Temporary pending changes: The disruption did not stop after editnotice has been implemented. Requesting temporary PC protection so that edits get reviewed prior to publication.
Interstellarity (
talk)
15:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined - This isn't really what PC is meant for. Besides, pages that new editors are told to edit will always attract test/nonconstructive edits, and any other level of protection will ruin the point of it.
DatGuyTalkContribs21:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Latest target of globally banned LTA and serial proxy abuser
WP:LTA/GRP, after the first two talk page archives of this page were semi-protected. No need for anons to edit this archive in any case. JavaHurricane05:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Note: This is largely due to unconfirmed rumours circulating that he has died, which numerous IPs and unconfirmed editors are adding to the page, in violation of BLP.
WJ94 (
talk)
10:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
gawd what a mess. Extended-confirmed for a day - that should be enough to get stuff sorted out. Hopefully won't have to go to full protection -
David Gerard (
talk)
11:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Disruptive edits (removal of well-sourced material; deceptive edit summaries) made by two new accounts and two anon accounts over the past week; pattern suggests sockpuppetry and conflict of interest
PRRfan (
talk)
04:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The earlier
request was made by an editor with a declared interest in the Brothers in Unity page and a complaint that the page was being edited by someone with a "lack of insider knowledge"; since then, there have been a slew of disruptive edits by new and anon accounts that seem to be made to put the organization in a preferred light.
All my suggestions to discuss any of these changes or deletions on Talk have been unavailing. In 18 years of editing Wikipedia, this is the first time I have requested page protection; I humbly suggest this request be met with favor.
PRRfan (
talk)
04:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There is already a temporary auto-correct for here but I think it should be permanent because of the fact that people keep putting the fact that Gordon Freeman from Half-Life died on the article because of Half Life VR but the AI is Self Aware.
Waylon111 (
talk)
14:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined Protection lenghts are usually escalated slowly; this article is already protected until July '23. We can take another look then...often things cool down with time.
Lectonar (
talk)
15:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Multiple IPs originating from South Korea kept changing wikilink from correct ones to incorrect ones despite being reverted multiple times by multiple users (including AGF IP users). —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝)14:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – IPs are updating this page to say "Lee Ji-hoon" has died, but do not cite any sources (reliable or not). News reports that a "Lee Jihan" age 24 died in the S. Korean Halloween incident. The reported age (24) doesn't line up with this Lee Ji-hoon (age 34) and there are other inconsistencies in the reports that may indicate this is not the person who died. But maybe it is the same person. It is hard to tell. Request protection for a few days or a week to allow time for more definitive reports to be publish and seasoned editors can make appropriate updates. –.
Archer1234 (
talk)
16:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Definitely not the same person, the subject is still alive. As far as I'm aware of, the deceased currently doesn't has a article here. Regardless, it should be protected temporarily. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝)16:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP vandal, has used four different IPv4 and IPv6 address so far, ad hominem stuff. I don't think I've ever needed to request protection for a Signpost page before, so if there's another alternative that's cool. ☆ Bri (
talk)
18:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I personally disagree with the reasoning, as only a few IPs have made edits, and it's not the direct page of the artist who died, so i recommend denial
LordEnma8 (
talk)
17:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Note:JalenFolf, I'm not sure if I told this to you, specifically, so here it is: protection requests for Cups and Leagues usually are the most challenging to appear here. So, if you wish for myself, at least, to review these rather than just skip, you'll need to be much more detailed (i.e. diffs, summaries, etc.). Now, this is not required, of course, but I suspect that many admins on this board are of a similar mindset, so FYI FWIW HTH acronym acronym. Thanks.
El_C06:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP editors think he is dead and I cannot revert all their edits. They cannot provide a good source but they insist to do such edits.
Timothytyy (
talk)
12:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: I don't know if I'm jumping the gun (the amount of total editing is too low for traditional semi-protection and I'm not super familiar with requesting pending changes protection so I don't know if this meets the "regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing" guidance laid out on the policy page), but after this April when information about an individual in the page was adjusted to be in line with
MOS:GENDERID, this page has seen a persistent string of largely IP editors showing up every few weeks to remove the name/pronoun changes, such that those edits and the accompanying reverts back to GENDERID compliance are probably 80-90% of the recent edits to that article, and I feel like I'm the only person watching it closely enough to catch and revert those edits (this may not be true and simply may just be a feeling because so far I've been the single person making those kinds of reverts). -
Purplewowies (
talk)
21:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Sockpuppetry. Persistent sockpuppetry, indef cause this has been repeated and usually resumes shortly after previous protection expires ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654523:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This article about a German musician was indefinitely protected about 36 hours after its creation in 2019, despite having zero disruptive edits before then — aside from the creator's edits, the only edits have been someone tagging it as a draft, and someone moving it from userspace. It's still protected now, even though the eleven edits since protection have all been fine. The original protecting admin, WJBscribe, is no longer active, and the most recent protection log entry should be ignored because it was a 1-second protection meant to leave a note in the log. I don't understand what's happened here, but it definitely doesn't look like something that currently needs protection.
175.39.61.121 (
talk)
19:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
This will not be unprotected barring a community discussion lifting it; see
here. (Nota Bene: For some reason the permalink is also transcluding live sections of this page as well; the relevant section is the closed one underneath this transcluded request.) —
Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori19:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@175.39.61.121. There is an extremely problematic history concerning a person of the same name meaning this is a page at high risk of disruption from that. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
21:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
TheWikiholic, that page has never been protected before, so it is not a candidate even for long term protection, not to mention indef. First time long term or indef protections are usually applied only for the most egregious of cases, such as severe
WP:BLP vios,
WP:ACDS /
WP:GS pages,
WP:CHILDPROTECT, and so on.
El_C08:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page was protected back in 2016, and has received less than 50 edits since then. I feel that this page should be unprotected, or at least moved to Pending Changes.
109.234.101.175 (
talk)
11:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined.
Magnatyrannus, if you don't explain why you feel that ECP is necessary, then there's just not much to go on (i.e. socking how, by whom, etc.). I, at least, am not immediately seeing why the protection should be upgraded at this time.
El_C08:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Can't fast forward, no volume bar — gg YouTube. But if you replace the /shorts/ with /watch?v= it plays like a normal video!
El_C08:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Is her deadname listed here somewhere, because when I look up her deadname it pops up.
I don’t know too much about how Google’s web indexing works, but I know that Wikipedia is usually the first result and her deadname pops up. If I look up the deadnames of other similar people, Google does not serve me their Wikipedia article.
Can you do a quick Ctrl + F for her deadname and see if it appears anywhere within the article? If it doesn't, we can't help you. I don't know her deadname myself.
RteeeeKed💬📖21:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
If Google keeps bringing up her deadname, then it's on Google's end due to their
caching of search results and Knowledge Panel content. (If it's from the Knowledge Panel, that does not cull exclusively from Wikipedia and odds are that's coming from some other source, maybe IMDb?) —
Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori21:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
"Template:Edit request" redirects here. For edits to a semi-protected page, see Template:Edit semi-protected. For edits to an extended-confirmed protected page, see Template:Edit extended-protected. For edits to a template-protected page, see Template:Edit template-protected. For edits to a fully-protected page, see Template:Edit fully-protected. For edits to a interface-protected page, see Template:Edit interface-protected.
Gazi Rakib (
talk)
23:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
It is requested please, it is wrong information is circulating over the internet that " Current Khalifa of Islam is Mirza Masroor Ahmed" kindly avoid to remove this type of fake information about islam he is not khalifa of islam he might be have khalif of Ahmadiya Islam which is another religion which is followed by so called Ahmedi but they are not considerable as a Muslim Ummah of Islam. kindly edit the subjected artical.
Pakistan1940 (
talk)
08:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined The article says exactly that: he is "...the current and fifth leader of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community". We can't do much about the rest of the internet.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring began on
October 2 and continues for a month now. The article has been tagged (POV) The page should be protected until the talk page agreement for proposed changes is achieved.
Link to the original version prior to edit warring. - GizzyCatBella🍁13:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Persistent disruptive editing by new and unregistered users, most edits are either disruptive editing, or reversion of such. Not enough activity for semi-protection, but seems like a good case for PC.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
15:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP vandalism. Since protection expired, IP editors are back alleging criminal behavior on a BLP. I think anyone following the page will agree that it is a vandalism magnet and probably won't stop for a while, long/indefineate protection is desirable please
CT55555 (
talk)
18:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Since October 27, IPs have been repeatedly inserting in this BLP an incorrect native_name in Armenian script that is, apparently, insulting/abusive according to a talk page message. I got confused about it at first and was actually restoring the incorrect name a couple of times but figured out what was going on and have been trying to rectify the situation using her correct name. However, the IPs keep returning to vandalize.
Archer1234 (
talk)
20:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Hi, this needs to be moved back to
London cable car, and possibly then protected.
London cable car was the result of the
RM that finished today. Now a user has moved it to
Royal Docks and Greenwich Peninsula cable car against the outcome of the RM. That same user has also been engaging in aggression and swearing, for example
here. I could undo this move to bring the article back to the title decided in the RM, but I don't think that would put an end to this situation. Thanks for your help.
Dr. Vogel (
talk)
21:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: We're seeing frequent attempts to add unsourced content, all coming from IP addresses. Semi-protection may be appropriate, perhaps for 4 weeks.
Chumpiht08:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Different IPs repeatedly removing the merging template and, ironically, adding an incorrect page protection tag. Maybe semi-protection is more effective than trying to go after them one by one?
Felix QW (
talk)
09:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: A biased user has made this page semi-protected so that they can insert politically-biased language into the page without others being able to make edits to make the language more neutral. These biased users have an agenda to impact the election happening in 6 days.
PersonNamedLadesh (
talk)
18:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined The person who protected the article didn't edit the article after implementing protection; you are free to use the article talk-page to make edit requests.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined Afaics, the article title isn't protected. YOU can't create the article because you're not autoconfirmed yet. But continue to work on the draft, and you'll get there.
Lectonar (
talk)
10:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I request for Django Unchained to be unprotected because it doesn't really need protection, the only reason why it was protected was because I was making useless edits in the article. I am now partially blocked but I regret making those edits and the protection just feels useless since I am now blocked from the page.
2.29.250.239 (
talk)
12:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Vandalism by a persistent anonymous editor over the span of two months. I am requesting a change to the protection settings, possibly to allow only autoconfirmed users to edit (permanently). I see no change from an editor's perspective in the current protection settings, as we keep having to revert the page wipe, patrol a "new" article, and block the new IP the anonymous editor has now jumped to.
Yue🌙07:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Frequent addition of random names to the lists, mostly from IP addresses. Perhaps 2 months of Pending changes protection would be appropriate.
Chumpiht14:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Frequent addition of random names to the lists, mostly from IP addresses. Perhaps 2 months of Pending changes protection would be appropriate.
Chumpiht14:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – After an attempt to publish a promotional autobiography was previously moved to draft. An SPA recreated the
WP:AUTOBIO in the same space.
GPL93 (
talk)
19:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Not very many disruptive edits in the last 2 days, but I can see that some accounts are disrupting; better to tackle this on a case by case base...
WP:AIV is thataway.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined This was some disagreement about the quote, but not vandalism as such. Article is being edited now to comply with Wikipedia standards.
Lectonar (
talk)
10:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Per
User talk:Katutubongpeminista, a teacher somewhere has told their entire class to add content about "communication planning" to this article, without following
WP:EDUP in any way. The content being added over the past few days has been of little or no value, but is being repeatedly added back.
Belbury (
talk)
11:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Persistent changing of any instance of "DC Extended Universe" or "DCEU" to "DC Universe" or "DCU" despite there being no consensus for it on the talk page yet ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – PCs just passed a controversial piece of legislation, expecting to see more vandalism on this page as strike action takes place. —WildComettalk06:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes:BLP policy violations – A (hopefully temporary) surge of BLP vio as two high-profile figures have publicly expressed Black Hebrew Israelite–style views. So far, no one has provided a reliable source saying they actually belong to the group.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
13:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: On November 3, yesterday, several edits were made by a certain individual (@Justtmoon), and they deleted important details and added vandals and comments on the main page. Fortunately, some editors have reverted the act and alerted me to the said act. Hope you could add additional protection for the page of DKZ. Thank you!
Heymikky (
talk)
15:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of different IP addresses vandalism. I am requesting for semi protection version in order to prevent non registered accounts or IP addresses from vandalism. Thank you
Nataniyu Raj (
talk)
14:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection on the Django Unchained article is pointless because i am now partially blocked for five months for making useless edits on the article and i regret doing it. The article doesn't really need protection anyways I'll never make those edits again.
2.29.250.239 (
talk)
12:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC
was template-protected automatically by a bot despite having only 4 times as many transclusions as the merely semi-protected
Wikipedia:Featured article criteria (
6647 vs.
1645) and template protection being a much stronger form of protection than semi-protection. This relatively low ratio means the template protection on Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC is likely unwarranted, and may be reduced to extended confirmed protection or semi-protection.
123957a (
talk)
14:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected - There's
consensus to permanently semiprotect pages with at least around 200–250 transclusions, permanently extended-confirmed protect pages with roughly 2500 to 5000 transclusions, and permanently template protect pages with anything above that.
DatGuyTalkContribs15:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I am from Vivek Agnihotri's team, most of the information given in this page is wrong, I request you to delete the protection lock from the page so that the correct information can be written on the page.
Neeraj Dheeraj Singh (
talk)
12:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined. People with a conflict of interest should never make substantive changes to content in an article. @
Neeraj Dheeraj Singh: Propose a requested change on the talk page. Your proposal should be in the form "Change X to Y" or "Add X after Y" or "Delete X" with appropriate citations supporting the change. Because you have a conflict of interest, you may use the template {{request edit}} at the top of your proposal to cause your proposal to be listed in a category page that is monitored by some editors. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
16:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: On November 3, Thursday, several edits were made by a certain individual (@Justtmoon), and they deleted important details and added vandals and comments on the main page. Fortunately, some editors have reverted the act and alerted me to the said act. Hope you could add additional protection for the page of Park Jae-chan. Thank you!
Heymikky (
talk)
16:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Logged AE action.
M.Ashraf333, those two autoconfirmed users have been blocked. Relist for an
WP:ECP upgrade if additional ones appear; or feel free to drop me a line on my talk page to possibly expedite. Thanks.
El_C20:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Since protection expired, pattern of edits by IP address that are removing cited content and adding uncited content. She is a polarising figure and this page is likely to continue to be a magnet for IP addresses who don't follow wikipedia guidelines, requesting longer protection please.
CT55555 (
talk)
16:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Misleading paragraphs/lines are often added in the article by some users. There is apparently subtle signs of sock puppetry here and there, too.
Skydream1721 (
talk)
22:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Note:Skydream1721, I skipped this because I couldn't tell what was happening. Such is the case with nearly all requests for Cups and Leagues pages. Consider adding a few recent diffs as samples with more precise explanation of what exactly is going on.
El_C15:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Between UTC+-0 22:26 and 22:34 of 3 November 2022 there were attempts of flooding empty templates to the teams without released squads. 17:22 on 3 November there was also an user including an unofficial squad "based on leaked information" to the Belgium NT (third time it happened). On 04:41 of 3 November, there was another empty template added that was later reverted. On 30 October 2022, there was the first attempt of including the unofficial Belgium NT squad. On 2 November at 18:13, there was the second time the Belgium NT fake squad was included. On 19:56 of 22 October there was a second attempt of vandalism towards Cameroon's coaching staff. On 19:17 of the same day there was the first. On 00:37 of 22 October there was a unofficial Argentina squad list wrongly added by me, as i mistakenly thought it was official. On 20:41 of 21 October there was another attempt of releasing an unofficial squad for the Argentina NT. On 15:30 of 7 October 2022, there was a vandalism attempt on Morocco NT. And so on. Probably there was more, but i think it's enough to back-up my claim ~~
Skydream1721 (
talk)
16:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Skydream1721, unless there's disruption that happened within the last few days, it's probably not eligible for protection. Once we get to weeks, it starts to become Stale. If you have anything more recent, I'll have a look, but please also link to the diffs that correspond to your summaries rather than only posting dates. Thanks.
El_C20:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Skydream1721: look at the revision history of this page and compare it to the revision histories of any random pages listed on this board, and you'll see the challenges we, as admins, face with Cups and Leagues requests. And if you go to the revision history of this board and ctrl.F Cup or League, you'll see that they're pretty much all like that. Which is to say, virtually impenetrable to an outside reviewer. For some reason, editors who revert disruption on these pages, hardly ever use the
WP:UNDO feature and/or edit summaries explaining what's what. Keep in mind, most admins who attend to this board will not spend 30 min on a single request, especially, seeing as the given requestor could usually explain the what's what in a fraction of the time.
El_C20:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I understand it. It's a lot of work. It wasn't my intention to look "angry" or anything. I just tried to state that the disruptions were made both in previous weeks and the current week. Sorry if i made you think that, as i still struggle with kind delivery of expressions and viewpoints in formal language. Please don't take anything i said harshly. Thanks for your contributions!!! ~~
Skydream1721 (
talk)
20:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Oh, not at all, but thank you. It's just such a common occurrence here, I've stated and re-stated that same thing, like, a million times to, like, a million users. Nothing really to do with you, specifically. See for example my similar note from Nov 1 to the request for
2022 FIFA World Cup Group A and
2022 FIFA World Cup Group B (that this request is also FIFA is somewhat happenstance), then multiply it by, like, a million. All the best,
El_C20:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Disruptive edits from IP editors have resumed and continued after protection was removed. An IP editor (likely using multiple IP addresses as sockpuppets) continues to add non-franchise articles (such as American Dad!) and redirects with "(franchise)" in them that lead to articles on single films or TV shows (e.g.
Willow (franchise) redirects to
Willow (film) and
Futurama (franchise) redirects to Futurama). They've also continued to add Star Wars under
20th Century Studios even though that franchise is solely owned and controlled by
Lucasfilm. –
WPA (
talk)
23:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Looks like a few days didn't work, so a few weeks it is. If it keeps happening after that, a few months. It is what it is.
El_C03:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Disruptive anonymous editing: after a few months of peace and constructive development of the article, an anonymous user is back to persistently changing the image with no real explanation and still refuses to use the talk page, instead making pointless disruptive edits to the article to leave messages for other editors in summaries. This problem resulted in the need for the article to be protected a few times already in the past.
HaniwaEnthusiast (
talk)
07:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
There is none. The talk page comment refers to a general pattern of behavior present in the history of the article. An anomymous user or user(s) performed various acts of disruptive editing or vandalism in the past, which got the article locked multiple times, and refused to engage on the talk page, instead leaving messages in edit summaries. This is what I am referring to. Not a nonexistent discussion about the image specifically. I have created a section on the talk page highlighting the lack of merit of the new image now, though, so that further users with familarity with the subject matter can add their opinions.
HaniwaEnthusiast (
talk)
15:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Back-and forth edit warring on infobox regarding the next concert tour article The Future Past Tour, with attempts to link to its draft version or adding red links.
HorrorLover555 (
talk)
04:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined, I could have fully protected the article but it is better to see whether the user keeps edit-warring and then sanction them.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
12:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Add under memorials and cultural depictions section "The Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library will be a museum and facility for the records of Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president of the United States. It is to be constructed at a site to the west of Medora, North Dakota, near Theodore Roosevelt National Park, which preserves sites associated with Roosevelt's sojourn in North Dakota between 1883 and 1887. The project is in planning stages. A site in the Badlands of Medora was selected in 2020, as well as the design architect Snøhetta and the architect of record JLG Architects."
Hnorat1991 (
talk)
10:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I am from Vivek Agnihotri's team, most of the information given in this page is wrong, I request you to give permission to edit the page so that correct information can be written on the page.
Neeraj Dheeraj Singh (
talk)
12:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Neeraj Dheeraj Singh: please post on the Talk page with any edit requests you might have, rather than try to edit the article directly. Keep in mind that Wikipedia needs to cite reliable sources, so you should include a reference to a third party source like a newspaper article or interview that confirms any corrections. Steven Walling •
talk20:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected project page at Che Guevara - Wikipedia, footnote .[180] where the following is stated:
[Source: </ref> While expounding on the incident later, Guevara reiterated that the cause of socialist liberation against global "imperialist aggression" would ultimately have been worth the possibility of "millions of atomic war victims".
Guevara 1997
“While expounding on the incident later, Guevara reiterated that the cause of socialist liberation against global "imperialist aggression" would ultimately have been worth the possibility of "millions of atomic war victims".[180] The missile crisis further convinced Guevara that the world's two superpowers (the United States and the Soviet Union) used Cuba as a pawn in their own global strategies.”
As it stands, the above paragraph implies that it would be worth for Cuba to use atomic weapons to further socialist liberation. Instead, the actual text to which footnote 180 refers reads:
“Will imperialism continue to lose one position after another or will it, in its bestiality and as it threatened not long ago, launch a nuclear attack and burn the entire world in an atomic holocaust? We cannot say. We do assert, however, that we must follow the road of liberation even though it may cost millions of atomic war victims. In the struggle to death between two systems we cannot think of anything but the final victory of socialism or its relapse as a consequence of the nuclear victory of imperialist aggression.”
The correct meaning of Che Guevara’s words then is that despite an eventual use of nuclear weapons “by imperialist aggression” Cuba must keep following “the road of liberation” even if such aggression may cause “millions of atomic war victims.” Cuban victims, obviously.
I am a registered editor in Wikipedia.
With thanks,
“Manolo”
Manolo37 (
talk)
22:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
DatGuy: I'm not gonna either occupy with one who is uanble to understand the difference between ethnicity and nationality, despite having been explained 10 times before.
62.74.23.186 (
talk)
15:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There appears to be an ongoing edit war about who the current rights holder is. Packerfan386beer here13:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: An IP hopper adds sourced info which however contains editorializing language. They keep edit-warring and do not seem to be interesting discussing the changes.
Ymblanter (
talk)
15:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There may still be snakes in Florida after election day, but at least for the next week, we should keep humans from being listed on this page.
BusterD (
talk)
19:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: A steady increase of levels of vandalism from mostly new accounts or from IP addresses that are only used to vandalize this page in particular.
Senor0001 (
talk)
19:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict) Only one edit in November? Please... go read the protection policy, which is posted several times on this page.
BusterD (
talk)
19:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This is a redirect to Template:Clear, one of the most-used templates on Wikipedia. While this redirect to it is not quite as widely used, it still has 271 transclusions at the time of writing. Given that the current consensus is to semi-protect templates with at least 200 transclusions, I believe that this redirect should be given at least that level of protection.
Partofthemachine (
talk)
22:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Sure np. I now seem to vaguely recall that maybe we're not supposed to tag template redirects, but I could be thinking of something else. I'm sure someone will correct me, either way.
El_C23:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Oh, I believe what I thought of was about the bot. It's not really an issue, regardless. And not one that I imagine see repeating (any time soon), for that matter. Seems to work okay, at any rate, so archiving. Requesting immediate archiving...El_C01:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent disruption to the page over several months or more by a number of IPs and accounts; making the same alterations; changing sourced content to an incorrect and unsourced version + adding unsourced content.
Eagleash (
talk)
22:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because the excessive amount of edits that may have seemed like vandalism was because of a misunderstanding, not actual vandalism. A source needs to be removed.
Filmish (
talk)
22:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There is frequent outright vandalism on the page or additions of unsourced information. The page is a collection of sourced history that is often disrupted by users adding "joke" edits at the worst, or just adding unsourced oversimplifications of the Cuban Revolution.
To give a stereotypical example... the page will give sourced details about the long history about what political opposition groups were involved in the Cuban Revolution. Then an editor will come in and without citing any sources write an over-simplistic "the communists did it" and add it to the page. It is getting tiring to constantly have to amend these unsourced edits. It's constantly taking long and complex history and boiling it down, often incredibly inaccurately. Please add some security so editors can spend more time adding sourced information rather than editing other editors unsourced personal thoughts.
Mangokeylime (
talk)
20:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – There're a number of page moves and technical requests made between Nikki A. S. H. and Nikki Cross titles in the last two days. I have reverted back to the last stable title at Nikki A.S.H. and opened a RM discussion seeking a consensus. In the meantime, would appreciate a temporary move protection to limit/restrict page moves until the discussion is resolved.
– robertsky (
talk)
09:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IPs and a few LTAs have been edit warring over this redirect since 2016. It redirects an extremely uncommon spelling of a given name to its much more common spelling,
Cleitus. The IPs insist on duplicating the content of that article here, replacing the redirect. Please semi indef. General IzationTalk 01:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary move protection: She may win the new title
IWGP Women's Championship at the upcoming event
Historic X-Over. So some users would move this article without consensus (requested move). A recent undiscussed move has already happened.
[32] To avoid dispute/move warring, I request 6-month move protection. Or at least 1-month because Historic X-Over will be on November 20, 2022.
Mann Mann (
talk)
03:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Citations from Indian News papers proving that Aadhar is mandatory for opening a bank account, applying for mobile number, gas connection and birth/death registration have been deleted and protection applied to prevent addition of citations proving the mandatory nature of Aadhar. Further the citations proving that Aadhar is mandatory for essential services in India have not been proved false. Attempt to hide the mandatory nature of the Aadhar biometric ID in India.
117.217.242.78 (
talk)
04:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page has previously been protected for consistent additions of an uncited, borderline defamatory remark about the subject "hating British people". There's been constant attempts by the same user under various IPs to re-add this every month since the article got unprotected. I note that this is only a monthly thing so it may not seem significant enough to protect, but this has been ongoing for nearly a year at this stage and shows no signs of stopping. ser!(
chat to me -
see my edits)14:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There has been repeated vandalism from a single IP on the article
Yuki Tsunoda over the past few days that has been reverted by myself and a few other editors. The edits made by the IP are blatantly false and possibly defamatory with regards to the article's subject. The IP has not responded to the start of a discussion on the article's talk page or to a post on the IP's talk page. Requesting semi-protection for at least several days.
DragonFury (
talk)
15:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I fear that we're getting uncomfortably close to
pre-emptive protections here. To be fair, given that the page is effectively only transcluding other pages, there's not much benefit to unprotecting it these few days.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
22:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't fear that. As I'm trying to explain to you, the same sock that's been disrupting /Sidebar for a while including today, also moved on to this page, today (
diff). Anyway, it's 4 days, so I don't really care. Just overlapping the protections in a
1–
2 staccato. Which isn't unusual to my MO, so if you still have concerns, maybe consider wider discussion...?
El_C22:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not going make a fuss (or at least more than I already have done
) because, as I said above, it's only transcluding other pages.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
22:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
No, I mean, it doesn't have to be a fuss to have a serious policy discussion about what I did as an example, I wouldn't see it like that. I don't care about it, specifically, because they're brief protections, but if you think the issue of 'overlapping' them like that is worth raising at
WT:PP or wherever, I'm open-minded to it.
I'm nearing looked: just passed 10K protections, so if the conclusion in such a discussion is that I (especially) and others need to adjust on that, that's neither a hindrance nor a slight. I don't want you to feel discouraged from doing that just because this (minor example) happens to be the impetus. Though, honestly, mostly I just make a judgment call at the moment wrt risk; it's not something fixed or rigid.
As for transclusion and what not, if you want to adjust one of my protections, in general, just do it. You don't need to ask for permission. I don't ask for permission, but I do ask for forgiveness if need be, which has been working out okay for me. Best Regards,
El_C22:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page has been under page protection but since a week it isn't anymore and IP editors are continuously removing maintenance templates and sourced information again.
Der HON (
talk)
21:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism by multiple IPs and at least one newly-created account. Evidently lost a football match and students from the winning school are vandalizing the page. RA0808talkcontribs22:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Edit warring by an IP, who is now up to three reverts (if they have breached 3RR by the time this report is actioned, please block them and undo the edit. Protection is still requested as they seem to have been editing from a few different IPs in the last couple of weeks. Cheers,
Number5719:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Question:Number 57, ordinarily, I'd just close this it {{subst:RFPP|iav}} or maybe {{subst:RFPP|an3}}, but seeing as it's you (an admin), I'll ask the following. Has the user been warned about the existence of
WP:3RR by way of {{uw-3rr}}, etc., in some past IP incarnation? Because their talk page is a red link atm. Is there a straight up misinformation happening? I don't understand.
El_C20:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Oh, editing from a few different IPs in the last couple of weeks — sorry, I missed that. Well, that answers at least part of my question.
El_C20:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
In my experience, templating IPs doesn't work (I don't even know IPs get notification that they have talk page messages), hence not doing so. However, they're clearly reading the edit summaries, yet continued to revert. Cheers,
Number5720:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Okay, but you're expected to at least give them a chance to know about it in enough detail by way of {{uw-3rr}}, etc. That's really the prevailing practice, which I recommend you adopt, as futile as it may seem. There's worse things than being an optimist against all odds, especially when it only take the 10 second to copy/paste {{subst:uw-3rr}}.
El_C20:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP vandalism and constant stream of sock puppet requests to change wording in article. User requesting wording change has a history of sockpuppetry.
Hyderabad22 (
talk)
00:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. No contentious edits in the last four days. Please read the protection policy linked several times on this page.
BusterD (
talk)
00:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent slow edit warring by IP(s) , focused only on shortening, biasing, and burying a section that has been in the article for some months. I originally added a short summary of the source. It was expanded to a somewhat longer "consensus" version with others.
Yae4 (
talk)
19:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – Not sure how many times I have to keep reverting edits on this, but the user clearly doesn't watch the show...
L1amw9023:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Probably happened, but also, best to be cautious when it's only a brief update in a single source.El_C20:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Three edits today, all from the same range that could easily be blocked if they continued (but they hadn't).
Daniel Case (
talk)
05:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism and misinformation on this page could affect the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections, so it is vital to protect this page until after the election. (Wednesday 9, 2022). gtgamer79(talk)14:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The Q Wiki page should be edited by people with knowledge of the Q posts. First of all, there is Q and there are Anons. There is no "QAnon". That should be corrected first. The Wiki "Q" page is very misleading.
Papaem65 (
talk)
06:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Remove: head of the worldwide Catholic Church.
According to The Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 881: This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
The head of the Church is Jesus Christ, not the Pope.
See
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htmTheSourceOfAllTruth (
talk)
21:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
This requires a consensus on the
talk page and cannot be done unilaterally via this page. Note, however, that you face a very uphill battle as pretty much every reliable source treats the Pope as, and considers him to be, the de facto head of the Roman Catholic Church. —
Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori23:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not a lot of previous protection so I'll have to make this first one brief. Please advise me if this needs extension or renewal.
BusterD (
talk)
18:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let's see if a regime of pending changes is adequately discouraging. While I see the issue, there's insufficient history of disruption or previous protection for semi-protection at this time. I've watchlisted this and if you need escalation, please advise me directly if needed.
BusterD (
talk)
17:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since this page is regularly getting this sort of abuse but not all the time, let's try a three month regime of pending changes, and we can upgrade it to a much shorter semi protection if absolutely necessary. Thanks for the report.
BusterD (
talk)
21:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There has been a large amount of vandalism directed at this article, and it should have some form of protection, at least until a couple of months after the closing of the congress, which was on the 22nd of October.
ERBuermann (
talk)
19:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. I see content disagreements, and an IP editor trying to discuss on the talk page. I am sympathetic to the chaos, but would suggest talk page discussions and dispute resolution, and since some of the IP contributors are attempting to edit constructively, any form of protection is unlikely to help.
BusterD (
talk)
21:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Article is the subject of an edit war regarding whether she is right wing or far-right wing, even though there are four reliable sources for the latter. This has been happening on and off since at least August. –
Skywatcher68 (
talk)
20:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. I have no opinion about which choice is better. With due respect, this is a bed of several pagewatchers' own making. I would hope experienced users who've been seeing these edit wars "since at least August" might have created a talk page discussion, per
WP:BRD, so that merely parroting "did not"/"did too" didn't become a thing. I see no reason to apply page protection to "lock" the article in one contested version immediately before an election, and lots of reasons not to do so.
BusterD (
talk)
20:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)reply
For the record, I object to this request wholeheartedly. I am not a counterpart or coeditor for anyone. My disclosures are clear, and present on
User:Foxtrot620, and I am not editing on anyone's behalf or bequest. Adding a speedy deletion nomination, which was removed without cause or explanation does not constitute vandalism, let alone persistent vandalism. I have a proven history of editing with quality and in good faith. If you have questions, please let me know by dropping me a line on my talk page.
Hi
Materialscientist, thanks a lot for helping here. But I humbly appeal you undelete this page after getting to know the true scenario which I'll explain shortly.
Take a close look at the history of the page. You'll discover it has been a subject of attack for years. I found this out when I checked the page history. I wasn't the page creator. I only noticed the vandalism and decided to assist.
This
Hrstcms had vandalized the page severally and also tagged it for speedy deletion severally but it kept getting declined by admins.
Yesterday, November 7, I tried adding 3 new
WP:RS to boost
WP:Notability on the page and fix the notability tag placed by
Hrstcms. Shortly after that, this
Hrstcms reverted all edits and went ahead to clear almost every content on the page leaving it nearly blank. I tried warning him on his talk page, but he insisted on messing up the page. I filed a vandalism report against him and he got blocked by the admin
Favonian who also reverted his changes and declined the speedy deletion.
Within a space of few minutes, this
Foxtrot620 followed the same trend. He had an older account with lots of edits. He returned the same notability tag and tagged the page for speedy deletion. He had earlier made the same bad faith edit and it got reverted. I didn't want to engage in an edit war with him nor revert his changes since an admin had already settled the issue. I tried talking to him on his talk page but he didn't agree. I also tried contacting the admin
Favonian who that handled the issue before now. But it seems he was offline at the time.
I reported the account for vandalism and also appealed for page protection. But sadly, you got the page deleted without checking the history of what transpired.
I believe the page ought not to be deleted because it was a clear case of an attack on the subject matter. The attack on the page has been there for quite some time.
Deleting the page simply means the vandal had his way at the end.
Kindly review the page history to discover the true scenario. I appeal you undelete the page if you find reasons to do so from the inquiries.
Reason: High level of brand new account vandalism (including Nick names like “Parmesan girl” , removing stuff arbitrarily, mostly it looks like just efforts to provoke random edit wars) Volunteer Marek 07:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent spam and inappropriate addition of external links. Not seeing anything constructive from IP users in the last months. 0x
Deadbeef→∞ (
talk to me)
12:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Page was protected up until today due to constant removal of cited content by IPs. As soon as the page was unprotected, the same removals started again. Subject is currently involved in a state-wide election so may be worth protecting until that's over. ser!(
chat to me -
see my edits)10:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Disagree. The editor who has been repeatedly removing factual information from the article without consensus is a registered user, not an IP, so full protection is needed and the article needs to be reverted to the last stable version (Oct 7, as this has been going on for a month with multiple editors involved). Using semi-protection would be favouring one individual in this edit war over others solely because he's been registered for longer - even though his edits are not constructive.
66.102.87.40 (
talk)
05:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. IP/s, that's not how it works. You're the one adding and re-adding contested content without consensus, per
WP:ONUS, not the other way around. Just because something is factual, doesn't guarantee inclusion for it by default.
El_C18:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
This page was already protected
six time in the last 3 years because of IP vandalism. And this page needs only one edit peer year to add the new list which was done by users in the past.
So could you please add a indefinite semi-protection of this page. If you look at the page history more as 80% of the edits is vandelism of IP's and reverts.
🤾♂️Malo95 (
talk)
13:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Constant vandalism and POV push by user YetiDai and its possible sockpuppet IDs, i have submitted checkuser for these as well/.
1BGhimire (
talk)
11:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: IPs keep changing the incumbent to the governor-elect,
Maura Healey, after tonight's election win. I'd ask for protection until/after January 5, 2023, when she's sworn in.
Corky02:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This afternoon I uploaded a new image onto the article for then somebody to keep reverting my edit saying the picture that was on the article originally was satisfactory so I am requesting 48 hour protection of this page to stop the idiot reverting my edit as I feel my image looks better than the previous one.
Hlliwmai (
talk)
23:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: The racial slur it sounds like is semi-protected, so a lot of the vandals who would vandalize that article instead vandalize this one.
ERBuermann (
talk)
16:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – 4 times in the last 5 days different cellular IP4s adding names of incidental, non-notable children to the infobox (contrary to WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BLPNAMES, WP:NONAME and {{infobox person}}) as well as other disruptive edits contrary to the MOS and {{infobox person}} guidance.
most recent example here. Update: the violations goes back to at least late September including by a new account with a COI. –.
Archer1234 (
talk)
11:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The box figures of the film are disputed. The figures are reliable and vary as per the sources. But few users are continuously changing the figures citing that they must be as per the timeline. Also, most of the users are newly registered and making unconstructive edits not just box office figures.
Jayanthkumar123 (
talk)
16:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of page vandalism. The university has unanimously voted against a name change to Constructor University. The original name of the university is Jacobs University Bremen and will continue to remain so. AJ 23:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Reason: The page is full of nazi apologia from very sketchy sources, prior to my edit a work of fiction was being used as a "source" for how much the Jews were 'overrepresented' in various professions.
Ummmbacon (
talk)
14:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Possible long-term
edit warring against consensus and
WP:OWN behavior from very likely COI (and at least SPA) contributor who created the article and has been patrolling it since to restore preferred version - Barton1234(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) e.g.
[34][35][36][37][38]. There has also been random uncited info from several brand new or infrequent accounts likely due to Ebright's media and twitter escapades in the lab leak sphere:
[39][40][41][42]. We have attempted to engage the COI contributor on the talk page, have developed
a consensus that they repeatedly disregard. They also have not responded to questions about their possible COI on their user talk or the article talk. I may end up bringing this to COIN or ANI, but I figured this was the first step. Open to any and all advice about the situation, thanks. —
Shibbolethink(
♔♕)02:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined - edit warring protections are only applied when protection would force all parties to reach a consensus. As you are extended confirmed and
Barton1234 (
talk·contribs) is not, it will be unfair. If you'd like to report them for edit-warring, take it to
WP:AN/EW. If you'd like to report them for other conduct issues, take it to
WP:AN/I.
DatGuyTalkContribs14:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason This page has been on attack since two years now. Many IP addresses, including many named users continue to push their POV and change his birth place to some other place, contrary to what has been agreed on the talk page as a result of Consensus reached. This page has been protected
once,
twice and
thrice for this ongoing disruption. One
user has even been blocked from editing this page further. In my opinion, this article needs to be extended protected indefinitely to avoid vandalism and wasting people's time. I hope an Admin will act on this. zoglophie06:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: These templates were created in a semi protected userspace page of
Lieutenant of Melkor and then moved to template namespace. When they were moved, the protection settings got moved as well. These templates do not have a history of disruption, have less than 5 transclusions and do not qualify for semi protection. The original userspace protection was applied by
Callanecc[43]. I requested unprotection from them
on 26 October, but they have not edited since then.
ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (
talk)
04:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Moxy: Would you please review
this ANI section which concerns a newbie's edits at
Maz Jobrani. Regarding this protection request, what are you recommending? The article has been indefinitely semi-protected since August 2015. You seem to requesting protection but this is the unprotect page.
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Disruptive editing and addition of unsourced content has slowly started over the past few days after Jones has been linked with Southampton (he is not yet Southampton manager).
Fats40boy11 (
talk)
23:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The appointment has now been officially confirmed so this one is no longer necessary.
Kosack (
talk)
08:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined I see some odd edit that is corrected by one of the many watchers; there's also an ongoing discussion on the talk-page. Vandalism I see not.
Lectonar (
talk)
10:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. None of the most recent edits by non-autoconfirmed users have been constructive ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I think the bot's starting to go crazy. The template saying it was protected was there for 10 minutes and the bot apparently doesn't see it. ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Disruption from two IPs in three days is not enough, in my opinion. There have been no edits in the day or so since your request, so I'm comfortable marking this as stale.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
22:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – Temporary protection hasn't deterred the anon IPs, who, upon expiration, immediately resumed adding BLP violations and even attacks on a Wikipedia editor. I should also add there's an off-wiki campaign to force the violating content into the article. Clearly this BLP needs to be restricted to confirmed editors.
EnPassant♟♙ (
talk)
16:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The total content: Maria Ludwika Rzewuska (Ludwika Maria Róża Rzewuska[1]) (1744–1816) was a Polish noble lady. She was the youngest daughter of Wacław Rzewuski and Anna Lubomirska.[1] On 1 January 1766, she married Jan Mikołaj Chodkiewicz in Podhorce (Pidhirtsi). Please let another admin review this if you're not understanding why the redirect needs to be protected.
Atsme💬📧22:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Right, it's bare bones. I think the question is whether you tried communicating this to that editor. They're not
WP:XC yet, so
WP:ECP would technically work, but that's not usually done on account of a single editor, even for redirects. We don't usually protect over problems from one, or even two, editors. We mostly block in those instances. If they user/s has been sufficiently warned first, though, of course.
El_C22:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)reply
As I wrote above, that's what
the deletion policy says. You're a highly-experienced reviewer and would know that we're obliged to follow community consensus, regardless of whether we like it. Please find a consensus at AfD instead of asking administrators to favour that redirect.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
22:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Ping:
Lectonar,
Discospinster: I'm leaning towards applying indefinite semi-protection due to the high volume of vandalism and the low amount of collateral damage. If I see correctly, the page was already semi-protected indefinitely until the protection was removed by Discospinster. Thoughts?
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
19:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, go for it. All or virtually all country articles that involve a major country (by any metric) are indef semi'd (if not ECP'd) at this point, which I don't really envision changing for the foreseeable future.
El_C22:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely. I've just gone ahead. This, I believe is the relevant slice of the the story. (1) Indef semi on Aug 2018 ("restoring semi"), but that automatically lowers move protection from admin level to semi. (2) I restore the move protection back to admin level on Dec 2021; indef semi remains. (3) Then, on May 2022, expiration is introduced in error. It looks like this in the protection menu:
18:17, 2 May 2022
Discospinster talk contribs block changed protection settings for Brazil [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 18:17, 4 May 2022) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Persistent vandalism)
09:20, 20 December 2021 El C talk contribs block changed protection settings for Brazil [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (restoring original move protection at sysop level (request at WP:RFPP)
16:28, 1 August 2018
Enigmaman talk contribs block changed protection settings for Brazil [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) (restoring semi)
Reason: Thrice in 3.5 days (and four times in 1.5 months) the page has received vandalism of sufficient egregiousness to warrant
oversight suppression of both the edits and summaries. — Fourthords |
=Λ= |16:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Protection is no longer needed due to no vandalism appearing on the page. It appers that the protection is also having the exact opposite effect, as the article is now heavily outdated, and has rides listed that aren't there anymore, as well omitting a ride that came this year. For more evidence that the page is heavily outdated, check out the differences between this version, and the version of the article on Simple Wikipedia
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funland,_Rehoboth_Beach. Thanks for your time and consideration.
108.56.217.110 (
talk)
05:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I would say "no". The
edit filter log shows numerous attempts this year to add large swaths of promotional content (along with some good content). Therefore, semi-protection is working exactly as it should be working. Furthermore, the requesting IP address is from the same IP address range as the disruptive IP address, which has been blocked repeatedly in the past for actions on that article (see
User talk:108.48.147.41), which was also blocked by Cullen323, the protecting administrator. This request to unprotect seems like an admin-shopping effort to resume past disruption. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
06:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Just because I'm in the same IP Range, doesn't mean I'm the same person. In fact, I'm not. I'm not even sure why I'm in the same range as them, or what a IP Address Range even is. Pure cooincidence I guess. Anyways, I just wanna make sure the page gets updated to reflect current inforamtion. I think the reason it hasn't by people that have accounts is because not too many people know of the park, and out of the people that do, none of them have any desire to look at these pages, and or fix them if they're outdated. Hence why I think it should be unprotected, so anybody can edit it.
108.56.217.110 (
talk)
06:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your consideration on this matter. While I respoect your decision, can you please elaborate a bit on why the page can't be unprotected? I'm a bit confused based on the fact that in the above, you stated that this article currently lacks "some good content". I'd also like to point out that if you look at the article's talk page between editor 108.48.147.41 and users with accounts, it seems fairly evident me that most of, if not all of the users involved in the edit war that cause the page to be protected in the first place, admitted they knew very little to nothing about the park prior to reading the article. My point is, and I mean this with no disrespect intended, how do you expect people that no very minimal to nothing about a given subject, to be able to edit the page to include up to date information on the subject? I don't see any logical rationale to that. Hence why I think it should've been unprotected. I'm not trying to argue or cause problems here, I'm just trying to understand the situation better, so I applogize if this came off the wrong way. Thanks again for your consideration.
108.56.217.110 (
talk)
07:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keeping the protection is the right decision because this article has been the subject of persistent disruptive editing and one person has promised to continue trying to edit against consensus "forever". Anyone is welcome to make a
Reason: IP continually changing addresses to add POV content and make personal attacks against me. I have made extensive documentation of this on the article talk page. I think semi-protection should work.
Augusthorsesdroppings10 (
talk)
00:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Two disruptive IPs in four days is not a high enough level of disruption, coupled with the fact that the burden of protecting a talk page is a lot higher than for an article. There are also over 3,000 page watchers, so any disruption will be reverted quickly enough.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
16:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent LTA vandalism. I previously reported on this issue on ANI
here back in March 2022 but no administrative actions was performed. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝)08:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. We don't protect pages in response to a single IP/account,
User:Tammbeck. I've added it to my watchlist and will block them if they continue.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
16:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IPs (sock-IPs) persistently moving the Ceaușescu s and Hussein to deposed executed leaders while they seem to be convicted for war crimes. The Bannertalk10:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Last protect was for a month and vandalism started up immediately that protect expired. A 3 day protect seems a bit short based on history. Permanent semi based on how this is being attacked looks more appropriate.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
22:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Already protected by administrator Drmies. Extended-confirmed, for three months. It is drastic for a talk page to be semi-protected, and even rarer that it is extended-confirmed protected. To cut off a talk page indefinitely for a large part of our users needs a terribly good justification. Let's see how it fares.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
00:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Various IP users keep adding the alternative name "knook" without supplying a reliable source. This seems to be a recent inside joke from /r/AnarchyChess (i.e. probably not notable), and I doubt any such reliable source exists.
Edderiofer (
talk)
12:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: As with Empress (chess) above; various IP users keep listing "Empress (chess)" on this disambiguation page despite there being no reliable source to back up the assertion that "knook" is an alternative name for "Empress (chess)". This seems to be a recent inside joke from /r/AnarchyChess (i.e. probably not notable), and I doubt any such reliable source exists.
Edderiofer (
talk)
12:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Whack-a-mole for now.
DatGuyTalkContribs00:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Actually, I'll answer my own question. If semi-protection had proven ineffective, amd collateral damage for ECP is too high, why bother using any protection here at all? Might as well just let IPs and new users edit.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
01:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of ongoing vandalism, and the subject matter just lends itself to that. I'd say permanent extended protection if it were my vote here. —Moops⋠
T⋡19:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
This is a minor dispute over a "needs citation" template in which Elizium23 is edit-warring against 4 other users. Full protection is not the correct response to a single disruptive user.
GordonGlottal (
talk)
20:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If the pointless edits resume, I agree that indef semi is probably the way to go.
firefly (
t ·
c )
15:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The creation of this page was indefinitely blocked in 2015 to prevent recreation. The last deletion discussion was in 2014, and since then, Speaker Knockerz has been the subject of a great amount of reliable coverage and I am confident that, as of today, the subject of this article meets
WP:GNG. I am unable to publish the in-depth and well-sourced article I have written on the subject:
User:Célestin Denis/Speaker Knockerz because of the protection.
Célestin Denis (
talk)
05:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IPs (likely the same individual) continuing to vandalise the team's ownership, by putting in a player from another team's name, in the owner's infobox entry.
GoodDay (
talk)
07:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page has repeatedly been vandalized by sockpuppets of banned user
Αθλητικά. A template directly related to this page was vandalized today again. This page had been extended protected for 2 weeks, but the sockpuppets are back. This page should be extended protected for a longer duration of time, I would suggest for several months, as the 2-week protection did not resolve the excessive vandalism issue.
Tranquill Komnin (
talk)
16:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This template has repeatedly been vandalized by sockpuppets of banned user
Αθλητικά. It was vandalized again today. This template had been extended protected for 2 weeks, but the sockpuppets are back. This page should be extended protected for a longer duration of time, I would suggest for several months, as the 2-week protection did not resolve the excessive vandalism issue.
Tranquill Komnin (
talk)
16:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent
WP:DE and controversial editing, with no effort to actually discuss on the talk page besides complaining, despite two editors warning this person. All the IPs are possibly the same person abusing multiple IPs. The two recent IPv6 IPs appear to be the same person, and the two recent IPv4 IPs are almost certainly the same person, based on where all these IPs geolocate. However, it's definitely possible they're all the same person based on editing patterns, possibly via VPNs.
Amaury •
03:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This talk page is the subject of repetitive vandalism related to the film Turning Red by multiple anonymous users.
HarobouriT •
C (he/him) 02:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – Requesting for a temporary of roughly 6 months of move protection due to persistent move warring despite a recent RM on the move.
– robertsky (
talk)
21:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I do not see any constructive IP/new user edits in 2021 and 2022 (did not look earlier); most of them come to the article to switch the Russian name Alexander to Ukrainian Oleksandr and back. If I remember correctly this is mentioned somewhere as the lamest edit-warring in Wikipedia. Some form of long-term protection is needed.
Ymblanter (
talk)
22:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Ecp in this case is for articles on Russia-Ukraine conflict broadly construed. Whereas the edit-warring intensified due to the war, I do not think it is related to the topic of the war.
Ymblanter (
talk)
14:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Repeated addition of promotional text by IPs. Pretty sure this is a COI situation and that it will not go away with a temporary protection. An alternative is an article range block of the most recent IP editors.
Sjö (
talk)
08:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content –
Ems 27 03 and now IP editors are adding unsourced information about living persons. The IP's are very probably Ems editing without logging in, semi protection to prevent that and push for discussion and/or sources used for editing. Ravensfire (
talk)
04:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Continuous and unjustified removal of references proving that Aadhar is mandatory to access many essential services in India like opening a bank account or applying for a mobile phone number. References to Supreme Court verdicts and statements by Indian Government Officials are continuously deleted.
117.209.58.205 (
talk)
14:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined - this is usually an open and shut case but all the edits are from one range and one IP. Warn the user appropriately and then report them to AIV (feel free to refer to my comment here).
DatGuyTalkContribs14:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism and/or additions of unsourced POV material, due to recent attention given to this film by NBA star Kyrie Irving and the subsequent fallout.
Fred Zepelin (
talk)
22:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – As this movie just released and the Hindi language dubbing and further India release are about to happen, this can be called an active development page.
People are vandalizing the page, without any reference. Please protect this page from these edits.
Soumendrak (
talk)
21:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined due to lack of response and relatively low frequency. The article is already semi-protected and the talk page gets disruption once every couple of days on average. Given that the burden for protecting a talk page is higher, this frequency is not high enough to merit protection. Please re-request if it increases.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
23:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined I don't think page protection will help you; he has enough edits and history here that he can edit even extended-confirmed pages. And I don't think you want full protection. I think AN/I would be the best place to deal with this.
Daniel Case (
talk)
21:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of unconstructive and unsourced IP edits, which follow an established historical pattern, and ignore established consensuses on the article talk page. Page has had to be protected half a dozen times or so in the past for the same reason, and each time protection lapses the same situation arises. Another one year protection period would be very ideal.
Jonie148 (
talk)
06:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Title was indef semi-protected 13 years ago, per an
AfD, to prevent persistent re-creation of the article by new and unregistered users. The article was re-created 2 years later and has now existed without challenge for 11 years. The protection has long outlasted its usefulness. —
ShelfSkewedTalk04:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. You removed content without explanation, amongst other things. Use of the article talk-page is recommended.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Two IPs this month (on 7/8th and 14th). Before that, it's over a year before you can find vandalism in the edit history. Maybe a candidate for
pending changes protection if it proves to be a persistent issue, but right now the frequency is not near to the threshold for semi-protection.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
18:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Dynamic IP has been changing the same value multiple times in the pass few days with no attempt to explain or providing sources.
McSly (
talk)
20:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
McSly, maybe it's about recent discoveries by the
James Webb Space Telescope...? But I believe those changes would be more substantial (i.e. hundreds of millions of years at the least, not ~100 mil), but I might be misrecollecting.
El_C21:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Yes, every few days...which isn't enough disruption for semi-protection- Pending-changes protection is doing what it's supposed to be doing: the disruptive edits don't go live, so there is no immediate gratification for the perpetrator.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: high level of vandalism. the users that modify have been using sources of information that have no value or authority and that in fact are not reliable.
Liotz (
talk)
09:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The National Anthem of Hong Kong appears to be the new hot topic of racial discussion today. Temp page protection for a few days would be great, thanks!.
Zekerocks11 (
talk)
01:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Many with different IPs always add some unofficial "protest songs" as the national anthem of Hong Kong. Wikipedia is NOT a place to write that disinformation, but a place for correct information. There are too many vandalism or reversions.
Karho.Yau (
talk)
03:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP range 2a02:810d:100:2aec::/64 was recently blocked three days ago in response to previous RfPP request for continued unreferenced change to a parameter. IP has apparently returned using
ArdiPras95 account to make exactly the same unreferenced
change86.186.4.139 (
talk)
11:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Ignore previous request (which I can neither edit nor withdraw). Editor was making a very similar edit but to a different country which was correct and valid.
86.186.4.139 (
talk)
12:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Cross-wiki harrassment of a banned user of fr.wp on my talk page
[62]. Can you protect the page for a while ? many thanks in advance :)
d-n-f (sysop on fr.wp) (
talk)
17:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I may have inadvertently selected indefinite protection when I applied it five years ago. It's likely safe to remove the protection from this article.
Mindmatrix13:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Due to a YouTuber running for mayor (and jokingly claiming election fraud), vandalism and nonconstructive edits have become more common.
Eridian314 (
talk)
16:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Move protected - folks keep edit warring (or move warring) and it's making the already difficult task of editing a topic regarding a recent news event enraging due to the constant edit conflict errors.
Knightoftheswords281 (
talk)
22:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. Can we please freeze this page so that users talk to each other at the current DRN case page?
Styx & Stones (
talk)
19:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done for now. The page is already semi-protected and the block on
Pktlaurence might resolve the subsequent disruption. Will keep an eye on the page but do also let me know if the edit war resumes. --
Euryalus (
talk)
01:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. People keep on changing the rankings to an incorrect order. An increase in page protection is needed.
MT111222 (
talk)
07:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Since the Trump announcement, IPs and redlink users such as "XDKEKWPOGCHAMP" have been constantly adding endorsements from non-notable persons of Trump especially, citing Twitter posts and, in one case, the Daily Mail. Please protect this imminently.
Augusthorsesdroppings10 (
talk)
03:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Multiple IPs and new SPAs trying to falsify the financial figures and vandalizing the refs to try and hide that their figures are false - why this suddenly started on a 2019 film, I have no idea -
Arjayay (
talk)
16:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. The page was protected several times in past. Now vandalism is heppening in the page from ip and it needs to be protected.
Mehedi Abedin10:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: because of the elections are happening soon,i think this page should be protected because of potential very disruptive edits (ie edit warring,excessive slander/praise,etc).
ItsMeKeys (
talk)
18:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Some users are trying to highlight donations to the Democratic Party (which is of course true, but definitely doesn't belong in the article lead, given that it is nothing compared to other donations he made). Also they keep insisting on ethnicity without reliable sources.
Cartago3468 (
talk)
20:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I'll (try to) keep an eye on it, but as these edits are (also) made by extended-confirmed editors, full protection would be the only one with an effect, and it seems excessive to place full protection at the moment.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
20:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes protection: Persistent Vandalism. It's been vandalized multiple times this month and last month as well. Roundish ⋆tc)23:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of a year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't think we need to go to pending changes yet; a lot of the vandalism is coming from IPs or non-autoconfirmed accounts, which semi-protection can stop.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Cholas completely conquered the Sri lanka, but some do not accept the facts and say they only conquered northern lanka. Source for my claim is Spencer, George W., The Politics of Plunder: The Cholas in Eleventh-Century Ceylon, vol. 35, pp. 405–419, “Under Rajendra Chola 1, perhaps the most aggressive king of his line, Chola raids were launched southward from Rajarata to Rohana. By his fifth year, Rajendra claimed to have completely conquered Ceylon
Ranithraja s (
talk)
16:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
But they do not accept the fact that cholas controlled the whole Sri lanka, they just misinterpreted the facts and gave wrong meaning to it. kindly check this topic on Britannica and various websites about it.
Ranithraja s (
talk)
17:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Ranithraja s, you posted one comment 20 minutes before posting this request, so please be patient. Talk pages are not chat rooms, so you should not expect a reply within minutes, even hours. After days to a week of no reply, then it could be said that it's taking too long for them to
WP:ENGAGE. And then, they'd effectively be forfeiting their position (until such time that they do, at least).
El_C20:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Some on created new account to vandalise this article by impersonation of my username , created duplicate user InEditsProp , please protect this article and also block InEditsProp .
Inedits (
talk)
19:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Hello Admin,
Please protect this page with pending changing protection for 30th November 2022 as subject of this page is most probably becoming the next Army Chief of Pakistan between 20th to 25th November 2022. People especially unregistered and registered users from specific political party are trying to change his dates of promotion and the content on the page.
So if you feel it should be protected till 30th Nov, then please take my request. Thanks.
M.Ashraf333 (
talk)
20:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Can someone please look at this page and sort out the edit warring.
L1amw9021:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There has been many current disruptive IP edits made to this page. The pageant is currently underway and although I think long term protection might be needed, temporary protection could be the best option for now. I added additional information to the Talk page regarding the status of this page similar to the other international pageants that currently have page protection.
Adam MLIS (
talk)
02:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. Start a discussion on the talk page about whether the contested section is notable enough to include based on looking at sources, references, etc. Please consider inviting participating editors (including the IP addresses that don't have accounts yet) on their talk pages.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
08:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I was just looking at this page and the level of vandalism is very high. The end of the season is 53 days from now. A 60 day period seems justified and someone could easily request that the semi-protection be lifted if there's some sort of turnaround for the team that leads to people calming down about McDaniels.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
08:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Lots of seemingly ideologically motivated edits have been made on this page by accounts registered on the same day, and then leave no other edits. Should only be open to edits from users with at least 50 edits imo
675930s (
talk)
13:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Question:Lectonar, were you aware that this is an
WP:ARBPIA dispute in an ARBPIA page? I usually indef ECP any recent editing disputes in an ARBPIA page by non-
WP:XC users. That sort of naturally flowed from the previous practice of preemptively protecting those pages (until a few years ago, when several of us, here at RfPP, decided that it was a bad idea). So, any objections to me doing so here?
El_C16:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:Semi-protection or range block – I believe this article has been been semi-protected twice in the last month or so in response to disruptive editing from an IP(v6) editor. The IP is now back for a third(?) round of
WP:DE. Need longer semi-protection here, but I'm wondering if a range block of the IPv6 might be the better option as this is clearly the actions of a single editor on a dynamic range. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
03:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Previously protected due to LT(A) disruptive behaviour, adding incomplete updates. Protection was removed and a few hours later similar disruption resumed. A longer than previously period of protection may be required.
Eagleash (
talk)
09:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Resumption of BLP policy violation/vandalism edits that led to the last, one-day, semiprotection on this article. I'm thinking a much longer period of protection is needed.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
19:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Question:Cassiopeia, in the most recent edit, they sourced it to sportsmanor.com, so that, at least, is not unsourced. Moreoever, when you
reverted it, you wrote in your edit summary: Source is incorrect — but that's all you said. There isn't even a hint of why that might be so. What am I missing?
El_C01:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Its absolutely ridiculous that every article in the news is protected. People may have a lot of genuine info to add as an article becomes popular. Please STOP doing this! Wikipedia is meant to be collective info from many sources. This isnt possible when articles are always 'protected' false info can easily be removed so get a grip amd STOP protecting articles when theres no need!
Reason: We are trying to make standard edits to the page below but there are people who are preventing those changes from being made and most of the sources that they are quoting are mistranslated or not there at all.
IshraqLabed (
talk)
22:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Please protect this page from edits by ip users. Currently experiencing vandalism after Charlize Theron made a stupid comment about only 44 people speaking afrikaans.
Gbawden (
talk)
05:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Continuous deletion of selective citations, evidence/ news paper articles related to Aadhar to give the impression that Aadhar biometric identification is voluntary.
14.139.180.133 (
talk)
05:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Too soon. Use the talk page to make edit requests. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
06:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Continued long-term low-level disruption which intensified in the last few days. In principle, the article is under general sanctions (and also arbitration enforcement) and can be extended-confirmed protected, but may be semi would work as well.
Ymblanter (
talk)
07:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I feel that the article should have its protection level decreased it's been 30/500 protected for more than a year and there are no major vandalism issues. Dulcetia 🗩15:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Considering sockpuppetry is the main reason for the XCP, this is not a smart idea. Autocon-buster accounts are far easier to set up than excon-busters, with the added benefit the latter is both more obvious and tied to a userright that can be revoked. —
Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori20:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined. There are several recent declined edit requests on the talk page, suggesting that the article would have been disrupted with those edits had protection not been in place. It seems that the current protection level is serving its intended purpose. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
06:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined For now, the disruption appears to have eased after the initial back and for and more talk page discussion is occurring. Please feel free to rerequest if necessary.
Kosack (
talk)
09:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP adding incorrect content that has to be reverted. They have posted from five different addresses since July so a block would not work here.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
20:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: For a few days now a user has been making various edits to this article about a minor mythological creature, most of which concern establishing that it is a sort of reverse-centaur, although the sources actually are a bit vague and contradictory about what it looks like. After being blocked from editing, the editor keeps making sockpuppet accounts, focusing on replacing an old public domain illustration that he doesn't like with various depictions of his own—possibly computer-generated. Some are whimsical, others clearly inappropriate, but either way the editor is ignoring everything that's been said about this, and keeps making the changes and additions against consensus and the talk page discussion. Due to the sockpuppetry, temporary page protection may be the only way to stop—or slow down—the edits in question.
P Aculeius (
talk)
05:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)\reply
Temporary extended confirmed users semi-protection: Administrators please semi-protect this page to extended confirmed users level for atleast 3 weeks as some newly made accounts and IP accounts are doing personal favouritism edits and repeatedly using degrading remarks on other contestants.
Pri2000 (
talk)
05:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed users semi-protection: Administrators please semi-protect this page to extended confirmed users level for atleast 3 weeks as some newly made accounts and IP accounts are doing future edits as the finale is approaching which is Unconstructive as finale episodes aren't aired yet.
Pri2000 (
talk)
05:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – The decision of the Snowdonia National Park Authority to refer to Snowdon only by its Welsh name is causing a content discussion about changing the article name. There have been persistent edits on the page, primarily by IP editors, attempting to pre-empt the discussion and changing all mention of Snowdon to Yr Wyddfa. As this is a current issue, a week pf PP is requested to allow the talk discussion to arrive at a consensus without the IP disruption.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
16:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – As for the Snowdon article, there are persistent attempts by IP editors to pre-empt discussion on a name change for these articles. Requesting one week of semi protection to allow the discussion to reach a consensus.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
17:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page needs to be edited and cleaned up in order to provide real and useful information about acupuncture. Wikipedia has an enormous responsibility when it comes to information, since millions of people use it as an educational platform.
46.204.104.68 (
talk)
08:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent
disruptive editing – Several IPs have been re-adding a genre to the infobox almost daily since 7 November, although the source they use does not support it. In edit summaries and on their talk pages, they have been repeatedly advised of the problem and requested to discuss it on the talk page (started
there 12 November). However, they have not attempted to communicate nor explain in edit summaries. Attempts to change or add unsourced genres go back to a least 2016 and include a IP who was blocked 7 November (when this latest round began) for "unsourced or unhelpful edits".
[63]Ojorojo (
talk)
15:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – nonsense edits by anon IPs. Vjmlhds 18:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The amount of disruptive edits are probably too few against the amount of collateral damage it would cause right now. If the level of purely disruptive edits increases, please request again.
Kosack (
talk)
20:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Both protected as requested. I dislike semi-protecting talk pages but this seems persistent.
BusterD (
talk)
03:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. What gives? The last vandalism I see was on Oct 7, by an IP that was blocked for it. The Arbcom decision does not say to pre-emptively block and protect. If it does, I missed it. Please quote something specific if I missed it. -
CorbieVreccan☊☼23:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Protected again for now while the AfD runs its course, but a more permanent solution may be required down the line.
Kosack (
talk)
08:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Moved up to one month for now, furore around his death is still pretty fresh but is likely to tail off over time.
Kosack (
talk)
08:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Some random Twitter commentator announced that he was running for the 2028 Pennsylvania Senate Election as a Republican and it appears there's a high level of IP vandalization to repeatedly put his name into the candidates list for this specific Wiki article, despite the candidate's niche fanbase. If Wikipedia is how he gets his popularity then perhaps the article should be semi-protected from such instances of vandalism and blatant self-promotion.
Yourlocallordandsavior (
talk)
06:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: After looking the log, the protection seems okay. Can someone consider decreasing it for
AFC submission, see
here. Thanks for your consideration, stay safe.
C1K98V(
💬✒️📂)12:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Just under half of all recent edits are reverts or reverted disruptive editing/vandalism/potential BLP violations, and they span the past month. Owens is likely to remain a controversial figure for a very long time based on previous trends. InvadingInvader (
userpage,
talk)
04:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Last disruption was three days ago and there have been four instances of disruption in November. Not enough for indefinite semi-protection, in my opinion.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
18:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page is protected from many months. Many users want to add content with reliable sources. Request to edit but till no response. Please unprotect the page
103.161.55.20 (
talk)
12:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
This page is indefinitely semi-protected due to persistent
biographical violations and was recently XCP'd due to autocon-buster sockpuppets, since reduced back down to semi-protection. Unprotecting an article about a living person with this sort of history over a span of years strikes me as foolish at best. —
Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori18:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done Non-autoconfirmed users who wish to add reliable source can make edit requests on the talk page. All requests except the most recent one, which has been up for less than 24 hours, have been answered. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – The scholar has recently passed away and a good number of IP's have tried to go against
WP:NPOV since yesterday. Could this be protected for a week? It might appear on ITN/RD which makes the chances for disruption more. Thanks in advance,. ─
The Aafī(talk)03:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Continued of recreation of an article which was redirected as a result of an AfD.
Onel5969TT me11:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – after previous protection expired, more IP addresses continue to add in the same bogus information, i.e. sequel gets cancelled. It is not cancelled or even started principal photography yet according to the article.
Iggy (
Swan) (
Contribs)
22:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:Indefinite Extended confirmed protection. Vandalism has persisted despite multiple bans and "extended confirmed" protections being applied throughout no less than four years. The replacement of the same sourced material by the same sentences in poor English always continues whenever protections are removed, no matter how many users or sockpuppets are banned.
Wareno (
talk)
23:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I appreciate the quick response, but that page has been protected by an administrator with higher-level locks for longer periods of time and the same bizarre vandalism always continues when they wear off, sometimes while they're active.
You can check the history. I was hoping to lay the issue to rest and that helps little.
Wareno (
talk)
23:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent vandalism: the vast majority of the edits over at least the past six months have involved (mostly) IP editors attempting to assert that Laurens' spouse was Alexander Hamilton, which has no basis in reliable sources. Some reliable sources have discussed the topic of Laurens' sexuality, but this is already covered with due weight in the article. The recent edits are purely, intentionally disruptive and do not contribute constructively to that coverage. PlanetJuice (
talk •
contribs)
00:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I will add as a note that the dispute over how Laurens' sexuality should be covered has been discussed extensively on the talk page. Protection has also been applied several times but most recently expired in March 2022, at which point the vandalism continued. PlanetJuice (
talk •
contribs)
00:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely. The page protection history and recent vandalism seem to indicate that this page should be semi-protected indefinitely: 10 January 2016 (14 days autoconfirmed or confirmed access), 28 January 2016 (1 month autoconfirmed or confirmed access), 3 March 2016 (3 months autoconfirmed or confirmed access), 10 June 2016 (6 months autoconfirmed or confirmed access), 11 December 2016 (1 year autoconfirmed or confirmed access), 18 December 2017 (1 year autoconfirmed or confirmed access), 1 March 2018 (1 year require extended confirmed access), and 4 March 2019 (3 years autoconfirmed or confirmed access).
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
03:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I'm not sure if this is do-able but there is a case at
WP:SPI regarding socking relating to this article. Accounts are being blocked but IP's are now involved as well. Is it possible to apply temporary page protection until the IP range is sorted out? Other articles are involved but this is the main target. Thank you,
Knitsey (
talk)
14:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Semi won't work for these editors. Fully protected to stop the edit war. Any admin may lift if consensus is reached and/or sources are provided. Katietalk16:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Note – the editor involved is now blocked for two weeks so this request may be redundant – please deny etc if appropriate, thanks,
DBaK (
talk)
15:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Sorry if this request is in the wrong place. I've noticed that this page has suddenly exploded with activity today - mostly by IPs or new accounts. They're not necessarily doing anything wrong, but it might be a good idea for some people to put this page on their watchlist in case it becomes an edit war or vandalism.
Styx & Stones (
talk)
00:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent vandalism: There are few users who constantly change the cast details, add some new members to the cast who are not even a part of the show and much more destructive edits.
Jha09 (
talk)
08:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The last edits of which you complain were reverted two days ago and you've done the bulk of the editing since then.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Edit warring. Many editors want to make this into a redirect to
1949–50 United States network television schedule, even though that target article contains no information at all about late night scheduling. A single editor has repeatedly expanded the redirect with content, even though the content they want to add is unsourced. I have full-protected this as the redirect. I will post a comment on the talk page and also on the page of the single editor who keeps trying to expand it.
MelanieN (
talk) 00:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
MelanieN (
talk)
00:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent edit-warring and poorly sourced edits – ECP users are still going to town on this page given her recent sentencing to 11 years for fraud. This is despite indefinite AC protection, so maybe we need temp ECP and then revert back to indef AC. See:
[64][65][66][67]. Lots of poorly sourced edits, edit warring back and forth about labels, etc. We probably just need stability. —
Shibbolethink(
♔♕)15:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – New article on an American shooting. IP:s keep adding the name of the suspect to the infobox as "perpetrator" or "accused" (no param for "suspect") which IMO fails
WP:BLP.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk)
17:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting indefinite semi-protection. Since the expiration of the last year of semi-protection it's been a constant string of unhelpful drive-by edits and reverts/rollbacks. ~
Awilley (
talk)20:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely. After reviewing the article history and logs, it is pretty clear most of the vandalism and disruptive editing is from IP address editors and it returns quickly once page protection expires. The page has previously been protected for one year twice, for 6 months once, etc.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
02:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This article should be semi-protected rather than just pending changes becuase it is an article about an intimate part, and, as expected with these "controversial" articles, 90% of edits by IPs/new users seem to be
WP:VD and other forms of
WP:DE. I checked the history for this page and it appears that a vast majority of IPs who edited this page vandalized it.
AKK70018:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. No edits in last seven days. Please read the protection policy linked several times on this page.
BusterD (
talk)
02:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Six edits in last two months. No disruptive edits at all this month? Please read the protection policy linked several times on this page.
BusterD (
talk)
02:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism; IP accounts keep placing people without notability in the notable students page. Blocking doesn't seem to do anything.
Ray23:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of until 2024, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Can probably get rid of this a lot earlier than that, but given the IP is checking the edit history, this should be a good deterrent. It looks like they might graduate in 2024, according to the year they keep adding alongside the names.
Anarchyte (
talk)
11:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – Latest IP-hopping edits in the long-running "Parrilla is gay" attack. More than 20 edits today by 5 wide-spread IPs. This has been going on for nearly 4 years (at least). See
[72] from Jan 2019 and
[73] from today, for example.
Meters (
talk)
22:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined The ongoing reverts are from a content dispute, not vandalism. The IP and
Cassiopeia are interpreting the source differently (and seem to have sources that support both perspectives).
Anarchyte (
talk)
11:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Has experienced 11 edits in the past month, all of which were vandalism or reverts of vandalism. One vandal edit from October 20 went unfixed until today. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄)
06:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There was one instance of edit warring since the last application here, and this time I looked further back in the article history and concluded that semi-protection is justified.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent LTA vandalism. I previously reported on this issue on ANI
here back in March 2022 but no administrative actions was performed and now this crazy IP has started to attack talk pages that are related to Chuu. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝)16:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent LTA vandalism. I previously reported on this issue on ANI
here back in March 2022 but no administrative actions was performed and now this crazy IP has started to attack talk pages that are related to Chuu. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝)16:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Pending changes because the article has been subjected to whitewashing by accounts that manifest a COI with the subject, that is, the foundation. This has included repeated removal of negative content from the article under one pretext or another...
MBlaze Lightning (
talk)
14:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The unsourced link edits look dubious at the very least and someone already readded the links so I've semi-protected the page.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
20:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: IP disruption over a long period of time, including persistently adding "terrorist" label to the lead. I'm requesting indefinite because this is one of those controversial articles in the
WP:BALKANS area that will always invite IP trolls and virtually all of these similar articles are already indefinitely protected as a result.
Griboski (
talk)
17:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – He died two days ago and IPs are making him problematic edits including adding it was a suicide (despite no confirmation saying that) and changing the date of the death. Protection that expired was for adding the death before confirmation. Probably needs protected for a week or two until more details come out. Rockchalk71717:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. This talk page has been protected multiple times in the past, however the disruptive editing has always returned. I think it's time to just indef it. ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654518:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Certainly time to break the pattern. Talk page was protected 7 (seven) times in 2022.
El_C21:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. IP editor is edit warring against editors using several IP's, article has been a target of this person it seems making mostly unsourced edits over an extended period of time. Possible confict of interest as well.
TylerBurden (
talk)
14:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of vandalism which the page history clearly shows. The name change to "Ripoff recruiter" in the infobox went unnoticed for more than a month until today. ☆ Bri (
talk)
23:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined Protection won't do much in this case. A couple of incidents of vandalism, but they were nearly a week ago. More due to lack of eyes than being regularly vandalised. I've added the page to my watchlist.
Kosack (
talk)
06:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: What I am assuming is a single person using a number of different IPs has been adding the same unsourced and *what I am assuming is) hoax information for the past several months. I.e.,
this IP,
this one, and
this one. A few users including myself have been reverting them.
Sarcataclysmal (
talk)
23:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Please tempory block all edits on
2022 European Women's Handball Championship, The "controversie" section has been deleted (including by me) and undeleted at least a dozen times already. I started a topic on the TALK page. Best to wait for the outcome of that discussion instead of endless more deletes and undeletes.. --
Sb008 (
talk)
23:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page appears to have been protected by this user, which they are now
banned by the community, globally locked, and have been desysopped. Also there are deprecated font tags on the user page which create obsolete tag
Linter errors, so at least reducing the protection level will help me replace these tags.
Sheep (
talk)
14:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. It's true that most of the edits over the last month have been from IPs, but I don't see much reversion going on.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: People are putting in some false info, I do believe that there is IP vandalism as there are a lot of IPs being displayed. It's for the best if this page does get protected!
ChillaxIsCool (
talk)
03:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Michael Roach is a controversial American Buddhist teacher who rose to the national attention in 2012 after one of his students died from dehydration while meditating at a retreat in the Arizona desert. Articles in the NYT, Playboy, Rolling Stone as well as at least one investigative book have been written about sexual misconduct in his religious community and the office of the Dalai Lama has admonished him several times. However, his Wiki entry is constantly being updated by unsigned editors who erase his most public history and instead promote Roach's own views of the incidents while deleting or minimizing credible sources. I recently reverted the article to a version from six months ago--and the entry needs quite a bit of TLC to make a balanced representation (because some of what he has done is actually quite good), but Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion.
Switfoot (
talk)
15:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – One IP address, already positively linked to the NYS Senate (where this BLP article is an elected member), with a history of COI edits (not just this article, but maybe multiple staffers on multiple candidates?) has been making edits to whitewash details to be presented in a more flattering light on this article, rather than the neutral way negative details about the subject are currently stated. After a warning, a different IP made the same edits. Just seeking a few days protection for the Holiday until next week rather than try to whack-a-mole the new mobile IP.
JesseRafe (
talk)
15:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Those two edits are the only problem edits since last March. If problems continue, ask again.
MelanieN (
talk)
21:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Also, several of the reverted edits are by autoconfirmed users so semi-protection would not help.
MelanieN (
talk)
22:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Constant IP vandalism from multiple IP's that keep re-adding poorly-sourced content that violates WP:RS. The removal of this content was already discussed via TP a while ago
[74] as ultimately, it failed to meet RS standards.
Botushali (
talk)
01:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There aren't any IPs that edit this talk page. Plus if the page is unprotected, then there is a chance that most IP contributors will make edit requests in order for them to be accepted. One of the administrators protected this page just for having not-so-good and non-constructive comments on this talk page, but there are only few IPs. Other anon users are here to discuss about whenever this event should be added to this page. So this is necessary for this talk page to be unprotected. Thank you! --
2601:205:C001:EA0:DD9D:F980:1B2C:6117 (
talk)
21:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined for now. The page was only recently protected, and its protection is set to expire in a couple of weeks. Pinging @
Deb: the protecting admin, who may have a change of mind. In the meantime, there is a section on
WP:RFPP where you can make edit requests, but if you do, explain that you're making the request there instead of the talk page because it's protected. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
21:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
MelanieN (
talk)
21:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This talkpage was originally protected nearly three months ago, because for one or two days, people basically just used it to say hi to each other.
It looks like this talk page has constantly needed to be protected, with the last prot being for two months (July-Sept. 2022). I'd recommend putting in a request at
/Edit instead or in addition to this request - at worst this will be accepted and the /Edit request rendered moot or this is declined and the /Edit request can be looked into. —
Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori04:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined. Repeated need to reprotect in the past does not imply a need to unprotect now as the requester suggests. We'll see what happens when the current protection expires. Edit requests can be made at RFPP for these situations. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
22:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
If you're referring to the proposed edit reqest, you're correct. However, the request needs to be made properly, like "Change X to Y" with sources backing it up. As given above, the edit request is not actionable. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
05:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Page protection isn't the first line of defense. Discussion also isn't necessarily required to make an edit. If the issue is verifiability, ask the IP address editors to provide sources, encourage IP address editors to register an account, give appropriate feedback, add a citation needed tag, etc.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
05:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
K.e.coffman: Thanks for proposing this. Held off on indefinite semi-protection for now: page has not previously needed protection and Kiev/Kyiv edit-warring might slowly peter out as people digest (or propose amendment to) the recent RfC. Hope springs eternal, perhaps. --
Euryalus (
talk)
07:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Partofthemachine: Is there a change you want to make to that page? Generally I have been of the opinion that all user pages should be at least semiprotected, and I will protect anyone's user page at any level by request. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
21:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
No there is not, and I am already autoconfirmed so that wouldn't matter anyway. But that user didn't request that it be protected, which is why I think it shouldn't be.
Partofthemachine (
talk)
21:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent vandalism by unregistered IPs, sockpuppets and Somalian nationalists, which continues despite multiple bans and locks having been applied throughout the course of four years.
Wareno (
talk)
16:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: About once a month, one or possibly more IPs or new accounts edits the page against consensus, e.g. changing pronouns in one direction or the other or vandalizing dates. Request at least a few months of semi-confirmed protection, like is done for other good/featured articles with similar levels of similarly often-good-faith-but-against-consensus IP/noob edits, like
J. K. Rowling.
-sche (
talk)
10:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I support. Lamichhane has recently formed a party. It has gained a mandate. So there are some vandalism cases here. Even the article
Rastriya Swatantra Party is vulnerable. It has high chances of gradual gain in a few hours. Before time proved we should protect the article with semi protection or say publish when verified.
Franked2004 (
talk)
Reason: The page has been vandalised multiple times in the past and considering the results of the election in Nepal, there are high chances of more IP vandalism by other political cadres.
Wiki Master World (
talk)
14:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
+1Reason: Mr Deuba is current PM of Nepal and election has recently completed. In an aftermath of result there are many cases of wrong faith edits or say vandalism on this article. So I request for protection of this article.
Franked2004 (
talk)
14:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP-vandalism. For about a month, various IPs have been attacking articles related to Bulgarian topics, vandalizing them regarding the spelling of various words in Bulgarian.
Jingiby (
talk)
18:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – This article is clearly the focus of a persistent sockpuppet. (oddly, I myself have been accused of sockpuppetry on this article by an ip for making one edit on the page to improve the infobox image). Page protection is needed while a sockpuppet investigation takes place.
Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk22:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. The article has indefinite PC protection, and that seems to be keeping the occasional vandalism edit under control.
MelanieN (
talk)
20:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The entire article was blanked out by User:Abhigyaaningle.
It is also brought to notice that the said user is a habitual offender, and Admins are requested to take stringent action against them.
Pratish_K (
talk)
19:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. It also looks like the involved IP addresses have been blocked. Report additional IPs to AIV or ANI if they continue.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
23:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. People seem to keep thinking the talk page for Internet is a search engine. ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654501:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The solution is to warn them appropriately. This has been done already. If they continue, report them to
AIV or
ANI and the IP address will almost surely be blocked for some period of time. Semi-protecting the page is a blunt instrument and it is not warranted at this point.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
04:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined –
Warn the user appropriately then report them to
AIV or
ANI if they continue. All of the disruptive edits were today by a single user unless there's prior history here? I issued the editor a warning for vandalism and reverted the changes. If they return, please report them.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
07:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IP editors making changes with no explanation that have been done before over the past few months and reverted by multiple editors.
Erp (
talk)
05:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent vandalism in the form of inclusion of unreferenced content or alternatively, unexplained and unjustified large-scale content deletion.
Revirvlkodlaku (
talk)
06:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent
disruptive editing. As government announced him new Army Chief of Pakistan and IP users are heavily making edits on this page with unexplained and unsourced content.
M.Ashraf333 (
talk)
08:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism, Someone Changed Devendra fadnavis cast to 'Chitpavan Brahmin' with his real identity, this is the 4th - 5th time from an IP address someone doing this vandalism.
Digitalmajdoor (
talk)
09:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment There have been no IP edits to the user's talk page. Vandalism elsewhere has been by the OP, so the user talk page should be left unprotected so that he can continue to be warned appropriately. --
David Biddulph (
talk)
13:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism by IP editors returned after protection expired. BLP issues due to repeated additions of non-reliably sourced facts.
Geoff | Who, me?13:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page is very important as it describes a historical sovereign kingdom on the island of Great Britain, in northwest Europe,and so for this reason it should be protected to prevent the page from the potential of vandalization.
IagoHughes (
talk)
22:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting autoconfirmed protection. The same disruptive edit has been made 10 times in the past 7 weeks by 6 different IPs.
This is the most recent. Note that the subject of the disruption is ARBPIA-related, but since most of the article is not ARBPIA-related, I don't think ec-protection would be correct. A time limit of several months might be long enough for them to give up.
Zerotalk10:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined. The draft is deleted so there is nothing to unprotect, unless you want create-protection removed. @
ScottishFinnishRadish: I observe the most recent AFD was 5 years ago, so it might be possible that the subject has achieved notability by now. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
01:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Long-term vandalism of population data by IP-address users & less frequently by newly registered vandal accounts: Arbitrary changes of digits within numbers or swapping of city names. This page was semi-protected on 20 October 2019 for one month, & pending-changes protected on 18 January 2020 for six months & again on 31 August for one year. Vandalism is not currently overwhelming, but it has constituted the majority of edits for several years, & there are multiple such edits each month. I request indefinite semi-protection.
Pathawi (
talk)
14:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continued vandalism of repeated rumors, unconstructive changes after protection expired. The same IP offenders persist under different adresses, so a longer protection would be preferred for the sake of the article.
Trailblazer101 (
talk)
04:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: My
previous request on 8 October 2022: Persistent
disruptive editing and addition of
unsourced and poorly sourced content by IPs. The page needs permanent protection as these issues have existed for more than a year now, starting with
this edit on 6 September 2021. Since then, edits have become a vicious circle of IP users adding dubious claims, more experienced users removing or correcting those claims, and so on. As the timespan shows, temporary protection is unlikely to solve the problems. After this, the page was
given semi-protection for a period of one month, during which the quality of the article was significantly improved. Since the protection
expired, there have been 20 edits made by IP users, with no sign of any improvement. Well-sourced entries have been
removed without any prior discussion on the talk page, and reasonably deleted parts have been
readded with no regard to actual facts. I hope that this time a good decision will be made, and the problem will be finally solved once and for all. –
Zsovar3 (
talk)
11:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. You haven't edited the article in over a month. If these two IPs are making such horrible edits, why should they not continue to do so if no one reverts or warns them?
Daniel Case (
talk)
05:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
" Roblox began to grow rapidly in the second half of the 2010s, and this growth has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic." --> "Roblox gained popularity from 2015 - 2019, gaining even more popularity in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic."
Lina211 (
talk)
22:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree with your point, but there were continuous vandalism edits by various unregistered users. This would create a problem, as we can't keep on reverting the edits all day.
Jayanthkumar123 (
talk)
17:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It's true there hasn't been a ton of recent vandalism. But this is a long-term-vandalized article which has needed recurrent, almost continuous semi-protection due to arguing over how to classify the genre/language. The most recent such protection, for 3 months, expired just last week.
MelanieN (
talk)
18:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There has been a lot of vandalism recently involving a new meme that revolves around the line "We're going back in time to the first Thanksgiving to get turkeys off the menu" that can be tied back to a recent video from the popular YouTube channel Schaffrillas Productions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGLyNcO8LcAMidwood123 (
talk)
05:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent
vandalism – Persistent LTA vandalism. I previously reported on this issue on ANI
here back in March 2022 but no administrative actions was performed. Previously requested protection for the article's talk page on
21 November 2022 due to same issue, that IP was blocked by admin
Ohnoitsjamie however they have since changed to new IP and new range. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝)08:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism by IPs, restarted within hours after expiry of last protection. (even before the protection template was removed). The Bannertalk10:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This article has needed almost continuous protection for a long time. The most recent protection expired only last week.
MelanieN (
talk)
20:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: An unregistered user keeps messing with the article using different IP addresses. I've tried warning him and correcting his edits (and grammar), but he just keeps removing them with no sign of stopping. I would like to make the article editable only by registered users to prevent this edit war from continuing as I have spent a significant amount of time creating and improving this article.
(jabz)15:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Content dispute between me and an IP. We'll discuss it at the relevant WikiProject and I think it should be protected for a bit.
~StyyxTalk?20:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Requesting long-term protection due to long-term socking, going back to at least July and persists still from both registered accounts and IPs (among other issues). See edit summaries with "published".
S0091 (
talk)
21:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent LTA vandalism. I previously reported on this issue on ANI
here back in March 2022 but no administrative actions was performed. Previously requested protection for the article's talk page on
21 November 2022 due to same issue, that IP was blocked by admin
Ohnoitsjamie however they have since changed to new IP and new range. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝)08:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Temp semi. IP edit-warring over an addition that's been rv'd by two other editors, and using false edit summaries to do so.
— kwami (
talk)
19:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This article was vandalized many times by registered users. It is hard to prevent them from adding external commercial content to the article.
Exanx777 (
talk)
01:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. The article has indefinite semi-protection; there does not seem to be enough problem editing by registered users to require extended-confirmed protection.
MelanieN (
talk)
01:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Be sure to ask an administrator to restore the semi-protection when the extended confirmed protection expires in 2 months. If you want you can ping me.
MelanieN (
talk)
02:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Ips keep adding unsourced speculation about his next coaching job. Recommend a couple of months for protection. Thanks,.
Corky03:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This article over the years (especially the last 12 months) has been vandalized many times by IP and registered users who all seem to ignore the reasoning/explanation as to why their edits are being reverted.
Oluwasegu (
talk)
07:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of pointless editing and uninformative data. Editors add information (such as champions and finals results) from another competition after the competition has ended.
Kidsoljah (
talk)
05:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Pages related to Russian-Ukrainian war should be extended-confirmed protected. The article is under a sock attack, difficult to say whether the socks belong to the same user or not.
Ymblanter (
talk)
12:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of disruptive edits, after every minute of reverting the wrongful edit. User keeps using incorrect definitions, thus putting the credibility of the encyclopaedia at risk. Warned x1.
IcedOutDevil2 (
talk)
12:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page is being vandalized by the latest IP of an IP hopping vandal who keeps inserting
WP:OR and personal opinions onto this and similar-themed pages, and edit-wars with other editors.
Mr Fink (
talk)
15:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The user you mentioned is extended-confirmed. I suggest lowering the protection level to semi-protection and continue to warn the user if he continues to add stuff with unreliable sources to the article.
Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs02:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page is getting edited hastingly by its cadres and fans, and the edits sprout hate for other third parties. Requesting for protection until the final results are declared.
Wiki Master World (
talk)
07:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: High IP vandalism. There have been some fan edits on the article. As the party is new and has gained some consensus, there is a rise in edits while most of such are against wiki policies. The final result is yet to come. Recently, the article on party chair
Rabi Lamichhane was protected. So I strongly feel a level of protection is required even here.
Franked2004 (
talk)
07:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There's been some disruptive editing over the last couple of days, including some that didn't get corrected. With Canada playing Croatia tomorrow in the World Cup, and Borjan's heritage being from an area with Serbian/Croatian conflict with him identifying as Serbian, there is the potential for even further disruption to the page (as this has been the cause of the recent disruptive edits), so a couple of days of page protection may be a good preventative measure of future and current disruption
RedPatch (
talk)
21:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – There is a persistent editor (usually an ip, sometimes with an account) that is focused on this article and
Carl von Bismarck, reverting any edits they disagree with. I have come into contact with this individual when I changed the infobox image from two people to one, on each page. The editor didn't like this and made various accusations in edit summaries and on my talk page (eg, stalking and editing false information). The only way I see of stopping this individual is to stop them from editing the articles of their obsession.
Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk17:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – There is a persistent editor (usually an ip, sometimes with an account) that is focused on this article and
Alessandra Silvestri-Levy, reverting any edits they disagree with. I have come into contact with this individual when I changed the infobox image from two people to one, on each page. The editor didn't like this and made various accusations in edit summaries and on my talk page (eg, stalking and editing false information). The only way I see of stopping this individual is to stop them from editing the articles of their obsession.
Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk17:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes:BLP policy violations – Has been, and will always be, a magnet for BLP vios, some of which aren't reverted right away. Perhaps not enough to justify indef semi, but with a low rate of edits overall PC should be manageable.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
23:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I went with two weeks since it has been going on for a very long time, with very long breaks between disruption. Hopefully two weeks is enough to give us another year or so off from the disruption.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
01:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined. The article currently has move semi-protection; that's probably enough. There hasn't been any move vandalism since 2018, and even that would have been stopped by semi-protection.
MelanieN (
talk)
00:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Page-move vandalism – Page was the recent target of page move vandalism from an LTA known for such behavior on hurricane-related articles. There is no reason for this page to be moved. Semi protection also requested.
TornadoLGS (
talk) 02:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC).
TornadoLGS (
talk)
02:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I feel incredibly protective of this page, and it is infuriating that the same, persistent disruption is still being carried out, despite a recent increase in protection. The latest incident happened a) today, which is a repeat of the same previous behaviour. And b) it is seemingly the same user, who for some reason is incapable of understanding basic English.
PeachyBum07 (
talk)
23:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. The current PC protection looks exactly right. The disruption is not frequent enough to require semi-protection.
MelanieN (
talk)
00:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Vandalism due to a Tiktok trend about a fictional currency with a similar name to the title of the page. Multiple people have vandalized it recently.
Jso8910 (
talk)
13:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request for
Semi-protection. One or more news outlets once called
Formula One driver
Sergio Perez the "Minister of Defence"[1], since then multiple IPs have thought it funny to change the current officeholder Perez. The page has already been protected three times, but the edits continue, and it is unlikely that it will stop.
Skjoldbro (
talk)
16:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: As both the unprotecting and reprotecting admin, I stand by both actions. In retrospect, removing the protection was a mistake but worth a try at the time. I won't action this request directly, but I suggest it be declined.
Anarchyte (
talk)
12:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent edit-warring by IPs over the last few days. This has also been a recurring issue since last year, with IPs or new accounts targeting the infobox (particularly the map) over and over again, sometimes edit-warring (e.g.
[83],
[84],
[85], etc).
R Prazeres (
talk)
18:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
This is a long-term issue going for months, including prior pp.
[89]
The user is only partial-blocked and is doing the same thing now on other pages.
[90] They have been reported at AIV
[91] and the report is still there. Stalled, I suspect, by the partial...idk
DB1729talk21:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I request semi-protection for this article for at least a couple weeks (maybe through mid-December?) as multiple anonymous users have been making vandalous edits to it for several days now.
Cavanaughs (
talk)
06:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because from a long time page is not updated and have a lots of information with reliable sources and want to add in the page.
223.187.107.247 (
talk)
19:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – This page has been edited by socks many times in the last seven years and has been protected for good reasons. The page at
Talk:Koli people is open to you as an IP. Please propose your changes there. Or, consider registering an account.
EdJohnston (
talk)
19:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – a) Semi-protection wouldn't help as the dispute is between fairly seasoned editors; b) The edit-warring seems to have subsided, but if it resumes, discretionary sanctions may have to be be applied.
Favonian (
talk)
20:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
2. There is factually incorrect information in it in the first line, such as it being a super spreader event, when the article itself goes onto state the Supreme Court of India quashed allegations against the group.
Excluwiksivite (
talk)
12:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Redirect linked from interface messages.
Automatic edit summaries use this for piping ← when a page is created, redirected or replaced (
example). Although this has only 580 direct links, it is linked from several hundred thousand edit summaries. Vandalism or good faith retargeting from those unware of this can break a lot of edit summaries, so it should be full protected.
ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (
talk)
05:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Anarchyte pages linked from interface messages are usually protected preventatively as they are high risk and can cause large scale disruption. See for example {{JULIANDAY.JULIAN}} which is TE protected despite having only 8 transclusions. Though not recent, most edits to this page have been vandalism. Please reconsider.
ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (
talk)
11:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I request semi-protection for this article for at least a couple weeks (maybe through mid-December?) as multiple anonymous users have been making vandalous edits to it for several days now.
Cavanaughs (
talk)
06:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I request semi-protection for this article for at least a couple weeks (maybe through mid-December?) as multiple anonymous users have been making vandalous edits to it for several days now.
Cavanaughs (
talk)
06:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The said page belongs to a well known public figure who holds a reputable position among the people of Kashmir (Indian administered) and there are some miscreants trying to defame him by adding abusive words (in local language) on the said person's page.
2405:201:550B:3051:E061:9F66:4072:5CD9 (
talk)
15:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
+1Reason: The page belongs to a reputable person who is a well known public figure respected by the people of Kashmir (India) and there are some miscreants trying to defame him by adding abusive words (in local language) on his public page.
Corrector1786 (
talk)
15:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. None of the recent anon/non-autoconfirmed edits to this page have been constructive ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Page was originally protected for 1 week due to socks removing reliably sourced content. After the protection expired, the sock returned with same removal. It was protected for 1 month. Now that that protection has expired, the Sock has returned again with same removal.
Archer1234 (
talk)
23:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
So far, the recent disruption is isolated to one IP address, so my instinct is to block the IP instead of semi-ing the talk page if the disruption continues, at least for now. That may change as circumstances warrant, of course.
Writ Keeper⚇♔01:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indeed, the disruption seems to have died down for now. I was coming here to delete the request, but will leave it in place since it's been replied to. In any case, I'll be keeping an eye on this IP.
Generalrelative (
talk)
03:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. I have warned the blanking ip.
BusterD (
talk)
19:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page seems to be randomly and at times months/years apart, but can be heavily vandalized. Semi protection would be unlikely to cause serious issues as it's a redirect, so it's not going to be heavily edited.
TartarTorte23:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)reply
There seems to be only one user involved —
Garvit anand (
talk·contribs), who was attempting to convert this disambiguation page into an article about a quasi-metaphysical idea. The only edit by user
SasTheBoi (
talk·contribs) was revising an addition by Garvit anand, but their grammar is much better than so I am convinced that they were acting in good faith. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄)
05:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. One disruptive edit in three weeks and requester makes clear this editor seems acting in GF. Insufficient historical activity to escalate this at this time.
BusterD (
talk)
20:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined I'm unsure whether the edits could reasonably be construed as actively defamatory (one insult, one edit that should be remocved but hardly libellous). In any case, insufficient scale of issue to yet require semiprotect
Nosebagbear (
talk)
22:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: No edits in past few months, page is starting to be outdated as driver has new stats that need updating. Only driver in NHRA that has protecting on his or her page.
Nhraeditor (
talk)
21:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected. There have been no edits because the last couple of edit requests have been declined. Given that your last two edit requests were not actionable, I am not convinced that unprotecting is a benefit. Please practice writing a well-formed edit request, with exactly the edit you want to make, wording and all. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
22:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected. I don't see a consensus for moving emerging on either the AFD or the article talk page. In fact, the article could even be deleted. In any case, when a consensus does emerge, an administrator can always perform the move. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
22:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I think a consensus to move is on the cards (even though I argued to keep it as it is) but I thought the banning of the only editor who caused the problem would be sufficient ground to revert thing back to normal. But if you don't agree, I don't have a strong feeling about it. All the best.
CT55555(
talk)
22:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Has gone on since the article was created. Four previous protections, the last one lasting 6 months. interstatefive23:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – He has reportedly agreed to sign with a new team, however, the transaction has not been confirmed by the new team and has not appeared on the NFL Transaction wire. IPs are prematurely editing the transaction before it's official. Rockchalk71700:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
harassment from LTAs. ― C.Syde(
talk |
contribs)12:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply Comment: Has been semi-protected numerous times previously. Would appreciate it if it was semi-protected for a longer duration than last time.
Reason: The page for the company does not exist at present and knowledge about the same is relevant for the public. Wikipedia provides genuine information about every entity and it would be important to have Manupatra's information on such a platform.
Udrishas (
talk)
09:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP addresses are whitewashing article. Likely that it's just one person hopping IPs, probably a user recently blocked (2nd block) for disruptive editing, that was making the same changes (user name Defeedme).
Wes sideman (
talk)
13:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page is often vandalized, it was first attacked by one user, but afterwards other IPs started doing the same, I thought they were of the same user, but investigations came out negative, which means that multiple users are vandalizing the same page, thus I ask for protection for the page.
ValtteriLahti12 (
talk)
14:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Some persistent addition of unsourced "trainspotter" content taken place today by multiple editors. Strongly suspect some sockpuppet activity given the latest editor to pop up today. Original editor has very strong COI.
10mmsocket (
talk)
19:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Thinking about it some established editors involved so semi-protection wouldn't do anything. Request full protection for a few days to allow them to cool off - or find reliable sources.
10mmsocket (
talk)
19:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Multiple instances of vandalism, topical article that should be protected until at least the end of the World Cup winner's publicity fades, easy target
Omnifalcon (
talk)
22:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It's only been disrupted today. The last disruptive edits beforehand were over a week ago.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
23:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The last time it was created was a year ago. It seems like they've resorted to
asking an administrator instead of trying to create it themself.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
23:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Three months of various IP-hopping pro-Trump edits: false claims that he is an alumnus, linking to a non-existent article about a supposed 2024 presidential campaign, even claims that he has already won the 2024 presidency.
Meters (
talk)
06:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: An anonymous editor has been persistently vandalizing this page for the past month, adding references to Ohio. I request that only confirmed editors may edit the page. BOTTO (
T•
C)13:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2022
Change "on an planet made of ocean" to "on a planet made of ocean".
In the last sentence of the plot summary section.
Will468 (
talk)
21:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Also in the last sentence, I think "has improved as the film ends with the giant creature which is actually a turtle on a planet made of ocean." should be split into "has improved. The film ends with the giant creature which is actually a turtle on a planet made of ocean." It feels smoother and makes the sentence less of a run on sentence.
Will468 (
talk)
22:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply