid and offensive.)
GRuban (
talk)
20:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page is about the largest province in Pakistan (110 million people) so deserves protection and it has been vandalised multiple times before — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MT111222 (
talk •
contribs)
17:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Article subject is a well-known and well-followed figure on social media who has recently been in the news for allegations that his attorney (and at least one IP editor) characterizes as part of a "smear campaign" (without evidence). Recommend increasing the protection level for this page until the heat around recent press coverage dies down.
Reason: Frequent vandalism takes place on the page. I keep asking the unregistered editors to stop putting fake information but they aren't listening. They keep putting contestant Munawar as the winner despite the show having two more weeks to go before the finale. So I hope that the page is protected because of the vandalism taking place.
Nikita Bhamidipati (
talk)
05:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request for temporary page protection against IP's who over the past few days remove or replace sourced content with nonsense and other trivial edits such as changing population numbers.
Dawit S Gondaria (
talk)
07:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I was asked to add more information and photos as well as update the status of the group and remove false information about allegations. The “history” tab keeps getting deleted and replaced with false information and seems like a personal vendetta against the artist at the sake of public knowledge.
Kerberosmusic (
talk)
16:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Probably needs semi until the court stuff blows over. Repeated disruptive vandalism attacking the article subject. Probably needs a check of the history for revdels of disruptive material as well. Thanks.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
18:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Temporary extended confirmed protection needed. An increasingly single purpose account (Zaikadu) is reintroducing potentially controversial claims about this person paternal origin without seeking consensus. IP's are overturning that and in turn uninvolved editors are reverting the IP. Nobody is seeking out the talkpage to reach an consensus. Temporary protection for this article to stop this edit warring.
Dawit S Gondaria (
talk)
09:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: The origin of borscht is Ukraine is based on reliable sources and long-standing consensus amongst registered editors. Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, there has been a steady stream of IP editors (whose IP addresses almost all lead to Russia) who change the origin to "Russia", sometimes with comments that "Ukraine didn't exist when borscht was invented" on the Talk Page, parroting the political POV of Ukraine's Russian invaders. A restriction on IP editors should be sufficient to block most of the war-influenced editing against consensus. "Temporary" should be understood to mean "for the duration of the war".
TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (
talk)
08:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:Indefinite Semi-Protection. Persistent unsourced addition. This is getting tiresome, this article has been protected many times, and its time to protect indefinitely.
OnlyFixingProse (
talk)
08:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Ongoing IP vandalism/NPOV issues. This page was very recently protected, but a series of bot actions seemed to unprotect it, I think.
CT55555 (
talk)
23:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Increase in edits in favour of the Marcos narrative/revisionism, especially in light of their renewed prominence due to the late dictator's run for the Philippine presidency in this year's elections.
120.28.248.183 (
talk)
12:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: He has done many interviews and has a specific way he wishes to promote himself. His Wikipedia page needs to represent his wishes. If true research is done, then you’d see what his truth is. It’s a part of his character. I understand if you want to say his real name Donovan Danhausen is -whatever- but his character Danhausen is different. He created his page and I want to protect it. I’ve thoroughly researched his persona. Interviews, watched matches, how he interacts with fans, and get accurate information from his father. All the things the “character” Danhausen says. People editing this page are changing everything to the human. Example, his height/weight. He did a verbal interview with Fightful. He said what his height/weight is. It can be referenced and I changed it. But someone else wishes to make sure it’s Donovan as a person. They did a different reference that was older. Danhausen is a character!! His Wikipedia page needs to be accurate as Danhausen THE WRESTLER! His page should be protected as such. It’s like if you changed RuPauls page to be all of her as a man. RuPaul is a character. Just as Danhausen is. Despite what some individuals think…his character needs 100% protection.
Wndr Twin Powers (
talk)
06:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – The page was protected due to disruptive edits by various IPs. After the page protection expired it started again. It would lead to 3RR since the user is multiple IPs and not ready to discuss and continue POV edits.
AntanO04:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Requesting temporary semi-protection on this article due to several IPs making low-quality, likely vandalism edits. Rollbacks have been reverted by offending users.
★AmaTALKCONTRIBS15:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Section "Health": "Putin is has reportedly been receiving treatment [...]" seems grammatically incorrect to me. I suggest: "Putin has reportedly been receiving treatment [...]"
Nimda12345679 (
talk)
15:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Constant edit warring by IPs and others over the identity of the fourth F for the past 2+ years. The fourth F has long been uncited despite this edit war, until I added a source today. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (
投稿)
04:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: As usual, IP vandalism resumes one day after PP ended –
[98]. That's three PPs since December 2021. Suggest extending it to indefinite or at least a much longer period, like a year or more.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
11:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Adding end date of show without sources. So it needs protection. Editor won't get warning notification as they use mobile phone for editing.
Shinnosuke15,
14:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
User is inserting the book by unreliable author named Mushtaq Tijarvi. They were told to prove its reliability. But they are fail to do it instead edit warring. Please see the article history. It is a content dispute but not
vandalism, which should be discussed on Article's talk. But there are no such discussion there.
103.44.61.181 (
talk)
18:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
You've been removing it continuously without a legit valid reason. Gain the consensus first, and then get it removed, until then the article will remain as it as been prior to your removal of the FR. Before that, I'll continue reverting your disruptive edits again and again. The onus is on you to prove that this book is unreliable and so is its author, which you cannot. ─
The Aafī on Mobile(talk)18:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
It is what we called as
Editwarring which you are doing now, once you have enough evidences that author is reliable and have gain the consensus of community please feel free to add it. I have no problem.
103.44.61.15 (
talk)
18:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
edit warring is what you are doing, I'm just doing what was there before you began disruption. Start a discussion and gain consensus that the author is unreliable and so is the book. Then I won't have any problem if the community consensus decides the source is unreliable and is removed. For now, it is not. ─
The Aafī on Mobile(talk)18:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Dear admins, this has now turned into a serious content dispute and the IP user is adamant and doesn't want to gain the consensus first. I told them that gain consensus that the respective scholarly source is unreliable and then get it removed and besides that they are continuously removing it. Please protect it until the talk page discussion reaches any consensus. Regards, 19:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
AafiOnMobile (
talk •
contribs)
19:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. 22% of the past 50 edits are vandalism. Take note of the fact the page has been protected like 5 times before, and the most recent protection was for 6 months, but the most recent protection was 2 1/2 years ago. interstatefive (
talk) - just another roadgeek
15:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Way too much editing for Pending Changes. The election will be over in a few weeks so hopefully things will calm down by time this expires.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
22:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request pending changes, which I requested last time but the page was semied instead. IP addresses, possibly the same person, are persistently adding false information to this page which has been the subject of talk page discussion in the past. Discussion and sources have consensus that the IP's edits are incorrect. This IP user has never made one word of edit summary or talk page posts. The user makes a few North-Macedonia edits at a time in its sessions. The page has few watchers and this disruption is persistent and sporadic, which is what pending changes is for.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
18:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Resumption of warring on expiration of protection, re non RS that do not demonstrate these are "cover versions/renditions important enough to have gained attention in their own right".
Mutt Lunker (
talk)
19:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Jack Massey Welsh (born June 24, 1996 [23]), known online as JackSucksAtLife (now formerly JackSucksAtMinecraft), is an English YouTuber. He was born and raised in Bishop Auckland, England. He previously lived in North Yorkshire but currently lives in Nottinghamshire, England. He also runs many other channels such as JackSucksAtStuff, JackMasseyWelsh, JackSucksAtGeography, as well as many others.
After registering in 2013, Jack primarily posted
Minecraft Let's Play videos. In 2014, he hit 100 thousand subscribers. Over time, his style has diversified to include reaction videos, challenge videos, and play button videos.
Other things Jack is known for include promoting Larry in his video
'This is the new Pewdiepie vs T-Series'. He is also known for playing the
Kazoo, collecting
YouTube Creator Awards, and eating an
Eggplant. He has had drama with The Original Ace, who claimed that Jack had stolen his sponsor, even though Jack was sponsored by
Drop (at the time called Massdrop) first. However, this was later revealed to have been faked for the videos. As well as having drama with The Original Ace, he has also had drama with Willz The King.
Jack used to make many
Minecraft videos on his main channel, including series such as, Hacker Catching Trolling, One Life, and Harmony Hollow. However in 2019 he moved his
Minecraft videos to his channel JackSucksAtStuff.
Creator Awards
Jack has an ongoing series on his channel in which he aims to get as many Creator Awards as possible. He currently had nine real Creator Awards, two fake Creator Awards, one yet to arrive, and one miscellaneous award.
Original 'JackSucksAtMinecraft' Silver Play Button, November 2014[1]
Bought 'JackSucksAtLife' Silver Play Button, April 2019[2]
Earned 'JackSucksAtStuff' Silver Play Button, August 2019[3]
Pending changes protection - Reason: High level of edits by New created accounts and Anon IPs that continuously uses Social media, Twitter and Facebook as a source for Partisan claims.
Mr.User200 (
talk)
19:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. per WP:ACDS/ Eastern Europe. This page is going to attract vandals and POV editing like moths to a lamp.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
22:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated insertion of copyrighted content (logos) which have been deleted many times. Only way to stop this is to stop the disruptive editors from being able to edit this page to add these repeated copyvio images.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
09:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This is the first time I have requested this, and perhaps it is too minor. This page was initially rejected at AfC for lacking sources and not being written in a neutral/encyclopedic tone. I found the draft, added sources to demonstrate notability, and moved it to the mainspace. Since then
Nico C35,
YeonL, and an IP editor have added back the
WP:PUFFERY. Their only edits on Wikipedia are to this page. I am not adverse to corrections, indeed I made two errors on the page I moved to the mainspace (and have corrected them), but the puffery seems a bit much ('innovator skillset','deep knowledge','critical inventions','great potential',brilliant female engineer','innovative thinker').
Thanks for your help and consideration.
DaffodilOcean (
talk)
13:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of Non-User Edit vandalization, alot of user based works and contributions are basically removed because of this type of vandalization which is illegal. NameIsShaheer (
talk)
16:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: "Run-on sentences" section is subject to repeated vandalism (vandals keep removing punctuation, thus turning the section into a run-on sentence itself)
Marisauna (
talk)
22:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Multiple users have added many uncited sections. There has also been occasional vandalism, by users explicitly violating
WP:AGF,
[104] and accusing others of personal attacks.
Saxones288 (
talk)
01:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
To
Ad Orientem, my apologies for my last edit on the page, as it was being made as the page was being semi-protected.
Edits were made by the user who requested semi-protected status after the page had been dormant for an extended period of time. To me, this was interpreted as
WP:VANDAL and
WP:PA; however, I am not closed to alternative interpretations.
TheHelixYT (
talk)
01:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@2A00:23C4:1394:9C00:A57F:E465:7B8F:4BD6. If you have any suggestions for improving the article, please make them on the
article talk page. Given the very long history of problematic editing at this article, I doubt protection will be lifted any time soon - courtesy ping to
User:El C, the protecting administrator. You are of course blocked from editing the article in any case.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
21:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandal adding grossly offensive material. Previously blocked, but returned under a different account; seems page protection is needed.
Solipsism 101 (
talk)
04:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The topic has become increasingly discussed in the media. Page edits have increased substantially and deserves increased protection.
Titus Gold (
talk)
02:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page has had some poor edits and poor standard of edits, sometimes biased, leaning both ways. Page deserves further protection.
Titus Gold (
talk)
02:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page edit frequency increased and multiple sub-standard edits. Important page and therefore deserves further protection from minimally experienced editors.
Titus Gold (
talk)
02:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Edit warring, a high number of reverting. Increased traffic and edits. This article is about an important historical figure in Wales and so deserves increased protection.
Titus Gold (
talk)
02:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: An important page of high quality which deserves protection. Far more edits now happening on this page with a high number of edit-warring and reverting edits.
Titus Gold (
talk)
02:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes protection: Persistent Vandalism. A page frequented by school students, with predictable results... 🙄 Not a crazy amount of vandalism, but almost nothing constructive.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
13:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The IP who vandalized it in June 2020 was protected, however since it was the proxy IP that has been blocked twice, protection is no longer necessary. Protect it again if problems occur.
142.112.236.29 (
talk)
05:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Materialscientist: Pinging protecting admin. I'm a bit torn on this one. The vandalism that occurred prior to protection seemed pretty routine, so jumping straight to indef protection seems like it might have been overkill. On the other hand, with the invasion of Ukraine still ongoing, articles on these kinds of subjects are at higher risk for vandalism, so I'd be a bit hesitant to unprotect too. Maybe split the difference and make the protection expire in a few months? Just a suggestion.
—ScottyWong— 14:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I randomly checked 7 or 8 articles on US States. Of those, only one (New York) did not have some level of protection in place. I am highly skeptical that if unprotected, Ohio will not quickly become the target for disruptive editing. Sometimes we need to use a little commonsense. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
02:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
It’s a deprecated template. Functionally retired or archived. You wouldn’t want a prankster breaking into a retirement home and doing shit to the residents, would you?
CreecregofLife (
talk)
05:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Content dispute. There is an ongoing discussion but the involved users are continuing to revert each other past the three revert rule. –
DarkGlow •
20:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Cannot imagine why such a highly political and emotionally charged subject would not be a magnet for vandals and disruption. I think the best bet would be to let editors make edit requests. --Deepfriedokra(talk)09:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Could we please try a period of semi-protection, in the hopes of generating some talk page discussion? The article is frequently edited by non-autoconfirmed users in order to add desired caste classifications or remove undesired ones, with little reliable sourcing or justification for the changes. No recent talk page discussion.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
21:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Various IP users are persistently adding an actor to the cast list without a reliable source. The actor’s name does not appear anywhere in the opening or closing credits. I have warned the users to add a source but they ignore warnings and continue their disruptive editing. They all come from the same IP range so it may be the same person.
Telenovelafan215 (
talk)
23:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – can we please get protection on this? new accounts are popping up as soon as the other finishes an edit and it's obviously being vote brigaded.
PRAXIDICAE💕18:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Increase to semi-protection. Banned user Jinnifer is back to haunting Talk:Horror films again, this time Jinnifer is trolling other editors, via IPs with personal attacks, using homophobic and ableistic slurs.
Mr Fink (
talk)
00:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended protection: BLP Policy Violations. Also frequent edit warring, partisan views being pushed, subjective and emphatic adjectives being used against policy for BLP
★AmaTALKCONTRIBS01:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks, but if there is any way to not protect my talk page, I'd prefer to follow that route. Trolls will still find other ways to troll me if they want to. I really don't care about their pathetic excuses for insults that they sling around. I've annoyed enough LTAs that temporary protection would be pretty pointless. Also, they'd just spend their energy on someone else's talkpage, who might not take it as well as I do. I also prefer to be able to communicate with non-autoconfirmed users, due to doing a substantial fraction of my edits on RC patrol.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
06:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Considering the gravity of the situation, there are bound to be unhelpful edits to the article, so SemiProt would be wise to have for the next month or so. Just so that things can cool down.
🜚 Yatagarasu 🜚03:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined for now. The page is experiencing lot more activity for obvious reasons, but I'm not seeing anything too crazy so far.
El_C08:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP hopping user has repeatedly changed character names on the page with no source. Character names are based on the end credits of the films currently.
SonOfThornhill (
talk)
12:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Most recent changes have been by new editors, POV-pushing sockpuppet editors, or IP addresses. Nearly all have changed the infobox "Islamic terrorism" aspects including the four confirmed named perpetrators. This article needs to be semi-protected or have pending changes implemented in the long term.
10mmsocket (
talk)
13:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Changes have occurred since it was last edited and developments have taken place in South Africa. Disney have partnered with DSTV and this is not edited in
JohnTalks (
talk)
15:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have fixed the formatting, though assumptions have been made, and the OP’s comment has replaced the default “The protection is no longer necessary because” message--
CreecregofLife (
talk)
15:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The extended user confirmation is not necessary because many people find mistakes in the page which extended confirmed users sometimes do not spot. Only a very small group of extended confirmed users know about the topics of the page. The protection level can be reduced one level.
AdvickV (
talk)
15:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The protection placement is probably recent and this reasoning seems to not take why it happened into consideration. Why not make an edit request? You don’t need to take down an entire security system to deliver a message
CreecregofLife (
talk)
15:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
They were moving their user page to draft space, and the user talk went with it. The user page is now in draft space, so hopefully they are done. I will watch the user talk page in case. --Deepfriedokra(talk)16:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Would this be a case of abuse of the page protection mechanism? My post has nothing to do with what CMD called "sockpuppetry" or whatever he/she calls it. But it was deleted (so as my edits to the article itself). He/she doesn't even allow people to talk at the talk page.
210.0.147.101 (
talk)
14:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
No I am not. And I failed to see sockpuppetry there. Yes there are many non-registered editors but that isn't automatically the same thing as sockpuppetry. If this is not a case for RfPP, should this be brought to AN? Where would you suggest?
210.0.147.79 (
talk)
09:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, it looks like you have been caught up in a page protection that was not intended to catch you, but nonetheless, is still necessary. I agree that, given the activity on that talk page and the fact that an individual has been using multiple IP addresses to circumvent a justly-placed block against them, unfortunately, we cannot have that talk page open for the time being. Don't worry,
there is no rush, and if you have something important to contribute, you can just wait out the page protection. --
Jayron3211:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't observe there are any individuals who are using multiple IP addresses, but, rather, several individuals. (I myself am on dynamic addresses but that's within a very narrow band.)
In any case thank you for the reassurance that I am not banned from that article/talk page, and that my edits were alright. Please help communicate with those administrators that made the mistakes, and reinstate my edits and my talk page posts at once when that's settled. It's truly a matter of concern that there are so many of them who are not able to actually read and to tell when there are real and helpful contributions. Those who work in such a mechanical way shouldn't be given such powers and duties.
210.0.147.41 (
talk)
12:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
You're knowledge of the banned user in question is not relevant. They are there, they have been using that talk page in violation of their ban, and the protection was necessary to stop them. Other than your IP address, the other addresses being used on that talk page are all from known ranges, and the format and manner of the editing closely matches, the banned editor in question. This protection will not be undone for the time being. Please let the matter drop, you'll do nothing but waste your breath at this point. --
Jayron3213:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Previous one-month protection evidently did not help much, article is still the target of a Brooklyn-based IP hopper. Long-term pending changes protection recommended.
Skywatcher68 (
talk)
18:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There's an ongoing string of bizarre sockpuppet attacks on this page that keep adding the same line strange text. Not sure what's going on.
PureRED |
talk to me |
00:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Hesitated on asking for page protection earlier as the number of disruptive edits were relatively low even though they increased due to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine as the article covers a relevant topic. However, unsourced additions and edits contrary to existing consensuses and policies (e.g.
WP:COMMONNAME consensus to use the name Transnistria) have spiked in the past 24 hours because of a recent attack on Transnistria's capital Tiraspol.
One was made when I was in the middle of an edit a few minutes ago. I think some kind of temporary protection (for a week or two) would benefit this page by keeping out vandals, as well as (perhaps good faith?) anonymous and new editors who seem to be pushing a pro-Russia narrative or POV (in the example given, the IP editor says "vile nazis", a reference to Russian propaganda that Wikipedia is written in part by Nazis because it does not reflect a few specific positions of the Russian government). Another example was this revert to my revert:
with the comment "Use your brains not Western propoganda".
CentreLeftRight✉19:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Same vandalism (naming him "Finger") from at least 5 IPs and 2 new-registered accounts (KidNamedFinger since Apr 21), multiple times over the past week or more. signed, Willondon (
talk)
01:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection ought to be removed because the protection status is being misused to propagate a slander in the very first paragraph - and now that deliberate mischief cannot be corrected because of the protected status. This is grossly unfair.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rajan Venkatesh (
talk •
contribs)
Reason: For months, this article has been the victim of constant attempts by a block-evading editor (or editors) to make bizarre alterations to the content, and the Talk Page is bombarded with strange, irrelevant messages by those same accounts, many of which have already been removed.
Pyrrho the Skipper (
talk)
23:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There is a persistent amount of vandalism, mostly in the form of good faith edits regarding his name and pronouns. The majority of edits made in the last few months have either been reverted or done for the sole purpose of reverting another. I think either Semi-Protection or Pending Changes Protection would be helpful here.
ChainSmoker82 (
talk)
02:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism (likely Russian trolls), eg. depicted as part of Russia, used term "liberation of Ukraine" instead of "invasion of Ukraine" etc.
PKleczek (
talk)
04:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Don't know what's going on, but this article has been seeing very heavy vandalism (of the "is owned by" variety) for the last few hours.
Meters (
talk)
07:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page has been semi-protected since 2009. It has been very little edited recently, apart from a brief flurry of minor edits by one user last month. The topic is not in the news. There is therefore no reason to expect any significant degree of vandalism.
2001:BB6:4713:4858:BCE7:78A9:F07F:E2FA (
talk)
10:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Unprotected With deference to the protecting admin, it's been two days and they haven't responded, I unprotected the article. If it becomes a problem, we can always re-protect it again. 13 years is a very long time.
Jayron3212:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
Less Unless (
talk)
10:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. IP user (using different ips) keeps changing it to how they want it and putting things out of chronological order.
RedPatch (
talk)
10:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism from three newly registered since last weekend, falsifying the titles that were #1 during various weeks on this chart. (I do hesitate in requesting, given these are registered users and could do the same damage as autoconfirmed. At the very least, the two unblocked accounts in the recent page history should be blocked as vandalism-only accounts.).
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
02:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Update: Another newly registered account has vandalized the same article since I filed this request, and I have started to suspect sockpuppetry when looking at the number of different accounts that have been doing the same at this and other related articles. I have filed a report at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lysimtmyblig.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
06:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:WP:ARBEE: People keep adding that Ukraine did this, based only on claims from Russian state media. Ukraine explicitly denies responsibility. ―
Tartan357Talk04:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The communism page is clearly being protected to keep its FAR LEFT bias. I always looked to Wiki as a source of non biased information. As a centrist it is very sad to see just how biased it has become.
2600:387:F:4319:0:0:0:9 (
talk)
10:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There's maybe a dozen total edits to that article this year; hardly persistent.
Jayron3213:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected Most of the editing that led to the ECP were around the Arab-Israeli conflict; regardless of this person's personal views, the topic falls within the remit of
WP:ARBPIA, and ECP is justified.
Jayron3212:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined per
WP:BLPCRIME, it is generally improper to include material on accusations which don't result in convictions to such articles, and recently deceased persons still fall under the BLP remit. Please stop re-adding it.
Jayron3212:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I have blocked 78.174.117.204(
talk·contribs·WHOIS) via
WP:AIV already; there is a gap of no edits between today and 2022-01-22. I think this can be archived for now.
Full protection: Persistent
vandalism – A weird campaign to remove cited material from the article by several editors is starting to become tedious. This needs to be taken to the article's talk page, but they seem insistent on just removing content. 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦
22:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Several people (likely the same person using different IPs) have been making repeated efforts to add some un-encyclopedic material on the ethics of HEK 293 cells to this page. They run the gamut from irrelevant to the users beliefs on the ethics of immortalised cells to political (anti-abortion and vaccine) rhetoric. All of it has poorly written, misusing the syntax for linking pages and adding excessive links within the text of the article.
Baneonplane (
talk)
23:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There have been two recent disruptive edits from a single IP; not a good candidate for protection. OhNoitsJamieTalk00:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I would like to edit a part of the mathematics section for educational purposes and usage ONLY. I will NOT damage, remove, or anything of that sort to the page, and I lack animus intent towards doing such a thing. My goal for the edit is to help people's knowledge of math grow far beyond the horizon of what we already know. I would appreciate it if you would allow me to carry out my deed so I can support the educational systems and its work within the vast variety of mathematics. Thank you.
2603:9000:DE19:B2F4:B5BD:431B:D454:B6EF (
talk)
23:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done. You haven’t identified the article nor have you described the edit that you are requesting to be made in sufficient detail for someone to make it.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
01:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I would decline. The main focus of the article is not PIA, and, apart for a sock editing it two weeks ago, I do not see any disruption for the last couple of years (did not look for longer).
Ymblanter (
talk)
06:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined It usually takes some fairly egregious disruption to lock down a talk page, even semiprotection, and I'm just not seeing it here. Yes, lots of noobs keep raising the same points, but it's not a disruption campaign, just annoying noobs being noobs. --
Jayron3213:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: some people are paid and try to spread false information as basically Sajad Gharibi Gozoo reach fame by spreading false information and fake photos that were photo-shopped .
Wikinforg (
talk)
14:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because whomever created the protection has an obvious bent against DrCampbell. This article is onesided and prejudiced against the subject. The article is libellous and there are inadequate references to support the theory against Dr Campbell
Jtjohnston (
talk)
21:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time.. Incidentally, the OP is now auto-confirmed, has edited the article – and been reverted.
Favonian (
talk)
12:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:
Please apply protection to this page for the following reasons. Violation of neutral point of view , caste glorification, sources provide state something else and original research
2409:4071:219e:7448::e9e:b0b0 is a blocked IP
Universallalal (
talk)
16:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – A series of IPs from the British Isles have been adding unsourced durations since July 2021. It looks like they don't intend to stop.
ResPM (
T🔈🎵C)
19:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Recent spate of vandalism from anons. Anniversary of event is coming up - May 18th - so am requesting page protection until at least a week or so after May 18, 2022.
Shearonink (
talk)
14:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
MelanieN (
talk)
22:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IPs keep flipping the origin of the drink around. Maybe a long running protection can force all parties to discuss on the talk page if they are interested in pinning down the source, rather than nationalistic vandalism.
– robertsky (
talk)
08:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Page gets continuously vandalized and needs protection. There are more edits which consist of vandalism than actual content additions.
Golem08 (
talk)
09:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Level of IP vandalism and sockpuppetry by the same person over sporadic periods of time, page was formerly protected as a result of this, I request the page to be protected again but extended confirmed permanently.
Noorullah21 (
talk)
02:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Hunterb212: Be grateful I didn't block you for
WP:3RR violations; I very well could have. Reverting unsourced changes is NOT an exemption to 3RR, and both of you should have been blocked, but I was feeling lenient and only fully protected the page. Please use the talk page, and seek outside help via
WP:DR instead of edit warring.
Jayron3213:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It's draft weekend, we're likely to see lots of this from clueless noobs. A week should be enough.
Jayron3213:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Significant levels of vandalism, in the last day, owing to allegations made surrounding the Member of Parliament for Tiverton and Honiton's conduct in the UK's House of Commons.
Reason: Constant stream of drive-by vandalism as Parish is top of the news at the moment.
Vandals working quicker than the Undo link can handle.
Ralph Corderoy (
talk)
14:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The ongoing damage to wiki pages by Chinese users and the dispute between Koreans and Chinese in editing the documents. (In addition, content related to Koreanic (as claimed by Vovin, Unger, Whitman, Kim Bang-han, Kazuo, etc.) should be added to the paragraph related to the language system of Buyeo language in the document)
211.230.224.218 (
talk)
04:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. IP, all I see is you making a typo, which I just undid (
diff). Not sure why you expect outside reviewers to understand the rest on the basis of this request summary alone. Like, "Chinese users," what? Or, "document," what document? And so on. Last edit by a human to
Talk:Buyeo was Feb, so that's not a good sign.
El_C12:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Also might do to protect the Tiverton and Horniton page as well. That's seeing a bit as well. Both of these are related to the Neil Parish stuff above. (Which is a new record for the most protection requests I've seen for a page at one time)
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
15:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Multiple IP and new user vandals on a page created yesterday, due to politicized nature of an agency department fighting disinformation. Probably only needs short-term semi-protection until 'Ministry of Truth' rhetoric dies down a bit.
Bakkster Man (
talk)
14:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer needed because the statements used in the content is full of misinformation and probably written by a terrorist group that is trying to blame its own atrocities' on a group trying to defend the Amhara people which is mainly a Christian population targeted for ethnic cleansing by TPLF , OLA and Muslim Terrorists. Reading the statement portrays as if the Jews are the one that caused the holocaust.
196.188.49.206 (
talk)
16:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Lots of recent attempts by IPs to insert information about sexual harassment allegations made against Laurent Elriani, who is not the same person. edit, clarification: Laurent is Linda's husband; still not sure it's appropriate to put allegations against Him in article about Her??
Elemimele (
talk)
22:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended-confirmed protection:Edit warring / content dispute. Requesting temporary extended-confirmed protection pending
conflict of interest noticeboard consensus regarding alleged conflict of interest by an editor who has contributed majorly in this article, see
WP:COIN#Gömböc for the COI report. The accused and other editors have been engaged in longer-lasting content disputes/edit wars per the report specific above. Protection should not be necessary for a long time, only for a limited period pending the result of the report to prevent further edit warring or abuse.
★AmaTALKCONTRIBS15:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
MelanieN (
talk)
02:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)reply
U.K. politics is a little feverish at the moment - it must be the fine weather, we Brits are not used to it! Not an excuse for such behaviour, of course. Let's keep an eye on things.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
21:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The same anonymous vandal from before has returned. Another user and I have both had to revert their vandalism already. Protection was granted before, but only for a couple of days, and now the same vandal has returned less than nine days after the protection was removed.
VictimOfEntropy (
talk)
05:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Happy to assist. Get some sleep. You look tired. Don't be shy about approaching me directly with such requests.
BusterD (
talk)
06:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection or indefinite pending-changes-protection: Recent vandalism, plus it has been semi-protected six times in the past (including once this year), which is enough.
Enderman123456789 (
talk)
05:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing. Currently has pending changes protection, but as this is a disambiguation page and unlikely to need frequent updates, suggest longer-term semi-protection. — Manticore07:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The article and its talk page have been subject to LTA since December 2021. Some Istanbul IPs have been on a mission to fill the article with conspiracy theory nonsense. From February until April, the article was silverlocked because of this. When the silverlocking ended in early April, the LTA immediately restarted. Therefore, I request permanent silverlocking for the article and its talk page. Best regards, --
Johannes (
Talk) (
Contribs) (
Articles)
12:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done. This does not appear to be a request for protection (as an aside, the OP has made a sourced edit to the page and it remains there).
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
12:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. multiple IPs and new or basically-new accounts keep re-adding the same material without RS. No attempt has been made to discuss at Talk. Material in question presumably falls under
WP:AMPOLPinchme123 (
talk)
07:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection High level of recurring IP vandalism. Note: most of the last 100 edits are vandalism (presumably by the same person) and reverts.
Andra Febrian (
talk)
07:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because there is no apparent vandalism from autoconfirmed accounts from several weeks/months now, neither there are edit requests. I request a admin to remove the protection from the article so that everyone can contribute and If disruption starts again U can restore the protection. Thanks.
2402:8100:2182:5B7D:DFE7:B68:A731:562F (
talk)
11:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The article and its talk page have been subject to LTA since December 2021. Some Istanbul IPs have been on a mission to fill the article with conspiracy theory nonsense. From February until April, the article was silverlocked because of this. When the silverlocking ended yesterday, the LTA immediately restarted. Therefore, I request permanent silverlocking for the article and its talk page. Best regards, --
Johannes (
Talk) (
Contribs) (
Articles)
12:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP vandalism and nonconstructive edits occur on a frequent basis, often with misleading edit summaries. I count a dozen separate instances of vandalism in the last two months, all but one of which were by IP editors. The rate seems to have increased since the Epic Rap Battles of History episode featuring Mansa Musa came out last November. I think semi-protection may be merited.
Ornithopsis (
talk)
16:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I admit I don't really fully understand how the protection process works, but a ten-day semi-protection doesn't seem like it would do much. There's been an ongoing pattern of vandalism going on for months now.
Ornithopsis (
talk)
17:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: The lack of understanding of wiki policies on the part of a user is making it a non notable topic. They are consistently putting tags and doing disruptive editing on a number of articles. Recently, they have nominated an article for deletion without going through
WP: BEFORE and may do the same here. Meanwhile, the discussion on their conduct is going on at
WP:ANI#Zamindars of Bihar, unreliable source. Hence, in order to avoid disruption till then it should be protected.
Heba Aisha (
talk)
06:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection High level of recurring IP vandalism. Note: most of the last 50 edits are vandalism (presumably by the same person) and reverts.
Andra Febrian (
talk)
07:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)reply