Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Content dispute. Although the user has started discussion, they keep edit warring to their preferred version against the current consensus. Jauerbackdude?/dude.19:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)reply
"The Tea Party movement was an American fiscally conservative political movement within the Republican Party that began in 2009." [first sentence of article]
SHOULD BE CHANGED TO
"The Tea Party movement was an American fiscally conservative political movement that began on December 16, 2007 (the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party which occurred on December 16, 1773), among supporters of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul."
Indefinite semi-protection: BLP Policy Violations. Persistent unsourced edits as soon as protection expired on this high profile Premier League player by numerous IP editors.
TylerBurden (
talk)
20:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Also appears to have been resolved with a sourced addition that a team has picked up the player.
Mifter (
talk)
03:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There have been several attempts of vandalism to delete, change, and put in unsourced content, and it can be assumed that this will increase further in coming weeks in light of political controversy and sensitivity around the topic of the article. ~Mohammad Hossain~04:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Recently news articles were published showing a spy for Canadian smuggled her into Syria. More than one IP address is trying to remove information about the involvement of the spy eg
this edit, I've tried to revert the edits but they do the same thing over again. Please can I request the article restricted so IP editors cannot edit it so I can start a discussion on the talk page to gain consensus on how to include the information?
Reason: One IP is constantly editing out the show's country of origin, even though the show never was a Cookie Jar, DHX or WildBrain production. If anything, semiprotect it.
WannurSyafiqah74 (
talk)
05:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Constant vandalism on the page, i.e. changing 'Azad Kashmir' to 'Indian Kashmir' or removing climate change claims that are verified with reliable sources.
Mannofthomas (
talk)
16:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent addition of unsourced content/speculation- season finale is less than a week away (airing September 6 at 10pm ET), so a protection that lasts until sometime after 11pm ET that night should be enough.
Magitroopa (
talk)
17:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The extended protection on this page is too much. It's overprotecting.
I'm actually one of the people reverting unsourced or random information and semi-protected pages are manageable enough.
So my request is to go back to semiprotection, because I saw edit wars worst than this, but the one on this page is barely mild.
I ask that you reconsider this request. Why does it have to be recent activity to within weeks or a few months? A mere glance at the edit history will show continual vandalism, every few months (often days or weeks whenever 142.xx is unblocked or gets a new IP), by the same person since at least 2018.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
18:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. These pronouns are too unconventional for
WP:BLP or
WP:GENSEX enforcement. Their usage or lack thereof should be determined on the talk page on the basis of consensus, rather than guaranteed by default.
El_C19:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
El C: Just want to flag that in this case, the 3 different IP accounts were switching from gender neutral pronouns to feminine pronouns. While there has been debate in the past about pronouns, it has been focused on what type of gender neutral pronouns to use (ie. they/them versus the author's preference of
Spivak pronouns). There's no content debate on if the author is nonbinary so switching to feminine pronouns is inappropriate and should fall under the polices you cited above. This is coupled with an IP calling Kobabe "mentally ill" for the use of gender neutral pronouns (see Old revision of Talk:Maia Kobabe).
Sariel Xilo (
talk)
20:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the explanation, I blocked that IP for that nonsense. Anyway, I wasn't suggesting we misgender them, but the argument for using
singular they as opposed to a pronoun few are aware of — that is a legit position. BLP or GENSEX does not give the side that wishes to use the unconventional pronoun an advantage in such a dispute, is what I'm getting at.
El_C20:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IPs are having a slow-motion edit war relating to the lead of the song. Seems to be related to the baseball rivalry between the Mets and the Braves. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)21:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: As per the previous request, there has been a persistent edit war over D'Arcy's pronouns for the last month; D'Arcy is non-binary and uses they/them pronouns. The disruption resumed shortly after the previous protection expired.
Sideswipe9th (
talk)
01:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Replysoft launch in Filipino business parlance is commencement of operations without any grand promotions. Such step is made prior to the outlet's grand formal launch that happens weeks later.
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Most edits to this page are vandalism or reversions of vandalism. There is little reason for new users to be editing template doc pages.
TornadoLGS (
talk)
02:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent transphobic vandalism going back months, seemingly coming from the same IP based on how simular language and address is. Ongoing after multiple warnings and messages to seek consensus. Last edit summary of IP misgendered Caitlin Jenner and told me "look in your fucking history book"
Stephanie921 (
talk)
04:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because there is undefined and incorrect information on the page that needs to be corrected and no one eligible to edit it is answering the people who requested changes. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Joana 904 (
talk •
contribs)
01:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined still no, after all the butchery of the title. The actor article has requests being answered in two hours, so the premise for the request is invalid.
Dennis Brown -
2¢01:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The expired protection was pending changes and, aside from one recent disruptive edit, there does not appear to have been any disruption for months.
Mifter (
talk)
04:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Did not see the above decline. Anyway, my thinking was that this repeated edit warring by IPs of this BLP concerning
MOS:ETHNICITY needed a firm response (though not a lengthy one, certainly not indef), seeing as it kept on going.
El_C04:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Mifter, the page was semi'd May 28 to June 4, but the pc that was applied on May 25, expired on Aug 26. The bot removed the protection tag today, however, which might explains why the disruption resumed also today.
El_C04:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the heads up,
El C. Agreed that the prior tag may have contributed to the lack of disruption. I went back and forth on this one if pending changes/semi was needed so no objection to the short term semi. Thanks,
Mifter (
talk)
05:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Several IPs are edit warring to bring article back from redirect. The musician is completly non-notable. scope_creepTalk08:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Question: Could you elaborate why you want the AfD protected, and not the article itself? Unless there is massive disruption (which I do not see atm), discussions should be open to all who want to contribute, even in contentious topics.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protected - Indef. After reading
this 2021 motion ('Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion') I am putting indefinite EC protection on this AfD and logging it in
WP:DSLOG. The motion says " non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area.".." Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions."EdJohnston (
talk)
15:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing- IPs (possibly the same person) continuing to put finale date for season 2 with no sourcing or sourcing that does not include the information whatsoever. Appears to be
original research based on the amount of episodes there are for the second season.
Magitroopa (
talk)
16:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Temporary semi-protection: clear meatpuppetry here. A blocked IP user was doing these reverts, now another came with another similar IP.
Beshogur (
talk)
14:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent attempts to inflate number of adherents to 700,000 or 1,000,000, not supported (as occasionally claimed) by census results and representing a massive increase from previous estimates of 12,500 (this article, unsourced) or 25,000 (
Religion in Ghana, also unsourced), and over half of all the adherents of many religions grouped as "other" in Ghana's 2021 census. As far as I can tell, this article's only edits in 2022 have been such changes by IPs and their reverts by registered editors.
NebY (
talk)
16:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. The trailer for the upcoming movie dropped on 8/31 and the page is receiving lots of attention.
Kbabej (
talk)
17:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Editor with strong suspicion of COI,
with open COIN report, continues to add the same promotional material to the article, isn't responding to noticeboard or their talk. COI suspicion is extremely strong (Only edited this one article over 14 years, headshot of subject uploaded by editor as "Own Work"). Editor is not EC, would prevent addition of promotional puffery while COIN report is worked out.
FrederalBacon (
talk)
16:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – She will have a big match at
Clash at the Castle (3 September) and there may be trending about her because of that PPV match. So some editors may decide to move this article to her new ring name without consensus/discussion. I request indef move protection because it happened before when she debuted on WWE main roster with a new ring name.
[1] If indef move protection is not acceptable, then 1-3 month will be very helpful.
Mann Mann (
talk)
18:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. A bit too active for pc right now, but might me be worth looking into a range block for the latest.
El_C19:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Apparent sneaky vandalism by IP socks since the month of June. The article is itself under 1RR which can be gamed due to the lack of page protection.
TolWol (
talk)
21:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because it is no longer needed, no one will vandalism with it and some wrong information has been given in it, if the protection is reduced then we can correct those shortcomings.
TheYaduvanshiWarrior (
talk)
23:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Phikia, that's a content dispute, not "vandalism" — see
WP:NOTVAND. Just because something is sourced doesn't guarantee that's its suitable (generally, no idea about the specifics here).
El_C04:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protection: Unexplained removals of text. The page is currently semi-protected. The article may also be protected per an arbitrary enforcement (I'm not quite sure).
203.45.252.112 (
talk)
07:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is one of our LTA who targets (mostly) BLPs of Indian actors, particularly female actors, with grossly offensive material. They are known to return repeatedly to a page and in extreme cases, protection has been applied for one year. We are not there yet with this page.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
10:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined You can use the talk page to request edits. You might want to remember that the description should be that of the film, not of anyone's interpretation of the events that led to it's creation.
Dennis Brown -
2¢07:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Over the past two years, this article has been subject to numerous major attempts to revise it by about ten editors or IP addresses suspected of conflicts of interest (COI) or sockpuppetry. Yesterday, two IP addresses
were blocked for sockpuppetry.
Each of these incidents sucks up a substantial amount of community time and resources. Most of the lengthy discussions on the article talk page, for example, have been prompted by these sockpuppets or COI editors. It requires a heightened level of protection.
Snuish (
talk)
12:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Would, to my eyes, be eligible for indef semi or ECP under
WP:ARBPS. Please, for the love of all that is wiki, protect this burdensome page which sucks up so much editor time and effort. —
Shibbolethink(
♔♕)13:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page concerns an Indian government official, and repeated edits have been made by accounts with the same name as the subject of the page, as well as from IP addresses belonging to the Indian government (the National Informatics Center, to be precise). COI warnings to users making these edits are being disregarded, and the page is frequently updated to include personal advertisements, including links to articles written by the subject as well as the subject's personal website. Temporary protection might be advisable as the page's neutrality is already disputed (since 2021) and there appears to be a concerted effort to include promotional content. -
Naushervan (
talk)
12:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
You both know I wasn’t being disruptive! I was only trying to make the article better! It still annoys me to this day that you guys keep lying! Seriously, ENOUGH WITT THE LYING!!!!! This is awful for victims!!!! You guys were just causing problems, go ahead and keep adding wrong information on there, I was only trying add correct information and yet you guys keep harassing me and saying my edits were disruptive which they are not. This is literally gonna put you guys in hot water for your childish behavior.
74.92.41.6 (
talk)
13:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Yes it's been a long-term target for a LTA. Yes it's previously been protected four times. But there's been only one instance of disruption since protection expired on 18 August. If it continues, re-request indefinite semiprotection.
DatGuyTalkContribs14:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PC since there is a decent amount of useful edits from non-confirmed users and the vandalism doesn't seem to be that frequent. If doesn't work as intended, feel free to re-request semi protection.
DatGuyTalkContribs21:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Probably no longer needed now its been moved from
Hoes and the base name now redirects to
Hoe DAB. If vandalism of this article or the "Hoes" redirect resumes the protection can be reinstated for either page. Protecting admin hasn't been active since June last year. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
17:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Perhaps they have a solid reason for it that I haven't noticed yet. I'm not going to go against their decision without at least attempting to communicate. There's no rush.
DatGuyTalkContribs11:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Anonymous user has been vandalizing band status since May 2022, stating that band no longer exists. Will not provide source for changes and is consistently reverted by multiple users but comes back and makes same change again and again.
021120x (
talk)
20:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected - I'm not sure if this is most accurate way to do this, but I feel it's best you submit it through AfC and if it's approved through there, the reviewer can come and request unprotection.
DatGuyTalkContribs21:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: The popular Dream SMP creator known as Wilbur Soot published his final "lore stream" in which he states he was born in Utah. Ever since then people with no accounts have been editing the article to include "Wilbur Soot" under people born in Utah even though he was born in the United Kingdom, even after multiple people reverting the changes.
Iamstillqw3rty (
talk)
08:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Seems every time those streamers sneeze we have to clean up silly messes on Wikipedia - hopefully the hordes will move on to something else in a few days, if they don't feel free to re-request protection.
firefly (
t ·
c )
10:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Try to prevent an edit war. Someone without an account adds their self-promotion to this article and when I delete that part, they revert my edits.
Maltimore (
talk)
06:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
thanks for semi-protecting the article. However, may I request that the protection is for more than 3 days? I don't think 3 days will be sufficient.
Maltimore (
talk)
10:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continuous IP vandalism and unconstructive edits happening daily. Requesting semi protection for 2 months. The state elections are 8 months away and no updates are expected on state election pages till at least 3-4 months before the elections. The page was protected for 3 days last week, but IP vandalism resumed once the protection was over.
Dhruv edits (
talk)
13:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I am on a Facebook group for this subject and the group owner has recently put up a joke post complaining that we call this a hoax and suggesting anyone edit the page as they see fit. Consequently we are seeing multiple cases of IP editor vandalism. Request 1 week of no IP editors.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
17:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Edit warring, partially due to off-site canvassing. Discussion is progressing appropriately on the talk page, but IP editors are now warring over the inclusion of a contested claim.
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk)
16:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism from multiple IP users saying the election will happen in 2023; there are pending proposals about this, and will almost certainly be approved, but at this point those are just proposals.
Howard the Duck (
talk)
22:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Frequent disruptive editing and vandalism, as indicated by the talk page and editor discussion about the film. At least a month should be reasonable enough to throttle any further attempts of disruption.
Screendeemer (
talk)
20:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Last night at professional wrestling event Clash at the Castle, wrestler Dominik Mysterio became a villain following a match.
However, many IP addresses have been reverting my edits. I have posted on the talk page to see if they'd reason with me, but the edits have continued.
It is likely that tonight on WWE's flagship television show, Monday Night Raw, that he will announce if he has aligned himself with the team or not. So please could it be protected for now to save numerous edits and potential edit conflicts? Many thanks.
Zippo9310 (
talk)
16:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined rather than just reverting their changes, discuss on the talk page what your problem with their edits are. Without discussion this is getting dangerously close to an edit war.
GedUK08:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There is strong suspicion that Sylvain Charlebois vandalized his own page with the intent of requesting a high protection level. Before the alleged vandalism, all information about Sylvain's harassment scandal—a high-profile harassment scandal in Canadian media—was erased.
Once this key information was erased,, the page was presumably vandalized. Sylvain Charlebois requested to protect the page.
However, the alleged vandalism was made from the same IP as where Sylvain Charlebois works and resides. Thus, Sylvain Charlebois used this sneaky tactic to erase his own controversial personal history and, then, request to protect the page, in order to prevent others from reinstating his public scandal story.
It is important to note that Sylvain Charlebois' harrassment scandal is crucial to his past, as it was a high-profile media story that ran across the entire country. This piece of information should not be ommitted from Sylvain's page.
Nosfer ariel65 (
talk)
03:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Increase to extended confirmed. The page is being vandalised by auto-confirmed users and is the page of someone involved in a current event.
DarkHorse234 (
talk)
12:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Raising to ECP for two days in the hope that the frenzy of vandalism dies down once the news cycle moves on a little. Courtesy ping
DatGuy - I had to override your long term semi-protection in order to do this, I'll restore it once the ECP expires. If I seem to forget to do that please do reapply it.
firefly (
t ·
c )
12:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I told you on this page this morning to start a discussion. You've not done that, you've gone onto the other user's page and put in an agressive warning, and just carried on reverting. I've locked the page. Get on the article talk page and discuss it.
GedUK15:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Article was reviewed, found to have no sources on a newly updated article and reverted to a redirect. This happened across the three articles. Several IP accounts have reverted/edit warred to return articles to previous state. Possible socks. Single refs are non-rs. No communication. scope_creepTalk14:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
El C Thank you, three months is more than enough to take us through the end of the season. And the next time you visit Ohio, the chicken fried steak is on me. You can’t swing a dead cat around here without hitting a Cracker Barrel… 😂😂😂
Bgsu98 (
talk)
17:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Might be an Indian/Pakistan Hindu/Muslim thing. There’s some ripe obscenities in the history, not that I’m suggesting anyone look.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
19:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated addition of poorly sourced or unsourced genres, and changing of sourced information from multiple IP addresses/uncomfirmed editors. >>Lil-unique1(talk) —
22:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done This can be requested at the talk page, but it took me all of 5 seconds to discover the outage is temporary, via a WP:RS. So "was" is not correct.
[30]Dennis Brown -
2¢23:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I would like to add back the removal of Sylvain Charlebois' harrasment/bullying scandal. This story is public news, and was a big media event about a public personality, which is backed by various news sources. It was removed (likely by Sylvain Charlebois' himself) under the argument that this was "irrelevant information." However, this part of his bio was properly referenced, and a news-worthy story that caused him to resign from as Dean of a university.
Nosfer ariel65 (
talk)
21:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Why Will you not entertain this? It is a public media event about a public personality. Under which pretext is this mention about Sylvain Charlebois irrelevant?
In May 2018, Dalhousie University opened an investigation into complaints of bullying and harassment allegedly perpetrated by Charlebois during his tenure as Dean of the Faculty of Management. The University hired an external investigator to assess the complaints and to provide a report to its President who suddendly resigned weeks after the investigation started.
[31]Nosfer ariel65 (
talk)
22:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
There were complaints, an investigation and no action taken. It’s not worth mentioning. Why are you so keen, what is your interest here? --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
23:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined For starters, this is the kind of material that rapidly becomes a BLP violation, the reason for the protection. Next, you haven't even tried to discuss the change on the talk page. Even if it wasn't protected, an edit like this that has already drawn attention, and reverts, must be discussed on the talk page first. I don't see any good coming from dropping protection.
Dennis Brown -
2¢23:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The pages are being vandalized by an anon and the first page is being redirected and despite multiple editors reverting. The anon persists at removing content and claiming a concensus which is not needed as there were discussions previous to the splitting of Peterborough and city of Peterborough. The pages should be semi protected for a temporary period as I don't see this vandalism ending.
DragonofBatley (
talk)
21:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High level of disruptive editing from IPs and new accounts, systematically changing figures to not match the accompanied sources, persistent corruption of the page and its infobox.
Kindly the page needs higher protection. Many thanks!
Fragrant Peony (
talk)
22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing by IP user. Page has already been protected because of her/him, last time in july (please see edit summary)
Alex2006 (
talk)
08:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. IP and another user appear to be edit warring over a Controversy section. IP has been warned for edit warring, altho I'm unsure if I should warn the other user as well ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Create with pending changes protection.The page is blatantly notable, and there is no wikipedia policy based reason to continue to keep it protected. In addition, there is a need for an unbiased source of information on this topic.
168.8.125.20 (
talk)
16:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
And I would strongly recommend that this one be declined as well - I won't take that action myself as it's probably best another admin have a look. I strongly believe that such an article would become a
biographies of living people disaster within moments, and disagree with the OP that the subject is notable. I can find a handful of churnalism type sources, nothing else.
firefly (
t ·
c )
17:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Given the recent provocation of KF I realise that this probably isnt the best time to create an article on one of their favorite subjects, Im rescinding my request and will remove it in a few minutes
168.8.125.20 (
talk)
17:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Subject of the article is currently involved in a controversy where people are speculating that he has been cheating in professional chess. Some of the disruption is vandalism (e.g.
[32] and
[33]) others more just BLP issues (e.g.
[34]).
Endwise (
talk)
17:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Started to request but semi but looking at the last 500 edits, there have been consistent reverts since the beginning of August with a good edit or two in between so maybe PC is better for a month or so.
S0091 (
talk)
20:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Recommending for at least a month to deter possible editors; seems like people still care about the slap at the Oscars.
InvadingInvader (
talk)
22:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – An IP has made frequent changes to the article, changing it from "a remix album" to "a studio album". I have warned the IP about their edits, however, it has not stopped them from continuing to revert the article and now a new user is engaging in the same changes. –
jona✉19:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Consistent vandalism (
12345) since its unprotection exactly a week ago. Same sort of edits (removal of "false" wrt Trump's election claims over and over) that resulted in the page being protected in the first place. Subject is running for a statewide election in November, so might be worth protecting until mid-November, as this is going to be the third time we've had to protect this in just over a month. ser!(
chat to me -
see my edits)23:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Multiple socks, SPA, COI, edit warring, 3RR, lack of communication on talk page, warnings, etc.. page history demonstrates the problem ---
GreenC06:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page was modified adding erroneous information, moreover this is a page with a considerable volume of daily views and therefore likely to be vandalised. In order to limitate this occurences, I request for the page to be protected.
Bastienmetay (
talk)
08:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Requesting page protection or other intervention as you see fit-- edit warring is ongoing regarding a current tweet, which is a BLP issue.
Gilded Snail (
talk)
07:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page is heavily vandalised. I would likely to request for semi-protection for this page to prevent it and to control what info's to include and omit from the page.
Loibird90 (
talk)
08:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Every alternative day, the page is being subjected to vandalism by random IP accounts and autoconfirmed accounts. Sourced content from Introduction and other sections is being removed from the page without providing any valid explanation or discussion with other fellow editors. Kindly put temporary protection on page. Thanks.
Kridha (
talk)
10:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Protection was removed earlier today, previous disruption by IP editors and non-autoconfirmed relating to the character's gender has resumed.
Sideswipe9th (
talk)
01:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
FMSky, this isn't that important, but why do you keep asking for indef protections for pages that do not qualify for it (this page has only been protected once before)?
El_C15:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
FMSky, this isn't that important, but why do you keep asking for indef protections for pages that do not qualify for it (this page has only been protected twice before)?
El_C15:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The fact that this is a current event is not a reason to unprotect, and given the level of IP disruption recently and the number of reverted edits, the current protection level appears justified. --Kinut/c15:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I responded to a very recent request for unprotection of this page. It may have been this person, a similar IP address at any rate. The request was not very clear and I advised that they should propose and discuss improvements to the article on the article talk page. The talk page is still unused. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
16:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
THe last time an IP vandalized that page was on August 15. I don't think the disruption is persistent enough or recent enough to warrant protection. If an admin decided it's necessary though then I'm not going to argue. ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654518:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Request for temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism, hoax and disruptive editing.
Thanks for taking action in my previous request last week.
However, persistent vandalism returned when the five-day protection expired. Especially with the launch of the station now scheduled for September 13, this request for further semi-protection would ensure that only verified journalistic coverage is inserted
KuyaStephenAlaEH (
talk)
00:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
ReplyEl_C Kindly see the special history page instead. I'm currently using an Android phone on the road and you would see unregistered IP addresses from earlier in the morning here in the Philippines and even some registered users putting unsourced/unconfirmed program additions. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
KuyaStephenAlaEH (
talk •
contribs)
KuyaStephenAlaEH, I did look at the revision history, that is what I always do, but again, if you could provide a couple of diffs, that would speed things up. Thanks.
El_C01:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reply Here are some
WP: DIFF collated from last night
Revision from Sep 7, 11:23 PM
112.201.55.78
|url=https://mb.com.ph/2022/07/16/willie-revillame-signs-with-ambs/ |website=Manila Bulletin}}</ref> Weeks after, Former [[ABS-CBN]] Star [[Toni Gonzaga]] and her husband and director Paul Soriano, and radio and TV broadcaster and Former [[ABS-CBN News]] Anchor [[Anthony Taberna]] also signed their contracts with AMBS.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Iglesias |first=Iza |date=September 5, 2022 |title=Toni Gonzaga, Paul Soriano sign contract with Villar's AMBS Network |url=https://www.manilatimes.net/2022/09/05/latest-stories/toni-gonzaga-paul-soriano-
Then here is the edit from 11:28 PM of the same unregistered address
On July 15, 2022, during his contract signing with AMBS, Revillame announced that his variety show Wowowin is set to return on AMBS since its final broadcast on GMA Network on February 11, 2022.[9] Weeks after, Former ABS-CBN Star Toni Gonzaga and her husband and director Paul Soriano, Radio and TV broadcaster and Former ABS-CBN News Anchor Anthony Taberna and Former PTV Anchors Kirby Cristobal and Cathy Untalan also signed their contracts with AMBS.[10]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing.
Protected before for disruptive editing. Since then, there's been many more unconstructive contributions, vandalism, and the like. Most edits from IP and non-confirmed users since its past protection have been reverted for reasons varying from vandalism to unexplained removal of content to POV-pushing. Chlod (
say hi!)
04:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Long-term semi-protection: I request administrators to semi-protect this page with an effect for long term instead of just 1 week this time because as soon as the previous semi-protection expires IP users come and either start doing fandom wars with using cheap language for other characters except their favourite ones or do fake edits. The links to latest fake edits have been provided below:
[35][36]Pri2000(
talk)
04:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. Josh Dunkley may be moving to Port Adelaide, however it hasn't been confirmed, and page is constantly being edited despite no sources reporting it. Requesting protection temporarily until a reliable source can confirm the move.
echidnaLives (
talk)
06:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. No idea how long AFL transfer gossip lasts, so hopefully this will be long enough to start with!
GedUK09:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes protection: Persistent Vandalism. Recommending for at least her premiership. She has so far and likely will attract vandalism.
InvadingInvader (
talk)
23:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It needs to be updated really to show the losses, then the vandalism would probably stop.
GedUK09:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Addition of Jat Castecruft to the article which is a obvious factual error. This IP account cites third-rate sources (or even below that) from random writers (who are not anyway close to being a
WP:HISTRS) to support their pov.
diff,
diff. They did the same couple of days ago and got away with it; though I caught it yesterday; see
diff,
diff. Indefinite semi protection needed given the disruptive past of this article.
∆ P&t ♀√ (
talk)
07:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC).
∆ P&t ♀√reply
"an overestimate of a little under one day per century, and thus has a leap year every four years without exception." - likely typo, should be "leap day" not "leap year"
142.164.244.6 (
talk)
19:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Edit war broken out, I pass no judgement at this stage on the issues involved, but could be worth halting this for a short period while issues are discussed on the talk page.
PatGallacher (
talk)
23:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)reply
There have been, at intervals up to just now, seven more edits, by three different people including the IP user, since you left that question.
Largoplazo (
talk)
11:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Hello, can you please see what I wrote in the page's talk page as well as in the Administrator Noticeboard?
here is the wikilink for it So many people have been saying over the past years (with no or very little reply in the talk page by the users that always edit the page just at their best convenience) in all Wikis except for the Basque and English Wiki says Elcano was only Basque (a nationality/citizenship that has never existed on its own, it's an ethnicity), do you think this is normal? And sure the ones that edit the Basque Wiki are the ones who wrote that in the English Wiki.
I don't want to make this too long, I beg to please read the text and the sources, and how they try to manipullate their content I hope for once this page can have proper historical facts, and not biased nationalistic claims. Thank you. --
84.125.64.26 (
talk)
11:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The disruptions and additions of unsourced content in the article have been going on for years now, with uninterrupted disruptive editing by IPs/new accounts in the last two years (see Talk and page hist). A perma semi is needed here as this is unlikely to abate as evidenced since the last PP expired.
Gotitbro (
talk)
08:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Gotitbro, there was a recent influx in March, but looks like it has slowed down considerably since then. But, regardless, we're not really at the point of indef'ing anything, unless there were more protection actions overall or it involves something truly egregious.
El_C13:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
The Doom Patrol,
WP:SEMI covers all IPs and unconfirmed users without exception, so if you want to make the case for
WP:ECP, you'll need to provide evidence as to why that higher protection level is needed. Thanks.
El_C13:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The article was recently created, and surrounds a controversial subject. Reasonably persistent levels of low level vandalism, looking for semi-protection.
Xx78900 (
talk)
09:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Try to prevent an edit war. Someone without an account adds their self-promotion to this article and when I delete that part, they revert my edits. I previously requested protection, and protection was granted for only 3 days. After that time ran out, my edit was reverted again by an IP. I request a much longer protection this time.
Maltimore (
talk)
11:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Pranesh Ravikumar,
WP:SEMI covers all IPs and unconfirmed users without exception, so if you want to make the case for
WP:ECP, you'll need to provide evidence as to why that higher protection level is needed. Thanks.
El_C14:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Credible risk of significant events (most media seem worried by the Queen's health.[37]. In anticipation to a potential afflux of traffic to key pages now (and even more if the worst was to happen) we should consider extended protection for a couple of days just in case - just to make sure we filter out vandalism and keep maximum accuracy with nearly live events.
AlanTheScientist (
talk)
15:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: User Ушкуйник keeps repeatedly reverting edits, deliberately erasing the history of Marie Bashkirtseff's Ukrainian origins and heritage. Marie Bashkirtseff was born and raised for some time in Gavrontsi near Poltava which is literally in the heart of Ukraine. Like the majority of people in Ukraine today, Bashkirtseff was of mixed ancestry – russian, Ukrainian, Crimean Tatar roots must have all been present in her lineage. She wasn't known as Ukrainian because there was no concept of Ukraine as a country back then. The Russian Empire didn't allow it to exist, suppressing all attempts at independence with its imperialistic force. So we can safely argue that today – and within the concept of decolonization of Ukrainian culture – we could define her origin as Ukrainian. However, user argues that "The only thing that connects her to Ukraine are today's borders". This statement quite obviously stems from the dangerous narrative of russian imperialism that is being used to justify russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine and repeated attempts to eradicate the Ukrainian nation and language. User clearly refuses to acknowledge the damage that's been inflicted on the Ukrainian culture by centuries of russian aggression and colonialism. They don't understand nor support the concept of decolonization. In the times when russian culture has become the symbol of destruction and attack on freedom, User continues to claim artists, writers, and other public figures of Ukrainian origin as russian, which only makes me think that User openly supports vladimir putin's claim that Ukraine is not a nation. Please, look into this. Thank you.
173.238.224.91 (
talk)
15:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IPs are vandalizing and gravedancing... Not to mention numerous other large scale reverts of other users removing talk page comments.
NoahTalk18:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Credible risk of significant events (most media seem worried by the Queen's health.[38] In anticipation to a potential afflux of traffic to key pages now (and even more if the worst was to happen) we should consider extended protection for a couple of days just in case - just to make sure we filter out vandalism and keep maximum accuracy with nearly live events.
AlanTheScientist (
talk)
15:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Credible risk of significant events (most media seem worried by the Queen's health.[39] In anticipation to a potential afflux of traffic to key pages now (and even more if the worst was to happen) we should consider extended protection for a couple of days just in case - just to make sure we filter out vandalism and keep maximum accuracy with nearly live events.
AlanTheScientist (
talk)
15:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring by experienced editors over BLP neutrality concern. See BLPN discussion [
[40]] This article is subject to DS/BLP and US politics.
Morbidthoughts (
talk)
19:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
It was discussed at length on the talk page and said editor was blocked for edit warring - over a week ago. Why don't you engage there instead of taking this to 4 different venues?
PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Except the discussion on the talk page where there is a clear consensus is very much relevant, so stop forum shopping. it's protected, as per your request, the discussion should be happening on the talk page. Not 3 different noticeboards.
PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Y'all! I protect a fully page as I find it. I do not select anyone's preferred version . I don't actually give a hoot. For me to change to someone's preferred version would mean I was
choosing sides!. Feel free to make an edit request, but I as protecting admin cannot choose a version to change to. Thanks!
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk)
19:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of two editors repeatedly adding information that is being removed by other editors, I have concerns that these two editors are simply making changes to talk to each other rather than using the talk page.
GeorgeN123 (
talk)
18:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
El C: Well dang, guess we may be implementing
superprotect on the English Wikipedia soon! (Actually, I think this will blow over soon, but yeah, it is alarming to see page moving wars between admins.)
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:Temporary full protection It's impossible to answer edit requests on the talk page and keep the traffic to a reasonable level while fighting edit conflicts. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news ticker, let's just have a bit of calm and patience.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – More disruptive editing resuming half a day after the last protection period ended. The subject of this article is the target of coordinated online attacks, and there's little reason to believe the disruptive editing will calm down at all for the next chunk of time. See talk page history also for additional disruption and BLP violations.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
22:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I believe this request was opened before I independently saw the issue and applied another BLP semiprot. @
El C: feel free to extend or change as you see fit. --
ferret (
talk)
23:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
El C: while we're here, I've been honestly debating whether the talk page warrants something due to the obvious troll SPAs. Maybe not yet, but a thought. --
ferret (
talk)
23:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I watchlisted it a couple days ago and have issued two blocks thus far following revdel's. A scan of the last 50-70 edits shows numerous new accounts that haven't edited elsewhere. A few CUs (by several CUs) have been done but it appears to be MEAT. --
ferret (
talk)
23:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Reported vandalism including 'vile words' about the Late Majesty. Consensus on the talk page for that article is to semiprotect the article.
Compusolus (
talk)
23:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: It needs to be reduced because no editors assigning it a high level of protection are still present (all are listed as "absent"), there are errors on this page and the Queen passed away today 8 September 2022, and her coronation took place in June 1953 not in February 1952 as stated.
BRoxyRogers (
talk)
22:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The edit war continues in blatant violation of WP:AGF and WP dispute resolution policies. If this does not stop an admin needs to come sort out the children in the edit war box. This Edit war undermines all of wikipedia as it gives ammunition to support the idea that wikipedia does nothing to stop the weaponization of wikipedia
Asmiov12345 (
talk)
01:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Assuming you meant to request for the article and not the talkpage, then on the basis of recent vandalism Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't see a basis to restore the previous FPP at this time, however. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)01:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of vandalism, incorrect information on page. The page is protected but I would like to request the incorrect information to be deleted.
1993amanda (
talk)
01:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
These 25 pages were protected by now absent editors (Hu12 missing since 2013, A.B. missing since 2018)
(articles sorted by article name chronologically, not by editor):
These additional three pages possibly within this request (I've separated them from the above as they were protected by Herbythyme, still an active editor):
Reason: I'm not seeing any vandalism (or really any edits beyond the occasional lint cleanup by Bot or Gnome editors) on other months within the Spam blacklist/whitelist series with lower levels of some protection. Other pages in the 2007-2012 range appear to have Extended protection. However, most of the more recent (2013-2021) pages appear to have no protection and also have few to no edits. I'm seeing the occasional vandal edit (all reverted), on a few of these unprotected, but nothing justifying any of these blacklist/whitelist pages starting off with, or remaining at, Full protection. Would a reduction in protection for the above 28 pages to either Semi or Extended protection be appropriate?
My other main reason for asking for a reduction on these pages is that I'd like to completely correct all remaining Lint Errors from the
MediaWiki Talk category and be done with them in one or two final edits. I have Extended confirmed edit permission, and pages similar to the above that I've fixed in the last few days I've seen 3 or more Bot edits fixing some of the issues on each page, but not fixing other Lint errors within. I came behind them and fully cleared them of all remaining issues in one or two edits. I've taken the Obsolete tag lint errors on MediaWiki talk pages from 2700 countable* errors down to under 600 remaining. The 28 pages I'm requesting above comprise of 450 of the remaining 600 countable* Lint errors in this Mediawiki section, and I'd like to be able to finish them all off before moving on to another task.
(*all error counts top out at 21 per type of error per page, so these pages likely have more than 21 errors within each of them)
If this is not a reasonable request, or there are any questions, let me know. Additionally, if I need to ask the active editor who protected those last three pages either separately from this request, or prior to that portion of my request being completed, I will do so. I just thought since those three pages were of identical nature as the others in this request, that I'd lump them in here.
Not unprotected: I'm hesitant to endorse this request, given
this novel idea. Disruption on that talk page seems to have been an issue for some time. I think the issue is that the disruption has not been vandalism per se, but a little more difficult to distinguish and therefore a little harder to just revert on sight.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
03:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent vandalism. Presumably recent game participation is going to result in flood of these. Note that the vandalizing account was specifically created to vandalize this page (five minutes before first BLP vandaism), so merely shutting down the account is probably insufficient. Suggest protection such that recently-created accounts are also denied.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
05:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Move protection: Page-move vandalism – Move vandalism has been taking place since last few days after official name was changed. IP and users keep moving page to new name without discussion and consensus and with no regard to
Wikipedia:Article titles, especially
WP:COMMONNAME. Requesting protection against page move for a few months atleast. Also requesting ECP for edits, since the page has been riddled with disruptive edits by IP and new users for the past week.
Dhruv edits (
talk)
14:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution.
Dhruv edits, that's not vandalism. We are not required to move pages following official name changes, exactly per
WP:COMMONNAME. Sometimes, it happens immediately, other times, months or even years later. Suggest you launch a
move request thereby codifying the
WP:CONSENSUS or lack thereof. Thanks.
El_C16:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
El_C I am not sure if I conveyed my request properly. I am requesting a protection against move to the new official name. The old name should remain until consensus has been reached regarding
WP:COMMONNAME. IPs and new users keep moving to the new name.
Dhruv edits (
talk)
20:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
El_C Sure. Autoconfirmed (and some even extended confirmed users) keep changing the old name to official name in the lead and rest of the page (a couple of them have done it more than once).
123456Dhruv edits (
talk)
20:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Dhruv edits, mobile diffs are too visually jarring for me to parse. You'll need to convert them to normal diffs if you want me to look at them (sorry, I can't spare the time to do it for you right now).
El_C21:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
El_C Sure. Autoconfirmed (and some even extended confirmed users) keep changing the old name to official name in the lead and rest of the page (a couple of them have done it more than once). Desktop links
123456Dhruv edits (
talk)
21:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Okay, I see what you mean. But I don't think protection is warranted for that. While, in my view, you're right that those should match the current title, it isn't vital, in that the reader gets the same information (just in a different order). So, it's an editorial decision that, if needed, you can bring up on the talk page; if there's an impasse, you can use a
WP:DRR, like
WP:3O or an
WP:RFC; if there's edit warring, you can submit a report to
WP:AN3. Good luck!
El_C21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Lectonar @
El_C I understand the reasoning for not providing ECP. Could you enable semi protection against IPs (not ECP)? Currently IPs are performing disruptive edits and removing sourced content again and again.
Dhruv edits (
talk)
09:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Add these lines "Historians such as Fritz Fischer and John Röhl highlight the fact that the war was desired by the German leadership, who were convinced that it was preferable to a status quo that was considered humiliating for Germany. On the other hand, some authors believe that the Allies did everything to provoke Germany." before the paragraph entitled "Expansion of violence in Bosnia and Herzegovina". The reason for my request is that the whole page is biased toward the classical and mainstream explanation for the cause of World War one. The other explanation mentioned in the lines I'd like to be added is coming from two renowned historians. One is German Fritz Fisher and the other is British John Rohl. Both have wiki pages that assess what I write (
/info/en/?search=Fritz_Fischer and
/info/en/?search=John_C._G._R%C3%B6hl)
Freddy2222 (
talk)
20:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Very high level of IP vandalism. 100% of IP edits from the last 40 edits has been reverted. Almost all the edits of the last two years are vandalism and reverts.
Lion-hearted85 (
talk)
09:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Nswix, we get repeated disruption to pages of events that are years in the future, so this isn't too unusual. In any case, this page was already protected once before (back in July, for a week).
El_C20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – Archie's page should require administrator access to move the title because of the edit warring going on regarding if he is a Prince or not.
cookie monster75518:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – Lilibet's page should require administrator access to move the title because of the edit warring going on regarding if he is a Prince or not.
cookie monster75518:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Recent spike in vandalism from anonymous (IP) editors due to the holiday fast approaching (10 September). Requesting semi-protection for a few days to a week, as the wave of vandalism will likely cede by then.
Yue🌙00:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Noah's Ark Animal Sanctuary is currently in the midst of a Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza virus outbreak that has led to the death and depopulation of 100's of animals. It is contended by staff that this outbreak was mismanaged by current administration and is compounded by current administration firing key staff for management of the outbreak.
This page has undergone multiple edits to appear to accuse the Founder, Founding Family, and Staff of telling lies, breaking the law, and engaging in other objectionable activities. This appears to specifically to favor the current President and Board of Noah's Ark while discrediting the staff and founding family members who have challenged them.
Specifically note edits made by IPs: 2601:152:C180:14D0:D5B6:4508:FC2F:F54C, 72.228.171.56, and 107.126.125.17 which contained these false or biased accusations without accurate references. These edits have been undone to a factual presentation of Noah's Ark Animal Sanctuary.
As a result of this occurring repeatedly, page protection is requested to be increased to prevent biased edits until the time where the conflict between the current president and board vs the staff and founding family can be resolved.
RoadsideZoosNew (
talk)
01:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Roger Woodward AC OBE, now nearly eighty, is an internationally celebrated classical pianist, composer, conductor and teacher.
He is also a human rights activist who was persecuted from the 1980s by the Soviet Union due to his involvement with the Polish Solidarity Movement.
The harassment continues today in his personal life and in media publications.
His Wikipedia article is therefore important because such an entry offers the opportunity to present an objective set of facts, some of which involve music history of which he forms part.
Recent editing by users Afterwriting and Cullen328 moved important information about him from the opening paragraph to a demeaning subsection entitled "Artistic reputation"
which is difficult to find in other Wikipedia entries concerning people with similar international standing to Roger Woodward. The incidental information which replaced the original is more appropriate to
the personal life section where it originally appeared. As Lpro93, I deleted it because it does not reflect the entrant's international standing.
Every part of Lpro93 's deleted opening statement is supported by letters and testimonies from the foremost musicians of our time as well as prominent critics, musicologists and composers.
Their published statements were ignored by users Afterwriting and Cullen328, thus effectively severing important historical facts vital to the entry and its introductory paragraph.
Mr. Elroy Palmer MBE (Woodward's foster son) normally carries the letters of his award conferred by Queen Elizabeth II but was deleted by the editor Afterwriting. Mr. Palmer was a victim and suffered collateral damage due to the same political persecution.
In the Honors section the link of the Gloria Artis (gold class) medal was deleted as well as “Republic of ” Poland and after a French award, appropriately, “Republic of “ France.
Such awards were conferred by governments who describe themselves in this way.
The recent moving around of information by Afterwriting and Cullen328 is misleading for readers and obstructs a fair and accurate statement of facts concerning Roger Woodward's entry.
Afterwriting and Cullen328 refused to discuss their usage of a small c in their spelling of Sydney Conservatorium. Ongoing refusal to discuss these and other matters with me over a prolonged period of time is not collegial.
Lpro93 (
talk)
02:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done Cullen328 is rightly attempting to tone down signficiant
WP:NPOV issues you've introduced into the article. Those edits are far from vandalism, and I'd recommend that you stop characterizing them as such. OhNoitsJamieTalk02:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent edits from an anonymous (IP address) user removing sections about Rubin's controversial role in UAE jailing of human rights activist, accusations by the Intercept of Rubin "planting" stories, and his extensive writings on Ethiopia.
After it was pointed out that these edits come from IP addresses in the Washington DC area, the pattern shifted to hotel IPs. (See
Talk:Michael_Rubin)
The edits appear to be by Mr Rubin himself or someone keen to hide his controversies, and violate Wikipedia's "conflict of interest" policy.
Page was previously protected three times, and each time the deletions returned right after the protection expired. Protection should be added for the long term.
Nemozen (
talk)
07:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – I'm tempted to ask for semiprotection here, with the periodic vandalism this article has had in the past few weeks, but it might not have had enough disruption yet for that (despite the vandalism being annoying when it pops up every couple of days or so), but I think pending changes may be justified.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
07:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Certainly enough consistent disruption for semi-protection and not enough good-faithed editing for pending changes protection. Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
DatGuyTalkContribs08:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because they are not being honest, which could lead to misinformation being spread around.
JoeAunt (
talk)
22:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Wikipedia information is being edited intentionally and for repeated editing in a wrong way, I request protection if there is any kind of editing, please request
Arpita1234 (
talk)
10:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Today is opposite day! I do “not” request edit protection for this page, because many times schoolchildren (or whoever) have “not” inserted the respective current date for opposite day.
ABC…
XYZ ‑‑
K (
🗪 |
✍)
11:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Disruptive editing by MattFullerUK. User is not acknowleding the discussion on the talk page about the picture. Also, the article might be affected because of the current events.
RealMeep (
talk)
11:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Different IPs keep removing the name of the founder of this company without any explanation. There seems to be some agenda here. This is a history of strange edits to this article, like hidden links things to letters of the alphabet.
MB16:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined Since the protection expired, there's only been one user that edited and was later reverted, and the first of their two edits can be reasonably considered in good faith
DatGuyTalkContribs14:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Two protection changes were set by
TFA Protector Bot on July 10 and July 30. The changes set temporary move-protection that is applied to articles selected as "Today's featured article" on the main page. The indefinite move-protection at sysop level should be set—there is no real need to move that article. So
TFA Protector Bot will not produce changes of protection settings in the future.
Vlad5250 (
talk)
15:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I reset the protection to what had been set by
Materialscientist which seems to have been place prior to the bot changes. This appears to have been sufficient to keep the article stable. (NB I took this action before I saw that the request had been declined, but I'll leave it place as I think it's reasonable.)
XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done21:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
There is a lot of misinformation circulating in the mainstream media about a free concert that happened in 9th of September 2022 by Tarkan. Because mainstream media extremely overestimated the number of participants in the concert, people (which initially included me and I got corrected) adds the concert to the chart sourcing the aforementioned mainstream media articles. This results in a lot of edit warring and reversing, I believe a temporary semi protection should be enabled on this article because most of the wrong edits are made by either new accounts or IP's.
Blindfoldedjustice (
talk)
19:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Highly visible page – Highly visible, high traffic article. Was moved today by a.very inexperienced editor. Unless a gender inclusive title is officially selected, this page shouldn't need to be moved again for a long time. I'm requesting indefinite move protection, but a month or more would be adequate to get this out of the current news cycle.
BilCat (
talk)
19:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page has been subject to numerous edits by IPs and new users, mostly to remove the content relating to the scandal the subject is involved in. Though there has been numerous discussions in its talk page, the users and IPs that edit them keep arguing that the source is incorrect, but without specifying enough information that allow editors to verify how the source is incorrect. Given the persistence of the edits in the same pattern, I am requesting the PC protection be applied indefinitely in order to allow established editors to review the addition/removal while not outright preventing the IPs/new users to introduce the source and/or further content, if they choose to properly do so.
124.120.109.104 (
talk)
14:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – After recent events, this article seems to be on the pending changes backlog a lot. Most edits it is receiving by new editors are unsourced and soon reverted, so it seems a temporary semi protection would be appropriate until attention on it fades.
PopoDameron (
talk)
00:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Continuing changes of the infobox image, without a consensus. A month's long protection, with the longstanding image in place, would be preferable. Indeed such a long protection would encourage consensus to be reached on an image.
GoodDay (
talk)
00:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Just don't want to see any 'well meaning' editors, ending up blocked. At the moment, there's an ongoing discussion at Elizabeth II's page, concerning whether or not to 'change' the infobox image & which new image to adopt.
GoodDay (
talk)
00:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Editor
user:Seikan Tunnel keeps reverting this. The editor seems to be creating articles with no references. I've added a 2nd article he has created from a redirect. No references on these articles. I've sent them to the teahouse. scope_creepTalk07:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent addition of factual errors and unsourced nonsense. The IP responsible is within a fairly wide range, so blocking is probably a less desirable option. — Manticore08:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Disruption post protection expiry 2 days ago. Alternatively consider range blocking the IPv6, the sole disruptor —
DaxServer (
t ·
m ·
c)
09:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The Wikipedia page of the film in question is being consistently vandalised and disruptively edited by unauthorised users adding unsourced content owing to the film's recent release. I request you to kindly look into it and assign temporary page protection for a period of 10-14 days.
Aakansha Trivedi (
talk)
07:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected – This subject will never cease to attract immature vandals, and there have been a couple of cases this summer where freshly created accounts labored to become auto-confirmed, just to vandalize this article.
Favonian (
talk)
09:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The page was protected because it has a history of persistent vandalism. The protection is necessary to protect it from further vandalism. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
13:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: the page is attacked by vandals often/disruptive editing (page history shown it was being twice in the last day by vandals) and needs some level of protection
Jaguarnik (
talk)
21:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. The page is currently semi-protected, and the most recent vandal was blocked. Semi-protection seems to be working fine, and these two autoconfirmed accounts getting through the semi-protection should hopefully not recur.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
21:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Long-term semi-protection please. I fully protected it last March during an edit war but have expressed an opinion and would prefer that someone else protect now. The topic of this article is an April Fools joke document proposing that internet traffic could be sent by carrier pigeons. An image was added showing a dead pigeon, something that is not mentioned in the document. An
RfC was held here. It was closed on 19 April 2022 as "clear consensus to delete the image" after nine deletes and one keep. Someone is dedicating a lot of time and single-purpose IPs/accounts to reinstate the image. Examples:
23 May 2020 +
25 October 2021 +
18 August 2022 +
8 September 2022 +
12 September 2022.
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: A recent user, though I am not entirely sure who, possibly vandalized (see my edit on 12 September 2022) the military career module.
GuardianH (
talk)
05:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Persistent ongoing copyright violations since March by IP users by pasting song lyrics. These edits continue(d) repeatedly after previous page protection expiration. Proposing a longer semi-protection. There are also still some revisions as well that should be deleted.
Rctgamer3 (
talk)
08:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: BLP Policy Violations. BLP associated edit war about inclusion of a court record, multiple IPs and new users involved. No secondary sources reported the event, so including it seems to violate
WP:BLP.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
10:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
It's in the collapsed box: Fully protect both pages indefinitely. This ensures that the integrity of the archived hoaxes is preserved, and that they place no burden on project maintainers* Pppery *it has begun...16:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: this user:Chanchaldm is trying to force dalit tag on this sub group which is not true, they are scheduled caste but not dalits. this editor is changing this article multiple times pls look into this matter
Aceofalljackofnone (
talk)
16:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of unsourced material and vandalism. In this page most of the information is unsourced and self oprated websites is used as source.
Mahant Sonty (
talk)
17:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Was indefinitely xconned by
JBW because it was a move of a page with unconstructive editing. However, its target is no longer protected, and hasn't had a unconstructive edit since late January. @CLYDEFRANKLIN23:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Bright Msaka SC (born on 4 October 1959) is a Malawian politician serving as Member of Parliament (MP) for Machinga Likwenu since May, 2019. He previously served in several Diplomatic Missions as an Ambassador during the reign of Former State President , His Excellency Bakili Muluzi in that capacity from 1995 to 2003. He was later appointed Deputy Chief secretary to the President and cabinet in January 2004.
Bright Msaka (
talk)
10:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: "Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism." Seems wholly excessive to apply semi-protection for a week on a heavily-visited talk page where any vandalism would be quickly reverted in any case. Also means IP and new users can't "edit Wikipedia right now!" on a very high-profile topic, *even by making an edit-semi-protected* request.
109.255.211.6 (
talk)
20:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined Opinion noted. Based on previous experience, existing issues, and the fact that accounts are free and the bar to become autoconfirmed is quite low, Wikipedia's best interest are served by keeping the protection.
Dennis Brown -
2¢20:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The bar to autoconfirmed status is pretty high here -- or might as well be arbitrarily so -- as it's even long than would take for the semi-protection to expire. Unless yet-further extended, of course. Struggling to see the basis in policy, need, or common sense here. (Granting that 'limited" and 'most severe' are fuzzy enough to be construed to mean 'any time we like', if one were so inclined.)
109.255.211.6 (
talk)
21:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the additional eyeballs-on. A week still seems like a long time to me (albeit clearly this is going to be the mandatory only news item in the UK for the next fortnight or so). Especially as a say compared to the WP mission-statement of 'edit now' (rather than 'maybe Thursday, all going well'). Is there no case for removing the protection on a 'trial' basis, to see if the talk-page vandalism is still so heavy as to be disruptive and hard to manage, or if the initial surge got bored and left over the weekend?
109.255.211.6 (
talk)
00:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I believe I covered that point already. If the policy as stated isn't desirable, I can see the argument for changing it, but that seems somewhat beyond the scope of this specific request.
109.255.211.6 (
talk)
01:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
There'd be no case and no point as the protection ends in 72 hours. The big issue is
WP:Biographies of living persons, which is why the talk page was protected in the first place (Elizabeth II
still gets BLP protections for a short while following HM's departure) and which is the main reason as to why there's so much hesitancy to this request. The logs have a history of BLP violations being RevDel'd off the talk page, and with her state funeral in the news the likelihood BLP issues are going to be a thing is going to remain elevated for a bit. —
Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori01:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because i have to add more reliable sources with information and this page is protected from a long time so editors are not able to expand the
Koli people ....... .
223.225.162.80 (
talk)
04:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary protection:
Reason :Some users, including some IPs, are doing vandal edit to add something that is not in the reference unnecessarily on the achari surname page. Despite reverting it many times, pov edit is being done by writing viswakarma. So far they have not been able to provide sufficient reference. So please remove the edit and save the page. High level of IP vandalism.
12345678910neerali (
talk)
11:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of activity with a current event, with possibly edit wars and vandalism, highly suggest bumping this to Template or Full just for security until the media and suspicion decreases.
173.8.244.221 (
talk)
14:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Mifter and
Newslinger: Full protection is not appropriate. The IPs are editing without any sources. It should be semi-ed. I have since found additional sources, but I wasn't editing the page to avoid running afoul of 3RR. ―
Tartan357Talk00:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please discuss how the claim of dissolution should be reflected in the article on its talk page in the interim to avoid edit warring once the protection expires. I would also note that the
current source for the claim of dissolution is an embedded
tweet in an article where the mention of dissolution is prefaced/caveated by "reportedly" and appears to be from an individual (rather than the organization itself) making what could be viewed as an
exceptional claim in the tweet (by posting a purported dissolution resolution) and that such claims need multiple sources.
Mifter (
talk)
00:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Thank you, @
Tartan357: (as noted by the edit conflict note my message was written prior to your response). Based on the above I am okay dropping to semi based on the multiple sources. Thanks,
Mifter (
talk)
00:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Persistent addition of unsourced content (and also info that is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose) ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654518:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. While the article had previously been disruptively edited on 5 September, it appears to be stable right now with no fully reverted edits in the past week. Please feel free to re-report this if the disruptive editing resumes.
— Newslingertalk23:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent BLP violation by an IP of a sockpuppeteer (
see here a list with some ~400 socks. He has edits on this page with some accounts from that list thru years like Varyemez Emice, Kostantinopulos and IPs) A protection is needed.
Tehonk (
talk)
00:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Requesting that the protection be increased to semi, since the article has had persistent issues with vandalism and disruption (such as copyvios), recently almost every day. Simply icreasing the protection to semi would save pending changes reviewers time.
TylerBurden (
talk)
03:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Long history of disruptive edits/
Sockpuppetry to the band members section that has been going on for years now. Blocking and warning the users isn't helping. The article has been protected in the past. I think it is time to indefinitely protect the article.
Bowling is life (
talk)
10:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined The article says 11 in the first novel. If there is a reason that should be changed, please explain it on the article talk page.
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeatedly being changed by multiple IPs and logged-in users to say that the army no longer exists at all, which is well beyond what is being stated in reliable sources (that they took heavy casualties). Vandalism/OR.
—Ganesha811 (
talk)
11:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Recommend more than a few days for this because of how tumultuous and high profile this article is, perhaps in a month or so things will be settled down a bit.
TylerBurden (
talk)
11:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – More 90% of the article is unsourced and review I redirected. There seems to be consensus for this but there is movement going on. scope_creepTalk14:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Not sure an IP has made a good edit in years. Of 100 edits this year, 24 have been reverted (so half edits involve revert).
Slywriter (
talk)
16:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. One recent revert does not meet the threshold for protection, even for
WP:AP2. Feel free to attach additional
WP:DIFFs if I missed something. Thanks.
El_C13:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Please check the page from before the big revert! The content was heavily biased. I ask you to reconsider protection based on the facts that:
This person is taking part in a very dramatic election and will be the target of very skewed defamatory editing (as it already was before).
It will be heavily targeted up until the election.
People have already been influenced by what was written previously and it speaks to how people are manipulated on non-neutral things like Facebook and other social media.
Reason: Persistent
disruptive editing – Several IPs have been re-adding unsourced personal opinions/original research and removing reliable sourced material almost daily since 2 September. Several editors have reverted them, advised them to discuss on the talk page (a discussion was started 3 September, but they have not participated), and added user warnings on their user talk pages (none of which have been responded to). One of their edit summaries includes "We can keep playing this game as long as you want".
Ojorojo (
talk)
17:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Article is not of enough note to require protection. If by chance someone vandalizes it, it can be fixed. But currently I doubt anyone is going to try and vandalize it enough to warrant any protection
Owellorthanothy (
talk)
02:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Contrary to what you believe to be true,
Owellorthanothy, school articles are one of the most popular vandal targets. Unfortunately this vandalism tends to include BLP violations, attacks against specific children in the school and vile falsehoods regarding the teachers. The vandalism that led me to add pending changes to this article weren't quite as drastic, but it was persistent. I don't see any benefit to removing the protection - any good edits still get in and the bad ones are kept out. There is no downside.--
Jezebel's Ponyobons mots16:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
You're too fast!Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. BTW,
DFO, if you add |s|duration}}, then it becomes immediately apparent the length of protection you imposed.
El_C21:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
User is the one who started edit-warring by implementing their change (namely the birthplace one, that goes contrary to
MOS:BLPLEAD) without consensus as you can see
there. Previous version existed for at least a year.
46.177.136.204 (
talk)
20:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The introduction regarding Foureira's nationality was reached by consensus, as you can also read in the main article's talkpage. Anyway!
Iaof2017 (
talk)
21:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not gonna read that entire lengthy discussion. In any case,
MOS:ETHNICITY is clear on the matter. If you want to show consensus for this page that goes against it in a clear way, without having outside reviewers needing to wade through all that talk page material, then launch an
WP:RFC and have it
properly closed.
El_C21:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Updates are being made to this page based on one book as the citation with many "facts" that are actually opinions. Page is not stating any false information and is discussing legends and stating them as legends because it is a part of the history of the house.
Historybuff 5674 (
talk)
23:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Page previously protected for similar reasons. Subject is currently campaigning for statewide election in November so might be worth protecting til then. ser!(
chat to me -
see my edits)00:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Trying to fix these archives, so I need to move this to "Archive 20" from "Archive20" because the lack of intervening space has introduced all sorts of problems in automated archive tools for this talk page. Please unprotect or move it, thanks. Protecting admin has not been active since 2018. —
Shibbolethink(
♔♕)13:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism over past months from IP users. Previously had week long protection, request protection until October 16, the day after the event.
03Heat (
talk)
13:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Ks0stm: We overlapped, and I "won". You semi'd it indefinitely, and I just repeated the 5 years from previous. Five years seems like a very long time to me (smile), but feel free to reinstate indefinite protection. And someone tell the bot to shut up.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
15:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Currently, Byron Castillo is being embroiled in a controversy regarding his identity, which is very important considering Ecuador is the upcoming team to play the first game in 2022 World Cup against Qatar. While Byron is officially recognised to be from Ecuador, it has been speculated that he is an illegal immigrant from Colombia playing for Ecuador with tacit cover-up by the Ecuadorian authorities.
FIFA has already announced a new investigation in September, with the final decision to come in early October. This has led to recent vandalism about his birthplace by various football supporters, likely from Chile. A necessary temporary protection that lasts until mid-October is needed until the final decision is announced by FIFA's Court.
HiddenFace101 (
talk)
18:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: User Ушкуйник keeps repeatedly reverting edits, deliberately erasing the history of Marie Bashkirtseff's Ukrainian origins and heritage. Unfortunately, I can not engage in a discussion with this user. Their history of edits across Wikipedia shows a clear and blatant disregard for Ukrainian history and cultural heritage. In light of the brutal suffering Russia has inflicted upon Ukraine – destroying Ukraine's schools, theatres, museums, and killing Ukrainian civilians, many of them children – it's rather obvious that Russia's goal is and has always been to erase Ukrainian national identity from history books. User Ушкуйник's edits across all pages play into the destructive narrative that Ukraine didn't exist as a nation with its own culture until 1991. This narrative was used to justify the atrocities being committed by Russia and its army in Ukraine today. I know it may not be obvious to all, but this issue is political. Please, look into this user's history of edits and protect the pages that have been vandalized. And please, I beg you, don't advise me to engage in a discussion with the aforementioned user as I consider them one of the many perpetrators of the cultural genocide in Ukraine.
Flatlemon (
talk)
14:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
A typical example of protest against the sources. Marie Bashkirtseff belonged to Russian nobles from both sides of her family. On the subject, see the article by Prof. Neil Heyman for Encyclopedia.com
[1] and the article from Encyclopedia Britannica
[2].
Ушкуйник (
talk)
15:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I would recommend blocking
Flatlemon who does not have any useful Wikipedia contributions. It is part of the social media campaign, and describing the nationality of Bashkirtseva as Ukrainian is simply not appropriate.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
15:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Done It's kind of an odd history. The original salting was 2007, and there really doesn't seem to be a valid reason for salting, then further discussion, etc. It's been so long, I didn't see a reason to go back to the original admins who were involved. There is a discussion re: the name of the article, so it may change, but for now I just removed protection and will let you figure out the redirect.
Reason: Long-term vandalism. Theres a meme about Lobov being the greatest fighter ever, that is constantly being re-added into his profile.
Nswix (
talk)
02:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of vandalism and unsourced editorialising from a significant number of unregistered IP addresses over an extended period of time. This is undermining the reliability of a high profile page on a subject generating a great deal of international public controversy.
Aemilius Adolphin (
talk)
02:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection, regarding Cambodia national team, is really absurd and illogical at best. We can seek protection if this is related to Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo or Robert Lewandowski, but it is weird when a semi-protection at all level is appointed to Cambodia, a nation which stands 174 in the recent FIFA ranking. We have no idea about which players from Cambodia are really famous, for their reputation unknown beyond their native country. It's like if we suggest San Marino or Bahamas to receive protection.
HiddenFace101 (
talk)
19:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
User:Dennis Brown, I don't know of the top of my head, or by looking at the article history, who that was. Ha, it seems like protection worked, though! So I don't know. If they're gone, great. But I don't drop indefinite protection for no reason at all, and as Malcolm says, that longterm socking wasn't addressed. In fact, I don't think the editor understand why we protect articles. What world ranking some team has is completely irrelevant. In other words, I think the request does not have much merit, but with something from many years ago it's hard for me right now to judge whether protection is still necessary--I'm inclined to roll along with you, though, so go ahead and unprotect; I support your decision.
Drmies (
talk)
04:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Non relevant content is being constantly added on this page to compromise the neutrality of the article. No discussion or consensus is being made, also the sources provided are not reliable. Kindly, increase the protection of this page. Thanks.
Kridha (
talk)
09:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
This is became extreme, Fostera12 stop making personal attacks and wrong allegations against me. You are the only simply removed the already existing, sourced and longstanding content without proper reasons. Edit of the mentioned article clearly describes your nature of editing...
User:Jayanthkumar123 (
talk)
13:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Reasoning for page protection was over a sockpuppet 10 years ago. As far as I can see, the sockpuppeteer appears to be inactive since so unless I got that wrong, I don't see why this article should still be protected.
SuperSkaterDude45 (
talk)
14:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined there has been recent socking. Our documenting of socks isn't perfect, and often, the same person will be listed as two or more "masters" simply because SPI isn't an exact art. Even with protection, some slip in after amassing enough edits to be autoconfirmed, but it would be worse without the protection.
Dennis Brown -
2¢11:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page protection is no longer warrented due to it having the exact opposite effect than it was suppsoed to. The page hasn't been edited at all since it has been protected, and is missing a lot of vital information about the park. The ride list is also heavily outdated. There are rides are listed in the ride chart that aren't there anymore, as well as rides that are now at the park that are not listed on the chart.
TL;DR, page should be unprotected so editors that don't have accounts, and know info about the park can edit the page to make it up to date. Thank you, and please let me know if you have any questions.
24.188.113.103 (
talk)
06:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined - The issue was the inclusion of unencyclopedic material, and large amounts of it. The quality of an article isn't determined by how many new edits there are. The fact that it is stable is likely a good thing. So you are mistaken in thinking the protection had the opposite effect that was supposed to have, as it appears to be working as advertised.
Dennis Brown -
2¢11:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Disruptive edits by an unregistered user who has used multiple IP addresses to do identical edits, including unnecessarily changing the display names for the show's voice cast (e.g.
Chris Sanders being written as his full name "Christopher Michael Sanders") and incorrectly adding hyphens between the digits of the
Experiments' numbers (e.g. writing
Stitch's number "Experiment 626" as "Experiment 6-2-6"); Disney has always written such numbers without hyphens despite the typical by-digit pronunciation of most Experiment numbers). In fact, an attempt to try to dissuade users from adding hyphens between the digits in experiment numbers by adding hidden source text before said numbers did not work, as the unregistered user removed the messages in their most recent edit. –
WPA (
talk)
12:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Users keep removing Tesla without reading the reason for being in the list of 1 trillion dollar companies after its value has gone under 1 trillion.
Panamitsu (
talk)
06:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Can you please unlock this page early? 2025 is still a long time and the page was locked due to vandalism. I didn't vandalized the page. This is before I started editing on Wikipedia. There are a few mistakes in this page and I want to fix it. Not to mention although you won't let me do it, they're are no storyboard artists credited for season 1 although the other seasons have the storyboard artists included. Side note: The directors, writers and storyboard artists are all credited in the credits since the opening credits and the title card doesn't credit the writer, director or storyboard artist in the main titles, it was a common practice for Disney shows (other examples include Kim Possible, Gravity Falls, etc.). Can you unlock the page early so I can fix the mistakes?
69.255.225.138 (
talk)
18:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined. The protection just started recently, and it's the lowest level, allowing everyone to edit except anonymous IP addresses or unconfirmed accounts. Either propose your changes on the talk page, or create an account and gain enough experience to get it autoconfirmed. Then you will be able to edit the article. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
18:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Then create an account and edit constructively for a few days, or just create a new edit request stating what changes you want to be made. ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654518:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Too many stubborn edits against simply grammar logic in a sentence. User 85.165.43.152 does not seem to be collaborating properly.
Island92 (
talk)
21:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Was last protected back in April. Protection expired on 8 August, disruption resumed on the 18th and has continued since then, with multiple IPs being used to evade several blocks. Disruption in question also violates
WP:BLP.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
07:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:Temporary full protection - Two editors have been edit warring on this article for the past few days, and one of them is autoconfirmed and extended confirmed, so a lower protection won't work. The talk page on the article has not been used.
Egsan Bacon (
talk)
15:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – BLP violation edits by different IP users. Also, the article being for the current First Lady of Kenya, it should be protected.
Volten001☎16:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Volten001, this page has never been protected before, so unless there's something especially egregious, there's no point in asking for indef protection.
El_C16:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page and our article about film director
Nicole Dorsey have both been subject to a regular barrage of vandalism, adding offensive and insulting claims about the subjects, for months and months, most recently just a few hours ago. They've both been placed under short-term semi-protection several times this year already, but sometime after the protection expires the same editor inevitably comes back to try again. They're not necessarily always on the same IP every time, which is why IP blocking isn't effective, but it's clearly always the same person, because it's always the same shit about Dorsey supposedly squirting chocolate milk from her mulatta nipples and Banzhaf supposedly supplementing her acting income with side work in a much, much, much older profession if you get my drift.
The administrator who dealt with today's flareup sprotted Dorsey for six months, but the different administrator who dealt with Banzhaf only applied a few days -- and while the same IP also usually tends to shit on Black Conflux, a film Dorsey directed which had Banzhaf in its cast, the reason they couldn't get at it today is that I sprotted it for three months in the August flareup so they won't be able to get at it until November.
So, since this is a longstanding issue which two different administrators have already deemed serious enough to warrant escalating to longer-term protection on the other two related pages, I feel it's also necessary to bump Banzhaf's protection up to something longer than just three to four days.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Woops, looks like we protect-conflicted there
Deepfriedokra - as the protection was for the same length I'm not going to bother reverting it (the difference in length being only one second!), but feel free to do so if you wish. :)
firefly (
t ·
c )
17:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP vandalism has been a problem for months, the page got protected and it stopped while it was protected but has started again now that the page is no longer protected
Hattuppi (
talk)
19:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Receives constant vandalism due to his previous drug use. It gets reverted straight away but with some protection, this can be avoided entirely.
MaskedSinger (
talk)
19:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Multiple accounts (possibly sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but not confirmed) repeatedly edit-warring over the same issue since 14 September 2022, refusing to go the talk page.
R Prazeres (
talk)
21:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Dynamic IP spamming, constantly changing website URL to promote personal site. A range block will probably suffice.
Mellk (
talk)
23:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Redirect being constantly reverted to a low-quality spam article with unreliable sources by new and unregistered users. It would be better for a more-experienced editor to write up a neutral page regarding such a controversial person. Waddles🗩🖉01:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page was directly mentioned in an alternative reality game relating the video game "Deltarune", two edits have already occurred and more may be on the way, requesting some form of temporary protection for the page.
Goose (
talk)
00:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent
disruptive editing. Repeated attempts by IP socks (86.146.244.xx) to remove lots of sections of the article since 15 August 2022. The article had been semi-protected for a period of one week between 3 and 10 September. It's likely that these IP socks (86.146.244.xx) will continue disruptive editing.
Phikia (
talk)
02:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Non-binary person currently in the news; page just created yesterday and predictably being vandalized/misgendered. Request semi-protection.
Funcrunch (
talk)
03:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done. That is an article (or was, I deleted it), not a template, nor does the subject matter seem highly visible. And, in any case, pages are not protected preemptively.
WolfeReAds, please create that entry as a
WP:DRAFT, because it was not ready to go live. Thanks and good luck.
El_C05:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done. Talk page access for this blocked user has already been revoked, so no further action is needed at this time.
El_C05:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I would like to request that... (Your edit request here) .
78.179.180.142 (
talk)
09:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC) That you change the size of the abbasid caliphate as it is incorrect (the correct size 19,947,497 km2) my source is abbasid caliphate Wikipedia page itself but I don't know why the information on this page is incorrectreply
@
Engr. Smitty: Please spell out what edits are unsourced or have poorly sourced content. I don't see anything on talk showing why the sources in recent edits are unsuitable. They may be unsuitable, but an explanation is needed for those attempting to edit, and for admins here.
Johnuniq (
talk)
10:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)reply
SatDis, I'm not sure if this is really vandalism; it's at least not the type of "obvious" vandalism that's exempt from the
edit warring policy.
As enforcing a discussion with IP address hopping editors is tough to do otherwise, I have semi-protected the page for a month. The protection policy explicitly allows this (
WP:SEMI: "IP hopping"), but this isn't intended to encourage further reverts or your position.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
13:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Many people are coming and correcting content that they wish is correct without proper references or citations. So, I request to add a semi-protection to this page so that new users and un-registered users cannot edit the page. MRRaja001(
talk)09:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Just a short time please. In the last two days, my talk page has received two unfriendly remarks from a logged out status of an indeffed person.
Coldtrack (
talk)
19:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
While the disruption (or at least now-reverted edits) continued immediately after the protection expired, I'd personally like to see more than one revert leading to a request for re-protection.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
14:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There are valid edits by IPs and new accounts in the last several days, as well as vandalism. If the volume of reverts ticks up, feel free to re-request / ping me directly and we can re-assess. Steven Walling •
talk02:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I assume the comment about deserved vandalism is a joke, but thanks for reporting nonetheless.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
12:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Dispute over co-founder repeatedly removed by IPs. Recently protected for a few days to stop repeated disruption - disruption began again immediately following unprotection.
—Ganesha811 (
talk)
11:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: I've gotten a bit tired of my talk page being vandalized. I think a week should suffice (yes I know I'm a mentor, I'll create a new talk page with a notice at the top telling people to go to my alternate talk page for the time being) ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654515:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. As you noted, please create a talk subpage and link it from the top of your talk page for anons/non-autoconfirmed users to leave messages for the duration of the protection. Thanks,
Mifter (
talk)
01:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting semi-protected status for an aged account or with edit histories. At least two new accounts appear to have engaged in political ops, deleting a candidate with reasons that don't appear to be based in fact. I couldn't find the person was a "perennial candidate" as claimed, and a reputable large news network (Global News) conflicts with the delete of a "self published claim," which I couldn't find anywhere.
BudPenguin (
talk)
20:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined –
Warn the user appropriately then report them to
AIV or
ANI if they continue. It looks like the user has found sources that are not the Daily Mail to support their addition (though I have not reviewed to determine if they are
WP:RS or not). Based on their note that they are an industry professional I also left them a COI note on their talk page. Thanks,
Mifter (
talk)
01:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:Full protection because the RfA is past the deadline and people are still commenting. I believe it should be fully protected until a bureaucrat can officially close it.
NoahTalk23:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Paul Erik: That's at the discretion of bureaucrats and only for exceptional circumstances. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. Either way, someone has to do something. As worded, it seems as if seven days is a deadline unless the bureaucrats see it fit to extend the discussion further. If that's not the intention of the wording, then it may be wise to amend it.
NoahTalk00:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
You're welcome to inform the 'crats at
WP:BN (noting, of course, the message ref overdue RfAs) — as it stands, there's nothing wrong with what's going on at the RfA, and any delays is purely down to a lack of (active) 'crats —
TheresNoTime (
talk • they/them)
00:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
[after edit conflict] @
Hurricane Noah: It's been the case, for as long as I've observed RfAs, that the end of the seven days (168 hours) is not a hard deadline for the ending of discussion. You can make a request at
WP:BN, but you'll see that at the top of the page it says: If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. That note reflects the consensus that 168 hours is not a hard deadline.
Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)00:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: For the last couple of days an IP editor has been repeatedly adding a notability maintenance template to the page. Attempts to communicate with the IP editor have failed, and messages left on their talk page have been left unanswered. Requesting semi-protection for the article please.
Sideswipe9th (
talk)
19:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Pretty much as soon as the last semi-protect expires, the blogspam starts up again. It's been a week since the page was unprotected and so far 3 attempts at low-grade Web3 spam have been made. BrigadierG (
talk)
21:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I personally don't think the user talk page needs protecting (not yet anyway). Three reverts of unconstructive comments in just over a day, but the users were blocked.
Tropicalkitty (
talk)
03:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent vandalism to lead by same person, numerous times, using multiple IP accounts, for more than 2 years now (possibly more, that's as far back as I looked). The page needs long-term semi protection, (if not permanent). -
wolf00:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:Indefinite semi-protection: This page had indefinite semi-protection for years, before the recent article lock on 8 September by
Deepfriedokra. After that expired on 10 September, the unprotected page immediately fell to disruptive editing (a perennial problem), prompting another semi-protection on 12 September placed by the same admin. That has expired, so the page is again vulnerable.
Hi
Mifter - after this request was declined, the latest IP continued with the same disruptive edit. I am not sure it is
vandalism, and I have just warned the latest IP for edit-warring, but was hoping for page protection to be applied for a third time because of the apparent IP-hopping and persistent disruption.
Beccaynr (
talk)
02:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the heads up,
Beccaynr. I read some of the sources and the term "government official" does appear in a few of them. In contrast, the IP's change to "government servant" does not appear to be backed up by sources. Therefore, I have restored the term "government official" in the lede and added a cite (the lede does not normally need cites, however, if something is controversial (as this appears to be), they can be included). If the IP continues to revert without engaging they can (and likely will) be blocked for edit warring or making unsourced changes (unless they can provide a source for "government servant," in which case there should probably be a discussion for which term to use). Protection may also be warranted, however, I would defer to another Sysop to make that determination as to avoid any appearance of being
WP:INVOLVED. Best,
Mifter (
talk)
05:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much,
Mifter, and I have reported to
ANEW - I also now realize that I could have linked to
MOS:LEAD instead of writing "wikify" in the edit summary to support the other part that various IPs have been disruptively editing despite warnings. I did cite
MOS:FIRSTBIO in December 2021
[69] and November 2021
[70], fwiw. Thanks again,
Beccaynr (
talk)
05:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined I'm not seeing vandalism. I'm seeing a conent dispute. The most recent IP is using edit summaries to explain what they're doing.
GedUK09:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. American football team is constantly vandalized now that the football has started again, has been protected numerous times before and this is a chronic issue.
TylerBurden (
talk)
12:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – The person in the article is a trending topic in the Philippines and may be subjected to disruptive editing and vandalism. Some leading to BLP-violating edits calling him a "rapist", by expressing their own views. (
Rappler).
RealMeep (
talk)
13:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Article is ready for mainspace. I strongly disagree with the previous AfC reviewer. Normally I would just do this myself but I lack the permissions. I will be 100% upfront and honest here, I've seen lesser articles pass AfD and NPP. Lets just move this to mainspace and move on. Dr vulpes(
💬 •
📝)08:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
User:Dr_vulpes, I approved the article for main space last night! I spent several hours cleaning up the grammar, improving references etc. I named it
jamovi (software). Question please,
Sdrqaz, what is the disambiguation you are referring to? What should I do to fix it? I have never encountered what you are describing in my past several years as an AfC reviewer. Thank you for any suggestions you can provide!--
FeralOink (
talk)
16:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Pretty regular activity by random anons trying to change the article to say that it is a real conspiracy theory rather than a joke. Could use a few weeks protection I think.
Anastrophe (
talk)
18:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing: Ongoing attempts to whitewash the topic by ip editors. Previous 3 month semi-protect ended 23 August 2022; vandalism attempts renewed 18 September 2022 and have already been applied/reverted 4 times from 2 different ip addresses.
Darker Dreams (
talk)
15:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page has been heavily vandalised by a now blocked user (indefinetly). This user keep removing reliably sourced body of text. Hopefully, this page gets protected.
Loibird90 (
talk)
15:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – I've just reverted this page's third controversial undiscussed move in the past two years. I would recommend indef full move protection to encourage people to open an RM rather than continue a move war. (I think my revert was a straightforward application of
WP:RMUM and don't think I'm necessarily
INVOLVED here, but would rather avoid the appearance of protecting a favored title.). --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)23:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I personally don't think that two IPs in three days is enough for protection in this instance. Please re-report if frequency increases.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
03:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Repeated insertion of Marvel Studios/Entertainment by IPs into the production section despite reverting several times on the ocassion that the “source” from Production Weekly removed it (and discussed on talk page). Requesting at least several months worth of semi-protection. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs)
03:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined The article is already protected, so protecting a talk page is going to need a lot more than two edits. I'm reasonably sure that those edits that have been rolled back are edit requests, but they're not formatted correctly.
GedUK10:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Yup. Somebody keeps blanking multiple
WP:RS, because they think it's absolutely ridiculous. Since when does one user's personal opinion override multiple
WP:RS?14:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Reason: Due to religion, many people vandalize the page over and over again. They remove authentic references o of newspapers themselves from different account and then come from another saying no references provided and delete that information. So I request this page to be protected
2001:8F8:133B:A6F:E11E:A616:FB1A:F9D0 (
talk)
14:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
This title is in blacklist (Creation of this page (Draft:বেঙ্গল ইন্টেলিজেন্স) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists.) but a Bangladeshi business has registered itself with the local government and Customs, Excise & VAT commissionerate, Jessore.
Bekub (
talk)
06:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of non-auto confirmed account vandalism. The page was locked for only auto confirmed users to edit a couple of weeks ago, when the lock ended, the page was instantly vandalised with content that was previously contested. Requesting permanent Semi-protection lock until the future as the page is being persistently vandalised.
Connorcp (
talk)
08:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request of Protection due to History protection, and attributable links that can be useful for old games from the era. Game preservation is important for some people due to them having memories from their childhood.
RoseThornheart (
talk)
02:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Return of the IP hopping West->Western vandal
[71][72][73][74]. Page has previously been semi-protected twice for this problem, once for a month and once for three months. Requesting at least six months, if not a year this time. Thank you, --
Hammersoft (
talk)
00:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I understand it's a balancing act. But, 2 days will stop nothing. This disruption has been going on for a very, very long time now. The intermittent disruption will continue. --
Hammersoft (
talk)
00:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't disagree, but I'm sure you can understand why I'm a bit gunshy. It's been 8 months since the last protection, so the immediate disruption is ended while wiser admins than I can make the decision on something longer.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
00:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Practically no constructive edits from IPs in the last few days (most have been blocked) ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654518:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP users have repetitively adding in bogus content about the sequel being cancelled and saying some different film is in production. Others have reverted only for the content to be reinstated per page history.
Iggy (
Swan) (
Contribs)
18:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Sockpuppetry: The page is already under pending changes, but an an IP pledged at the talk page to edit-war forever and seems to be determined to keep their promise. Something like a week semi should suffice.
Ymblanter (
talk)
18:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Various IPs and accounts are making vandalizing or disruptive edits; recommending week long semi protection or pending changes protection
InvadingInvader (
talk)
20:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Relentless removal of redirect with no changes made to this unacceptable article. The reverts of the redirect have been going on since 2007. Hopefully we can permanent protection.
Atsme💬📧02:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Per
WP:BDP, BLP rules can continue to serve a recently deceased subject for some months after death. Given the lengthy list of vandalism and attacks to this page, the extensive protection history, and the abrupt and recent ending of this subject's life, I see no compelling reason to lower current protection level at this time.
BusterD (
talk)
00:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – One crazy dynamic IP originating from Vietnam keep removing content without providing any explanation. Furthermore, the content removed was already sourced reliably in the body hence not even an factual errors. Immediately after this posting this request that crazy dynamic IP removed it without explanation again, I have enough, someone please protect the article (blocking wouldn't work as they are using various IPs unless range-blocked) and help to revert it if it has not been done so by other editors. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝)03:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Change "Another victory at the Battle of Saratoga resulted in the capture of a British army, and led to France and Spain joining in the war against the British."
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – He has reportedly agreed to a new contract but the signing has not been officially announced. IPs keep prematurely adding the transaction and removing my notice to not add the transaction. Rockchalk71705:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Requesting temporary but long-term semi-protection (last period of semiprotection was 3 months; the disruption resumed within about a day of the protection expiring).
Aoi (青い) (
talk)
06:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: A user is continuously removing the cited content the debut television series of the actor) from the article without giving any proper reason. vandalism.
Qwef1234 (
talk)
08:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:
Most of the edit wars that caused this to be semi-protected was over a paragraph that has recently been removed with a clear consensus for removal (5-1 in the more recent thread, implicitly 6-2, counting the people in the legacy section).
Declined In the absence of the protecting admin, a decision has to be made. I suggest the IP take this opportunity to create an account (
WP:ACCOUNT) then take a few days to become auto-confirmed (
WP:AUTOCONFIRM), then edit the article.
Johnuniq (
talk)
09:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page is continuously vandalized by several anonymous editors with all sorts of insults, defamations etc. Although the edits are reverted, the anonymous editor every day returns to the same thing. I request that it can be protected for auto-confirmed editors. Thank you very much
Miskito89 (
talk)
10:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Hello, followed by the pending changes protection that expired 6 September, and checking the article history, Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Regards. --
Titodutta (
talk)
16:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – Multiple moves from this title which have been contested over the course of the past few weeks. There seems to be discussion occurring on the talk page regarding a possible move, but it seems moving the page without consensus is controversial for now.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: cherry recently died and people are talking about pronouns and changing them back and fourth. think this warrants semi protection for a week or so until people can come to a consensus.
Tdfem19:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temperory Semi-Protection: Fans of a particular participant are again and again vandalising and giving the eliminated contestant a rank (semi finalist) which was not even declared in the show
Imsaneikigai (
talk)
18:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Consistent disruptive editing is ongoing and taking up time. Repeated claims this army no longer exists, despite the lack of reliable sources to support the assertion.
—Ganesha811 (
talk)
22:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It might be wise to create a talk thread inviting "claiming" editors to provide sources, since the page badly needs any such material, regardless of the unit's active status. Extraordinary claims require appropriately strong sourcing. This is the second request and application of semi-protection in last few weeks, but still nothing at all on talk...
BusterD (
talk)
01:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page is being edited without citation and unconfirmed information about events that are currently happening. edits seem to be done by supporters of both sides.
Farnud.r (
talk)
04:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent vandalism from IPs deliberately adding incorrect and unsourced info even after being warned to stop. The page had been previously protected for a week, but as soon as the protection ended, the vandalism from IPs started all over again.
Zoolver (
talk)
08:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Uni3993: It appears that article has no edit protection but is fully protected against moving. On libertarian grounds it might be argued that the 2013 move protection is not needed but I'm a pragmatist: is there a reason related to benefiting the encyclopedia that move protection should be removed? Article talk shows some drama in 2017 related to the title but no substantive comments since August 2021.
Johnuniq (
talk)
07:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes but the procedure should be to discuss the proposal on article talk and ask for unprotection if there is some likelihood of a move being supported. The wrong thing to do would be getting it unprotected, then moving the article, then discussing it (given the earlier drama).
Johnuniq (
talk)
07:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Hey Team, I just have a request to make kindly reduce the page protection of Antara Nandy, as she is my client and her page hasn't been updated for a long time I need to make a lot of updates that contain her current pics and recent events. Let me know if you have a question and looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks
Lakshaykk (
talk)
06:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Hey Team, I just have a request to make kindly allow me to edit the page of Antara Nandy, as she is my client and her page hasn't been updated for a long time I need to make a lot of updates that contain her current pics and recent events. Let me know if you have a question and looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks
Lakshaykk (
talk)
06:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated additions of OR over a period of five days, ignoring consensus view that the material does not belong, and refusing to engage on talk page
Wiki-Ed (
talk)
15:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
There are social media rumours that this person has been made President of China. Of course it is just a rumour but it won't stop some trying to edit this page. Therefore I am requesting temporary protection for a few days until the news cycle dies down.
Imcdc (
talk)
15:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Short:
- Coordinated wikipedia vandalism. Maybe a lock until after the election on Oct 24? There are social media threads encouraging people to make malicious edits and delete requests to several election pages and at least one company related to a candidate.
Longer explanation and pages that should also be considered:
I requested semi-protection of a municipal election page after noticing edits to discredit a candidate that does anti-corruption work at Transparency International. The edit history had the comment "perennial candidate" which was outright false, and I couldn't find anything to support why they would have written that other than malice.
Coordinated wikipedia attacks happening, encouraging malicious edits and reports for deletion. This account isn't just hinting, I DM'd and asked about it and they said they're telling people to report the pages for deletion.
Perhaps revert and lock until the election, then have a more tempered discussion about it. There is also a discord, and facebook group asking for people with "aged and experienced' accounts to do the edits, which doesn't sound like the first time it's been done.
-
John Tory (incumbent candidate. Doesn't look impacted yet).
- "Gil Penalosa" I couldn't find a page, which seems weird. Deleted perhaps?
-
Better Dwelling (page associated with candidate, subject to social media encouragement to vandalize and delete).
We depend on wikipedia for fair and accurate information. This is only a local election, but the effort to manipulate the public from slight changes of perception is disturbing. We should think of better protections in advanced of the upcoming US 2022 Midterm Primary Elections, or we risk turning the best knowledge engine ever developed into a propaganda tool.
BudPenguin (
talk)
17:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Spate of vandalism from multiple IPs on BLP. Suggest extended confirmed for a couple of weeks after appearance in high-profile TV show.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
22:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
Tarl N., I'm not sure if you meant extended-confirmed or semi-protection as you have mentioned both options, but extended-confirmed protection is primarily for cases
"where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective". So let's try that first.
ToBeFree, Sorry for the imprecise terminology. What I meant was to protect against single-purpose newly created accounts as well - because some of the vandalism came from such accounts. Either way, agreed, let’s see if this is enough. Regards,
Tarl N. (
discuss)
23:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temperory Semi-Protection: High level of IP vandalism by fans of a particular contestant adding a rank (semi-finalist) which never existed in show again and again
Imsaneikigai (
talk)
17:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: A new coming user has attempted to disrupt the article's neutrality, which currently covers claims and counterclaims by all parties and every sentence within it is backed by a source. Please note that this is a sensitive topic concerning several living people (
WP:BLP). They have been removing direct quotes taken from one of the interviewees' mouth
12, have removed the section covering the public's reaction to the interview
3, have presented allegations as facts and changed the quotes by the interviewees regarding those allegations
4, claimed that the bullying allegations against one of the interviewees were false and inaccurate whereas she has not been exonerated officially to this day
5 (see
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex#Bullying allegations and Oprah interview for more info), etc. Not to mention all the half sentences and grammatical errors and
posting a link to
this bizarre YouTube video that is heavily edited and contains no sound, claiming that it is the interview in full. The edits have been reverted by me and an administrator, and a warning by me on their talk page regarding the matter was deliberately ignored. Keivan.fTalk08:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Hello: This page is again being vandalized by individuals trying to damaged the subject's reputation. As per the Living person policy, I suggest this page should be fully protected.
CFPR2021 (
talk)
17:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)reply
This is not a "pro-Charlebois" message. This is about putting accurate information on Wikipedia. Every 12 months of so, someone goes back to this page to remind the wiki community of an investigation which amounted to nothing more than an acquittal. Charlebois' twitter account is also hacked very much at the same time as these campaigns on Wikipedia. But some persist to keep these accusations alive and out in the public only to damage Charlebois' reputation. This page needs to be deleted.
CFPR2021 (
talk)
22:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Weren't you the one accusing your opponent in this dispute of working for the dairy lobby? Seems an odd thing for someone who claims to not be in the pro-Charlebois camp to do. Twitter is irrelevant here, and as has been pointed out to you the investigation isn't as prominent in the article and is better sourced than it has been in the past. —
Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori23:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:Temporary semi-protection: A significant amount of vandalism from different IPs in recent hours. Appears to be related to today's game, so it probably just needs a short period of protection.
Egsan Bacon (
talk)
03:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Pending Changes for one monthReason: Persistent use of Youtube videos, unreliable sources and disruptive changes made by Anon/IP and newly created users. Multiple reverts being made by them.
Mr.User200 (
talk)
14:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Non-extended confirmed editor repeatedly adding primary source to create an inappropriate and inaccurate impression, without the necessary secondary sources to provide context. See talk page.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
22:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Non-ECO editor using primary source inappropriately to create a inaccurate impression, without the necessary secondary sources to provide context, See talk page.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
22:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Sockpuppetry. Long term problems with persistent sockpuppetry on this article by
Jellywings19 socks. Would need at least 3-6 months of protection to be useful. They have never yet failed to return, even after a few weeks off. The user in question has been effectively
WP:3X banned. This is their single most targeted page, with most edits being by their socks, or reversions of their socks, for the last year. The most active non-autoconfirmed editor,
103.149.18.18, just finished a 3 month block for disruptive editing, much of that was on this article. I would understand a decline, but it will be good if protection would be considered here. An SPI has just closed off on the most recent sock, hence why I am submitting this now, rather than before the SPI was complete.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
07:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Vulnerable to IP vandalism - multiple IP users, whose edits have had to be reversed, have edited this article. Given the relatively controversial nature of the article (on Islamic law) and recent news coverage, I request that this page receive a higher level of protection.
GuardianH (
talk)
06:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Imperium Europa is a political party in Malta. It is experiencing edits that are injurious to its reputation and which do not reflect the truth which Wikipedia was founded to ensure.
In view of this we are requesting that the page is protected in order to be ensure that it is not abused by opponents.
Adspi81 (
talk)
11:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Given that you're one of the people trying to whitewash this party, page protection would ironically lock you out of it. — Czello11:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Unsourced content addition by IP, kindly provide a week period protection
C1K98V(
💬✒️📂)13:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temperory Semi-Protection Request— continuing what
User:C1K98V said, the show is scheduled to premiere this weekend, so ip adresses are vandalising it, posting unauthentic content, kindly give protection for 10 days
Imsaneikigai (
talk)
14:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – There seems to be a large uptick in the amount of vandalism and addition of unsourced content that this page is suffering. This is coming almost invariably from IP users. Pending changes protection would allow all to continue to propose changes while protecting this BLP from the recurring vandalism/unsourced material from at some point seeping into the article.
Jtrrs0 (
talk)
17:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Many of the IP edits to this page over the past year have been "new updates" that consistently replace station acquisition years with (the same) lengthy nonsense. WCQuidditch☎✎22:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes protection: Various users and IPs changing "Concord entertainment" to "Elise Ecklund" despite not providing any source (and a user having proved otherwise). Disruption isn't constant enough to warrant semi-protection in my opinion but happens often enough that Pending Changes should suffice ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There has been constant pov, poor, and unreferenced content addition on this page by new accounts. A simple history of page can clear it out. I think there is a need for some protection on this page.
Akalanka820 (
talk)
06:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism by fan of particular contestant adding unrecognised “semi-finalist” rank with different IPs. I request temperory semi-protection of 3 months
Imsaneikigai (
talk)
08:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined It needs to be a lot more than that really to protect a talk page of a protected article, and even then it wouldn't be long-term. If we did that, there'd be no way for IPs to comment on the article.
GedUK12:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined There are certainly some disruptive edits, but there's also a lot of good edits, so I'm reluctant to protect at this point. Relist if vandalism picks up.
GedUK12:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. The IP won’t stop vandalizing the page, and I’m getting really tired of it. Whenever the IP’s block expires, he continues again. This page must be protected ASAP.
Magnatyrannus (
talk |
contribs)
00:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: One or more editors, likely associated with the subject, are repeatedly editing the article to make it very blatantly and highly promotional. They are not responding to User Talk messages.
ElKevbo (
talk)
12:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent insistence of certain IP addresses (see page history) about a certain section of information which some think is a
WP:BLP violation, although a given replacement (again, see history) looks to be - in itself - poorly formatted. Would appreciate some level of protection for this page.
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk)
19:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page is attracting a flurry of vandalism edits from IPs and new
WP:SPAs posting misleading namesand numbers and stuff about Cum and Ku Klux Klan. A few days of temporary semi-protection could help calm this noise.
AllyD (
talk)
20:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: The page was protected for the reason "Arbitration enforcement", but the reason for protection in the protection log does not state what arbitration enforcement is in effect nor does it link to a page that describes the arbitration enforcement. The protecting administrator is inactive.
FAdesdae378 (
talk·contribs)
21:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment. I see WP:ARBPIA mentioned in the edit immediately preceding the protection so I assume it's that. Am I right in thinking that arbitration enforcement protection should be appealed at WP:AE? --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
22:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't think that page protection is actually an AE function, although sometimes pages are protected because of an AE report. In this case, the admin didn't even link the report, so as far as I am concerned, it was a normal admin action that came about due to problems that arose at AE. NeilN hasn't edited in a few years, so it should be decided upon it's own merits without consideration to Arb restrictions. At least that is my take on it, as an admin that has done a fair amount of AE work.
Dennis Brown -
2¢22:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
As soon as I did that, I decided to check the log, and yes, this was a logged action, so yes, I guess it should be appealed at
WP:AE. ECP protection, which doesn't require logging, unless you want to FORCE the issue to go to WP:AE. Not a choice I would have made.
Dennis Brown -
2¢22:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The problem is that linked clause: "All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.", which tells me it must go to AE, if we are to be bureaucratic here.
Dennis Brown -
2¢10:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I think it is most assuredly ARBPIA; just check the article (especially the part about the his views on Jews and Zionism). Also, I do not think that just forgetting to put a link to the correct arbitration enforcement is enough grounds for unprotection, and I do not see that AE would unprotect on these grounds either. I would decline the unprotect request.
Lectonar (
talk)
11:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Arbitration enforcement / discretionary sanctions are irrelevant for this request, as
Sdrqaz has correctly pointed out. I have now clarified this in the protection log.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
22:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
FAdesdae378, your request does not seem to provide a reason for unprotection. If I see correctly, the article subject has died less than 48 hours ago, and the original protection was built on an experience of disruption in this topic area. Due to the additional attention the article is currently receiving, lowering the protection would be too early yet. You may like to ask again in a few months.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
22:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page was protected due to large number of transclusions of that page at that time (see log), but now there are only 5 transclusions, including one to the userspace and another to itself. --
TedEdwards20:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
HarrySONofBARRY: Thanks for your discussion at user talk but it would be better to encourage them to engage on the article talk page. Also, the edits which I checked were not vandalism as defined by the
WP:VAND link you used. You must be very careful when using that term because the assertion is a personal attack. Stick to "unsourced" or "poorly sourced" or "non-neutral".
Johnuniq (
talk)
07:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: We're attempting to edit this page, however it seems that there's been a protection posted by a member of the community. We'd like to edit and add necessary information to be able to access the original Gods Unchained page.
Eclipsegu (
talk)
20:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Violation of
Wikipedia:PIA Restrictions, it's semi-protected despite the article being required to be Extended Confirmed Protection along with one revert every 24 hours and subjection to Discretionary sanctions
Should be changed to an extended confirmed protection2A10:8001:E494:0:1DC:E089:AF0B:4C27 (
talk)
22:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined That article has had one edit and one reversion of that edit since July. The editors concerned are extended confirmed. Are you thinking of some other article?
Johnuniq (
talk)
07:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Disruptive speculation as to the new manager continues after the previous two-day protection expired. Which is why, incidentally, I requested a longer period at the original RFPP request. Another 4 days should hopefully suffice.
Gricehead (
talk)
15:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:Temporary semi-protection:
Janvez (
talk·contribs) sockpuppets are constantly popping up as quickly as they are blocked to take potshots at editors trying to make the article neutral. Since whac-a-mole is pointless here with as rapidly as Janvez is creating socks, I'm asking for semi-protection of the talk page for a short time. —
Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori19:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Hm, hm, hm. While I'd be fine with anyone shortening or removing the semi-protection without asking, I have set it to "three months" for now. There seems to be no significant collateral damage to be expected (SPI pending at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Janvez), and the amount of volunteer time having to be spent on dealing with the sockpuppets there needs to be significantly reduced.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
20:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. The page was protected twice before on my request, but IP vandals have been vandalising ever since the protection was lifted
Sneha996 (
talk)
19:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: More important cities (Like Moscow) aren't full protected, and this one is, the Venezuela's Page is Semi-Protected, but i do not understand why Caracas is full protected.
Gabriel Ziegler (
talk)
17:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done two recent changes apparently of concern
[89][90] are not unquestionable vandalism. If something needs to be done, it would be the IP (or it's /64 range), since it's a single person, and per the protection policy we shouldn't be protecting it but blocking that IP or IP range. If you think the actions are vandalism, at least warn the IP and escalate to
WP:AIV. Indefinite protection is too heavy of a response to this. --
Hammersoft (
talk)
20:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Tendentially an article in a topic area where I'd protect pretty quickly, but even with this bias towards protection, I'd decline this for a lack of recent disruptive activity.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
21:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-protection: IP users do lot of Unconstructive edits on daily basis on this article. Administrators please issue a Temporary semi-protection to this article.
Pri2000 (
talk)
06:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The only reverted edits since the last protection expired are routine vandalism, not BLPvio, and all from one IP, which has now stopped editing. (Report to AIV if it resumes.) --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)07:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined Hmmm...page has never been protected before. Vandalism I do not see it the last 10 or so IP edits...I see
good faith attempts. Sourcing is a problem which might be solved by talking to the IPs doing the edits. @
Krimuk2.0:: you don't talk to them, you don't warn, and just revert without even using edit-summaries. These things together make it virtually impossible for the IPs to understand why they are reverted. Not everyone knows their way around Wikipedia's policies from their first edit.
Lectonar (
talk)
11:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Since last couple of days a IP range
Special:Contributions/103.249.239.56 is pushing for potentially invalid desecration part on the article (copying from
Maratha invasions of Bengal without attribution) to draw a false equivalence with the
Delhi Sultanate article where they were removing a large chunk of content with vile reasons -
diff, see here on
Ashoka article as well
diff with a similar non collegial behavior.
Semi protection would leave them with no other choice but to discuss it on
talk page and get a consensus which they apparently are not intersted in doing at the moment despite multiple reverts and warning on their talk page by me in last 48 hours..
∆ P&t ♀√ (
talk)
12:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The IP is on their last legs, as they've already led to other pages being protected and it's teetering towards disruptive editing rather than edit warring.
DatGuyTalkContribs17:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I second this request. I don't know what it gets by increasing a politician's importance rating in certain WikiProjects without any regards to their actual guidelines, but it's going on for several days now. —CX Zoom[he/him](
let's talk • {
C•
X})16:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected – If the RfD finds in favor of retargeting, an admin can effect the change. The topic, under whichever title, is a frequent target of ethno-national disruption.
Favonian (
talk)
15:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The user
User_talk:LeaveMeB:
1) Infringes on WP:CBALL - there are multiple CPUs on the table which have not been announced
2) Adds duplicated data
3) Makes tables extremely large for no reasons
4) His multiple edits of other articles have been reverted as well, including
7_nm_process and
5_nm_process.
I request extended protection.
Artem S. Tashkinov (
talk)
17:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined –
Pages are not protected preemptively. It's a very simple /64 range, if they do indeed return they'll just be blocked for longer. For future reference, simple disruptive editing such as in this case doesn't have to be constantly reverted - it serves no purpose but to fill up the page history. Simply report the IP to AIV and wait a bit for a patrolling administrator to apply a block.
DatGuyTalkContribs21:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Like the Season 10 article IP users do lot of Unconstructive edits here also on a daily basis. Administrators please provide a Temporary semi-protection to this article too.
Pri2000 (
talk)
01:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection AND Temporary extended confirmed protection: Page title dispute/move warring – This page has been subject to protracted content disputes, and more recently, move warring, due to the Crunchyroll/Funimation merger. I would propose some level of editing protection be instituted as well, preferably ECP. silviaASH (
User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (
inquire within)04:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Change line:
"The current CEO of Zevia is Paddy Spence, who bought Zevia in 2010 and became both CEO and chairman.[2][9][10][11]" to "Paddy Spence bought Zevia in 2010 and became both CEO and chairman.[2][9][10][11]"
Pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Many of the IP edits to this page over the past year, and particularly over the last four months, have been "new updates" that consistently replace station acquisition years with (the same) lengthy nonsense. WCQuidditch☎✎15:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – 247 is not a negligible number of articles, potentially affected by ill-informed changes to the template. Furthermore, the talk page does not indicate a great, unsatisfied need for changes.
Favonian (
talk)
16:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Regular and frequent disruptive or spam type editing that needs to be reverted. For some reason, a lot of pages that deal with poo or other bodily excretions, I guess, attract those vandals, very sad.
EMsmile (
talk)
17:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: a lot of brand new or sleeper accounts trying to portray Ukrainian territories as now part of Russia after Putin's speech today (honestly this article should've been semi'd pre-emptively) Volunteer Marek 20:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
In the right hand box, change "in exile in Russia since May 20, 2013" to "in exile in Russia since June 23, 2013".
In the main body of the article, it says that on June 21, 2013, the US DOJ unsealed charges against Mr. Snowden. It further states that two days later (June 23, 2013), he flew to Moscow's airport. The date of his exile should start from his arrival in Russia. The article linked as a source also says that Mr. Snowden left Hong Kong on June 23, 2013.
76.174.18.68 (
talk)
05:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Every time theyre blocked they come back with a new one, its happened several times in the past few days. They made it clear theyll use different proxies. The
SPI investigation immediately drew comments connecting it to sock puppets going back to 2017 with a focus on this article
Softlemonades (
talk)
19:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply