Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism and unconstructive edits since nomination and becoming the Chief of Pakistan Army, previous protection is expired, vandalism will not going to end until article gets Indefinite semi-protection like previous chief
Qamar Javed Bajwa article.
103.141.159.226 (
talk)
07:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply Comment: The page
Asim Munir should be protected with pending changes because the most of the IP users and others making disrupt edits on it. The users make unsourced changes again and again and ruined the article in the way they like. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
M.Ashraf333 (
talk •
contribs)
11:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I do not see any reason for protection for the moment. In particular, the COVID topic is under standard discretionary sanctions, which, to my understanding, do not allow for extended confirmed protection without semi-protection first being tried (and proven ineffective). Will appreciate a second opinion.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
21:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
There has been several i.p vandals within the past 3 days. I request at least Semi-Protection, as this article addresses a sensitive topic itself. Considering its ITN placement, It appears to be an important or sensative article on Covid-19;.
PerryPerryDTalk To Me15:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – Every IP/new edit since the last block expired in August has had to be reverted.
Belbury (
talk)
08:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Content dispute over the subject's year of birth. The subject of the article has been trying to have the year of her birth removed from the article for apparently several years, including sending emails to VRT. The matter is currently being discussed on the article's talk page and the subject has been encouraged to participate in said discussion. An IP claiming to have been authorized by the subject has now shown up to continue to remove the disputted content. Page protection might be needed until this can be resolved. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
00:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Continual presence of different IP editors who are coming in to update the article in a way that doesn't represent reality, failing
WP:NPOV. Everyday almost, the article must be reverted. scope_creepTalk16:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Last time I dealt with this article, I was subject to serious real-life harassment, possibly paid for by the subject of the article. I would recommend that only admins with a concealed identity take action. (Not necessarily an endorsement for protection).--
Ymblanter (
talk)
06:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Editors (autoconfirmed) have been adding their own point of view and personal analysis even after various reverts/removals by different editors.
ManaliJain (
talk)
11:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Request Pending review protection - Reason: Disruptive editing by new created accounts, anon IP high use of Unreliable sources to justify controversial claims.
Mr.User200 (
talk)
12:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page has extensive vandalism. This morning, I found an IP user with an address of 84. something and they kept adding unnecessary information to the page which included "Stop reverting my edits ya goofy ahh mods." I want this page to be semi-protected to see if vandalism will decrease, if not, extended protection.
Sahas P. (
talk)
12:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Since the last block ended, the article continues to be subject to disruptive editing from IPs that are all over the map but that are united in their misguided insistence that harissa is traditional only in Tunisia.
Largoplazo (
talk)
18:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Look like Nortekman is referring to
es:Coleo de toros, which they have recently edited. The equivalent article on this Wiki is
Coleo but a) Nortekman has not edited that one and b) it does not appear to be in urgent need of protection.
Favonian (
talk)
16:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page should be locked, as multiple users are adding inaccurate information about the number of releases by this label. See Chxrry22 on the roster section - unapproved users are submitting edits that Chxrry22 has 4 releases by the label, when the correct number is 2.
Btheweeknd (
talk)
17:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page on Manupatra does not exist. Manupatra introduced legaltech in India and thus potrays the history of legal tech in India , which I wish to publish.
Mprateek (
talk)
08:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected –
Ötzi died more than 5,000 years ago, and he still needs protection. Sorry, I had to come up with a reply matching the request in silliness.
Favonian (
talk)
16:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Vandalism resumed only 5 days after the previous protection expired, and due to the nature of the article it will most likely continue ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654502:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Massive edit war.
Imod Kunsten (
talk·contribs) inserts the subject's death date with reference to Frihedens Stemme, an unreliable
WP:SELFPUB. The user argues that because the source is a a part of the
Danish Press Council, it is reliable; I doubt this. The subject has confirmed that he was close to attempting suicide a few weeks ago
[1] (in Danish), but not a single reliable source has explicitly confirmed his death, and I believe it is soundest to, as per
WP:BLP, respect that it might be the case that family wants to keep this private for now. See also
Talk:Hugo Helmig. —
Biscuit-in-Chief:-)(
ˈ[d̥͡soːg̊ʰ] –
[ˈg̊ʰɒ̹nd̥͡sɹ̠ɪb̥s])13:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined I've applied a rangeblock and I see Jauerback has applied one too. Feel free to hit me up on my talk page or rerequest protection if it's insufficient.
DatGuyTalkContribs18:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The show has not ended, Ben Bocquelet said that there was a possibility. Season 7 onward will go by the title The Amazing World of Gumball: The Series.
Drjump! (
talk)
15:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of vandalism, mainly from IPs, due to being today's featured article. In the last 12 hours, the article's content has been deleted, duplicated, had slurs written in it, had information on emos pasted in, and perhaps worst of all, been replaced with the contents of a Wikipedia article about cheese.
Unlimitedlead (
talk)
21:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The socks have been blocked by mods. The article needs a big rewrite and corrections. Because of major flaws and editorial bias. Also, the article's most of the information contributed by 2 outdated editors
Exhistorian (
talk)
18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Fulani is British. She's on the front page of
BBC news right now because her British nationality was questioned by a racist royal household worker. Twice now, IP addresses have adjusted her nationality away from being British to introduce alternative nationalities that are not supported in reliable sources.
CT55555(
talk)
13:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
It's actually ramped up since I asked (she's in the news, medium level of page views), can you please take a second look and reconsider?
CT55555(
talk)
20:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP vandalism by someone who is following me around and blanking several pages that I help maintain. I tried reverting it, but they reverted it back.
Inharmonicity (
talk)
19:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined We could deal with this here, but only by fully protecting the article. Which I would recommend doing only if you guys continue edit warring over this.
Oh good grief! I have no "conflict of interest" or connection to any music company and I don't work in the industry (I wish lol). I just play the drums. Last time I contribute to this site. What's the point???
Inharmonicity (
talk)
20:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP and new editors insisting on "fixing" what isn't broken. The alternate name is already given and isn't the name of the file in the infobox, the town in the hatnote, the files in the galleries or the hospital. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)21:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This article has been targeted and vandalized multiple times by Israelis who do not like it, so it needs to be protected as soon as possible to stop the abuse of the article.
Nori2001 (
talk)
00:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Jayron32: my point pertains to the protection request. As it's always preferred to leave the article as open as possible while preventing disruption (yes, even in ARBPIA, per the provisions), it is entirely valid to be questioned here.
DatGuyTalkContribs14:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
WP:PIA is pretty clearly applicable to this article; it fits within the dispute area. It doesn't become not related to Palestine and Israel merely because you dispute something Coffeeandcrumbs did. --
Jayron3215:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There's some general edits from IPs once in a while that aren't strictly helpful, but I don't see where this is out of control. Indeed, there are also good edits from IPs mixed in there. No need to protect.
Jayron3214:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP hopping film fantasist(s} repeatedly adding multiple claims about Race 4 - which as stated in the article has never been confirmed -
Arjayay (
talk)
15:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Article about a recent internet joke about a fictional country that people pretend is real. Unsurprisingly, every IP edit so far has been to delete the word "fictional".
Belbury (
talk)
17:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Socking continues even after an extended IP range block
[7]. Sock-/meatpuppet IPs continue to add dynastic promotional content and also pretty erratic stuff.
Austronesier (
talk)
18:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Multiple IPs inserting in the infobox the unsourced name of a person as "partner" of the subject of this article.
Archer1234 (
talk)
20:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP
82.43.236.6 is continuously adding unsourced info that has been reverted by two separate editors now. The contributions page looks like several edits are being reverted elsewhere as well. -
2pou (
talk)
20:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Semi protection would block the good faith contributions of the requester. The offending IP has not edited since final warning.
BusterD (
talk)
23:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Not sure at this point if this should be temp or perm. Was temporarily protected, then as soon as the protection was removed the disruptive editing was continued.
Onel5969TT me23:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Not sure at this point if this should be temp or perm. Was temporarily protected, then as soon as the protection was removed the disruptive editing was continued.
Onel5969TT me23:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – It's getting vandalism every few days from the same range but the IP itself changes each time. I doubt that we can do anything much about the range so can we please give the page a break? Thanks.
DBaK (
talk)
00:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Since November 10, a user had removed info that contains sources. I had restored the info but this user keeps removing it. Ever since that user is blocked, they used an open proxy and created another account. I suggest protection to prevent this from happening. This user started an edit war.
SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (
talk)
10:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Continuous invasion of pseudo-Ukrainian POV pushers for a long time; the article in under discretionary sanctions, and the community has authorized blanket extended-confirmed protection. In this case, semi might be sufficient.
Ymblanter (
talk)
12:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Lots of SPAs on this page, some attacking NFU Mutual, some clearly paid by NFU Mutual. Both types aren't helping the article, which needs editors who are here to build an encyclopedia. Some accounts are autoconfirmed, so semi-protection wouldn't be any use.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
11:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Haji Abdul Qayyum Jalali Panki, Served as Commissioner of Sylhet Municipal Council and later as Councilor of Sylhet City Corporation for 20 years. He served as the Vice Chairman of Sylhet Municipality, and was the Panel Mayor of Sylhet City Corporation. Sylhet City Corporation
Jewel sbd (
talk)
14:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked:
2804:14D:5A83:5B30:0:0:0:0/64 (
talk·contribs). for a month. This is not the only range the article has been attacked from, I concur, but I note that a) after the previous blocks of the adjacent ranges those have not been used again, even following their expiration, and b) that user has engaged in this kind of genre warring on many film articles besides this one (perhaps an LTA page may be desirable), so this action better protects the encyclopedia.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Apparently something recently happened on Twitter which is prompting IPs to come here and remove the statement that the Post is a conservative tabloid. The most recent IP even said "Elon has restored integrity and trust to twitter", which is completely contrary to reality. Signs indicate that this will continue unless the page is protected.
Skywatcher68 (
talk)
23:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated addition of an
unsourced list of
living people by an unregistered user who is hopping IPs and ignoring (or failing to see due to the hopping) warnings and attempts to communicate. I'd like to get them to the article's talk page -- if they would reveal their source for this list, all would be well. Perhaps this might prompt them. — Trey Maturin has spoken12:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Frequent disruption by the "
Turning Red" vandal. Most of accounts involved in the most recent attack were months old so semi-protection won't do much good. I too happen to think that Turning Red is trash, but I don't condone vandalism.
Someone who's wrong on the internet (
talk)
04:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm on the fence on this, too. Note that I've
warned the OP for violating
WP:3RR. In one of their reverts, they remove
(diff) a quote by the subject that reads (in full):
I'm not trying to be shocking. I like Hitler. The Holocaust is not what happened, let's look at the facts of that, and Hitler has a lot of redeeming qualities.
In their edit summary they write (in part): avoid
WP:LONGQUOTEs. I'm not sure how those 3 sentences could be deemed a long quote, so, that's a bit of a concern tbh.
El_C15:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not a huge fan of quotes anyway, as it lends more weight which is a BLP concern. Is there a consensus required ARB AP that could be imposed for a week or two until this can be discussed and worked out on the talk page?
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
15:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Myself, I never log DS protections that are less than 3 months (because that would make the log very long!). I usually just make a note of it in the protection summary. See for example my protection from a few minutes ago (
diff). But, yes,
WP:AP2 does apply, as insane as that is.
El_C15:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)reply
But that's an extended confirmed user, so only full protection would work for them, at least. Also, I'm not a fan of {{blockquote}}s, either, but the point is that it's not a long quote as the OP contends.
El_C15:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)reply
It would, but I don't think it's at that point yet; I don't think the edit war is active enough to warrant that just yet.
El_C15:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)reply
El_C, I want to clarify that WP:LONGQUOTE was not in reference to the quote's length, which admittedly is not that long, but in reference to quote boxes, use of which is discouraged over
WP:WEIGHT concerns; I used the shortcut for convenience. Essentially, what I took issue with was the highlighting of that one specific excerpt. I obviously should have clarified this in my edit summary.
Throast{{ping}} me! (
talk |
contribs)
16:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The threshold for protection of article talk pages is set quite high. Two incidents in November and one so far in December are not sufficient cause.
Favonian (
talk)
16:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Constant clueless editors looking to remove the identity of the murder even though we have policies against this. Pending protection doesn't help. I was thinking about adding an edit notice to the page, but I should probably go here first.
RteeeeKed💬📖22:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Constant vandalism by sockpuppets of banned user
Αθλητικά (
this edit was made by a sockpuppet of this well-known banned user ) and several other users. The correct capacity is referenced adequately and I have even started a talk page on this. However, numerous IP addresses keep vandalising this, sometimes with provocative content (such as in
this edit ). I have tried talking to some of the IP addresses, such as
here, but there is no result. As this page will be updated only when a stadium is renovated or built, which is very rarely, I believe a permanent extended protection (for verified users with 30 days and 500 edits) is appropriate and essential.
Tranquill Komnin (
talk)
22:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Player has signed a transfer that takes effect January 1. WP:FOOTY convention is to note this in the intro and leave their current club until it officially takes effect. IPs and other new users keep changing it to now. I've left hidden notes in the code noting that it should wait until Jan 1, but they're ignored and removed and changed
RedPatch (
talk)
22:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – The editor Oknazevad is not working with me in good faith -- this editor did not make contact, but instead reverted substantial work of mine and persists in interfering in realtime while I am in the process of improving the article.
MarkWKidd (
talk)
02:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 60 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Moxy, when it's IPs and unconfirmed users who are disputing whatever, it's kinda
WP:BITE'y to mention "RFC" in plain text / unlinked in an edit summary, instead of, well, linking it as "
WP:RFC." Please keep accessibility in mind, even and especially when fraught (within reason, obviously). Because wiki-acronyms in plain text are not that (remedied so easily, is the point). Thanks.
El_C12:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done.
Ckfasdf, you explained about the parameter to them today, so maybe give that a chance before anything else...? Note also that we very rarely protect over a single user (rarely even two), so try
WP:AN3 /
WP:ANI if/when the disruption resumes.
El_C12:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Same as protection request for the article's talk listed above, IP originating from India vandalizing the article with similar worthy of
WP:RD2 content.
[13]. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝)17:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Target of disruptive edits because of the word “soccer” and controversies over the format. Adeletron 3030 (
talk •
edits)
18:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The article was created more recently than that ... I don't see PC as necessary yet; let's try longer-term protection than it's already gotten.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectionReason: Various IP addresses are removing the same content. The reason given for removing the mention of Blenheim and Taupō from the article is that these towns are not notable. However, directly preceding where the names were mentioned, the sentence says they are "significant".
Thanks, I'll report to
WP:EW if they continue. I originally requested semi-protection because a number of IP users were making the same edits within a few days. And at least to me, that is somewhat suspicious and might be a sign of sockpuppetry.
Michael60634 (
talk)
02:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Update - the most recent World Cup related vandalism spree appears to have stopped, so revising this request to temporary pending changes at most.
Entranced98 (
talk)
00:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I reviewed a diff between July 2022 and today (
link), and while I see mostly small changes and fixes (along with a small paragraph that was added but sufficiently referenced), I do see some edits in between that added some unreferenced content, but was removed later. I don't consider these additions to be
vandalism; I would advise
BMA-Nation2020 to avoid the use of this term in future requests unless they supplement sufficient evidence to support their claim (the listing of relevant diffs proving vandalism is usually best). In any case, I feel that six months of
pending changes protection is not unreasonable here. Legitimate unregistered users are free to edit the article as usual, but with review and approval being a requirement before the changes are published.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)08:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Since the recent announcement of upcoming closure, drive-by IP editors insist on entering the closed date even though it has yet to occur and the attraction remains in operation. One such IP editor has already been partially blocked, but partial block did not include this page.
—JlACEer (
talk)
05:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Anonymous contributors keep removing the information about the significant difference in age between the two fighters. That information, however, is far from trivial, especially when the age difference is significant, as it is here (22 years). An
invitation to discuss the issue has been opened. I request that the page be protected for a couple of weeks so that we'll have time to sort things out. -
The Gnome (
talk)
19:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done for now.
The Gnome, you've posted this request 5 minutes after posting that comment. You gotta at least give it a chance to possibly resonate. Also, an edit summary that reads something to the effect of "see discussion at
Talk:Jake Paul vs. Anderson Silva#Age difference" would be helpful. That user or users may not even know that that talk page exists.
El_C04:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – An unregistered user keeps trying to add false information about a character in this article. They first attempted to do so several times in November, which led to three reverts from three different editors (including myself). Recently, they've returned under a different IPv4 address to re-add the same false information. –
WPA (
talk)
10:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism (removing suspended flights as being cut, random removals and additions of destinations, removal of Heraklion Airport) by IPs. The Bannertalk10:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I hit the button at the same time as you did,
Kosack. Sorry about that. I ended up protecting it for four days instead of two. Feel free to change or adjust back at your discretion - no need for my approval beforehand. ;-) Cheers -
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)09:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Deletion of sourced "negative" material (arrest for domestic violence) that has been removed every few weeks by anon IP editor (likely the same one) over a period of months. Page was previously protected (from Sep 2021 to March 2022) because of the same abuse; when protection expired, abuse started right back up again and has not stopped.
Wes sideman (
talk)
15:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Hello,
I am writing to you concerned about Wikipedia editor Wes Sideman (whom I have linked to below). He has committed multiple counts of vandalism and seems to have an obsession with this television character “Chad Johnson” from the TV show “The Bachelorette” and his Wikipedia page. He continues to change the notoriety of Chad Johnson from his TV shows, to his arrest records attempting to defame him. Those charges were dropped and as you can see in the video below, his girlfriend admits no assault happened. Apparently Wes Sideman knows more than the two people actually involved in the incident. Wes Sideman also continues to remove any remotely good press about Chad from the Wikipedia page. For some reason Wes has been monitoring and harassing this Wikipedia page for over two years now. If you have time, I would ask or suggest that you look into doing something about this Wes Sideman moderator using an abuse of power on Wikipedia. It is my request that you block Wes Sideman from the ability to continue to abuse his editorial power on this page. Please ensure that he can no longer remove positive articles, add false negative information, and generally continue his vandalism of this page.
Thank you.
Admission of no assault -
https://youtu .be/qyK8-_kaVt8
Comment: I have no comment on the above ip statement. I have no reason to think
User:Wes sideman is acting for any other reason but in good faith. On looking at the material frequently removed, this looks like poorly sourced gossip (cites from Fox News and People) which may be true but is surely UNDUE, in my opinion. I can see why someone might desire its removal since it seems a BLP violation to me (unless it's much better sourced).
BusterD (
talk)
01:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated replacement of verifiable information with false information about a producer named "Cook Babes".
benǝʇᴉɯ21:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Repeated unsourced additions by account claiming to be the subject, which was blocked for
WP:IMPERSONATE; followed by similar edits by newly registered accounts, signaling
WP:OWN behaviour and suspected
WP:SOCK/
WP:MEAT activity.
Drm310🍁 (
talk)
19:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment while most of what reports above is true, the accounts have been trying to remove poorly sourced girlfriend information and not add it. It is entirely possible (even likely) that all three accounts are related and one of them is already blocked as impersonator (and the other two should be blocked as likely socks). I involved myself because I saw the removals as justified under BLP policy. I announced my intention and boldly removed some of what
User:Masonreese1 and the later socks were also removing. My personal opinion is that the linked account is in fact the subject and NOT an impersonator. I also started a talk page thread but nobody has been talking (since they're blocked). Protection is unnecessary here (since they are all blocked or should be). The disruptive activity stopped when I intervened. Sorry if this comment lacks brevity.
BusterD (
talk)
01:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: To address the concerns of sock puppetry: The original account (Masonreese1) was soft-blocked due to having a username that represented a
notable person (the article subject,
Mason Reese). Because it was soft-blocked (which is performed in order to allow the user to create another account with a username that complies with
WP:UPOL), the creation and use of another account to edit the article was legal. There are no issues in regards to sock puppetry. If anything, this should be seen as an issue with
edit warring and handled appropriately.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Dunno what's up here, I'm guessing there was some meme about this, because a bunch of random IPs have shown up to add similar garbage to the article.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
13:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: At this point, the page has been protected for over two years, and most people who have done something to vandalize the page, no longer bother with the page. Yes, there is vandalism from time to time, but it is very minor, and I think reverting the protection would result in the page becoming more up-to-date, and the size of the page increasing with new info.
LordEnma8 (
talk)
20:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I think that would be fine. Wouldn't hurt to test to see if protection is still needed (can't find the relevant guideline for this but I know one exists) ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Opposed No reason for unprotecting the page has really been given. The page is protected for a reason, and it's only a semi-protect. The lack of updates to the page corresponds more with a lack of new reliable secondary coverage than the fact it is protected. Asking for this decrease every 1-2 months is not going to change my position. You asked with the same rationale in October. Your own edits to the article were reverted, and in the meantime, the only edits to the talk page have been vandalism spillover, showing that there is no demand from IP editors to make constructive edit requests. --
ferret (
talk)
21:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)reply
That would be
Special:Contribs/2003:eb:6700::/42. But a rangeblock was already tried and didn't work before, so I see no reason to expect it to work now as opposed to just sending them to some other IP range. It's not as if there are any other IP editors trying to edit the page that semi-protection would prevent.
* Pppery *it has begun...17:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. For months, the only edits to this page about this 2005 TV series were by this person and people reverting them. The next protection (if/when) should be in the months rather than weeks.
El_C17:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This article and
Enola Holmes 2 has dealt with a persistent IP vandal who keeps adding Warner Bros. to both articles despite this connection being completely unsourced. Talk page discussion and warnings have been tried, but the person is IP-hopping and is persistent.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)14:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Request for temporary extended page protection for the James Madison biography currently at FAC. There have been extensive requests for upgrades at FAC from sysops editors and others which require much attention. It would be nice to be able to concentrate on the revisions without distractions from drive-by editors making random changes to the article. Could I request a 30-day extended protection to be granted while FAC is underway and on-going.
ErnestKrause (
talk)
15:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Although, we provided many reliable source of information demonstrating the origin of Harissa, this was met with unilateral rejection with no valid reason. Alongside the lack of consistency with other pages with different languages, this behaviour constitute an abuse of the edit access privilege by declining any other contribution and monopolising the edit right.
Jalghoula (
talk)
16:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
This article was protected five days ago because of constant attempts to add badly-sourced content in furtherance of a nationalist point of view by a literal host of IP editors. Discuss any changes, with sources, on the article talk page and stop edit-warring over this issue. —
Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori16:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution.
IceWelder, why not try ironing out the malware vs. scheme dispute on the article talk page? On the face of it, you seem to be skipping
WP:DR steps with this request. You have not explained why this is disruptive editing vs. content dispute. Next time, for similar requests, even a brief explanation beyond the boiler plate Persistent
vandalism would probably be useful — because, within the limitations of this forum, at least, how can this not be viewed as
WP:NOTVANDALISM?El_C17:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
El C: This is not a content dispute. One user keeps claiming that a piece of content is malware just because they don't like what it is used for (digital rights management). Their edits have no grounds whatsoever and does not appear likely to cease their edit war.
IceWelder [
✉]
17:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Well, is this a bad "scheme," or a good one, as in an umbrella of (good) services? Did you ask for
WP:RS? Even mention its existence, requirement? Otherwise
WP:ENGAGE? You're not painting a complete enough picture for me.
El_C17:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
"Scheme" as in "service" or "product", neither bad nor good. I wrote the article but didn't know what to call it since it is integrated into the consumer product. I used the wording from the comparable
SecuROM now. One way or the other, the IP's edits were in bad faith.
IceWelder [
✉]
18:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
It is DRM and has a negative perception in the video game community because it can negatively impact game performance. Calling it
malware is intentionally misleading, especially when doing so over and over.
IceWelder [
✉]
18:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Are you sure that's the reason? Did you ask? You also didn't answer my questions about
WP:RS,
WP:ENGAGE, etc. You're still falling short of proving that you didn't skip steps in the
WP:DR process (i.e. obvious bad faith). DRM is everywhere, so what's special here?
El_C20:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
No
reliable source calls it malware, if that's what you want to hear. What's special here? Nothing (maybe apart from the reputation), and just like everywhere else, DRM can be a nuisance but is not malware. I could try to ENGAGE with the user, but I've seen these editing patterns time and again on various topics and in my experience, editors like these (and especially IPs) never reply. This why I often need to come here to ensure
WP:BRD/
WP:STATUSQUO.
IceWelder [
✉]
21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
WP:ENGAGE doesn't cover warnings; it appeared to me like you wanted me to start a discussion that would never get any attention from that user. Obviously, I also use warnings where useful, but this user has a new IP every day -- you only warned the third one. Expectedly, the user just returned with a fourth IP to do the same edit again.
IceWelder [
✉]
22:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WP:ENGAGE covers engagement, which user warnings are, also. Now, imagine if you used my
protection summary in any of your reverts, so they'd at least get a chance to see those policies linked in the revision history. Imagine also if you added {{uw-unsourced2}} to the first IP talk page? Consider how much longer this discussion took compared to doing either or both of those things.
El_C00:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Edit warring involved by an IP and two other editors including me. IP has reverted 4 times in last 24 hours. I restored back to the last version before the edit war started and that's the reason why I'm requesting full protection. —
B.L.I.R.18:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Two instances of disruption in the last day, and the one before them was five days before.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
03:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Recurring problem with page renames. Current title is the result of talk-page discussion. There have been no further discussions about renaming the page, yet it's been renamed (and reverted) at least twice.
Legowerewolf (
talk)
03:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There's no vandalism. But the intro is being changed, reverted, changed another way, reverted, etc etc. All this is going on, while an RFC (concerning the intro) is in progress. Requesting full protection of the page for at least a month.
GoodDay (
talk)
01:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done for now. I've simplified the restriction from Enforced BRD to
WP:1RR and will make a note to that effect. But am not ready to fully-protect just yet.
El_C05:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Steady drip drip drip of spray tagging by IPs, on this article and its talk page. Request is to restrict to registered editors only please. For a month?
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
17:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP vandalism and disruptive editing. Subject has recently been sentenced to prison which has caused a bunch of IPs to add unnecessary and unencyclopedic commentary bordering on BLP violations. Requesting a temporary protection while this dies down.
Ïvana (
talk)
17:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Single Purpose Account vandalize the page and keeps adding the duplicated and copyright violated information. They didn't participate in discussion.
45mml.23 (
talk)
11:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: SPA paid editor for the Baccarat company is in an editing war, keeps removing any and all negative history of the company, and keeps vandalizing the page.
Chrma626 (
talk)
14:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Chrma626 You are not exactly innocent here yourself. next time you see an edit war, Please report it at 3 reverts, rather than continuing the war. The other editor does bring up some points here, Do you have another source for your claims about the nazi history of the company?
PerryPerryDTalk To Me15:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP vandalism and disruptive editing on the page, with an IP user putting swear words in their edit summary. They also vandalise a lot. Some IP editors even put in inappropriate and childish content on his page, such as simping for him. They sometimes ruin the page with adding unnecessary categories. They even replace his name into different names, and ruin his description sometimes.
Minani227 (
talk)
16:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. None of the most recent non-autoconfirmed edits to the article have been constructive. ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indefinite pending changes doesn't seem to be helping anymore. Seeing the extensive protection history, I was inclined to apply indefinite semi-protection but I'm not sure that would appropriate yet. Kept the indefinite move protection.
BusterD (
talk)
21:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – There is a slow edit war between many editors in the last week after the repeal was passed in the parliament, flipping the article between present and past tenses. However, the repeal of this law is pending presidential assent and a commencement date. While there are well-meaning editors, registered and anon alike, would love to see the law in past tenses, the law remains on the books until then.
– robertsky (
talk)
18:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. An IP posted one thing about this to the talk page. And that's it. No responses, no nothing.
El_C18:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page has been regularly vandalized by IP users, and semi-protection might help with that. I'm new to requesting page protection so please explain the guidelines and reasoning behind your decision. Thanks!.
CoderThomasB (
talk)
22:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected – Too much disruptive editing by one or more editors with a conflict of interest is exactly why the article is protected. While we are at it,
Parviz Fayzuloev, you really should use your account rather than IPs.
Favonian (
talk)
20:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – increased prominence leading to increased unconstructive edits, currently protected but has long protection history.
Will120 (
talk)
10:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Long term persistent disruptive editing by anonymous IP, temporary semi-protection requested. Hoping that semi-protection will force editor to engage on the TP instead of repeatedly removing reliable sourced content while ignoring community input. Thank you
Wafflesvarog (
talk)
11:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Multiple IP editor censoring article, removing content, making unsourced changes. First IP editor warned, now very likely same editor is using a different IP.
10mmsocket (
talk)
17:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined I went and re-added the information they were trying to. They were putting the source in the edit summary because they didn't know how to do it right. This is clearly not a case of being disruptive; they were trying to do it correctly.
Jayron3218:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)reply
That bit yes I see, and thanks for updating it. However, it turns out that the new editor is actually a paid employee of the charity (their social media manager) and while editing as an IP removed some past controversy about the charity
diff - effectively censoring the article. The editor has been informed about the implications of their COI.
10mmsocket (
talk)
18:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)reply
They have not, it seems, tried to remove the content a second time. They only did so once, it was reverted, and they desisted. If it becomes a problem, let us know. --
Jayron3218:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Article is a news item and has drawn a lot of SPAs, unresponsive IPs, and dormant non-confirmed editors in for non-constructive edits. A very brief protection (12-24h) should be more than sufficient. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
02:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done for now. Not really seeing it. Ratio of constructive to unconstructive edits seems okay'ish right now. Relist if that changes. Maybe add a few diffs, too, if the scale of the problems isn't clear from the revision history (i.e. absence of rollbacks, undos, etc.).
El_C16:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because this page is no longer a high risk template, it's a redirect that is quite low risk, semi protection should be enough....... . {
userpage! |
talk!}
23:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The last edit that could plausibly defined as vandalism happened on October 9. The last edit of any kind before you today edited was still over 1 month ago.
Jayron3218:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IPs have been edit-warring all day. Reported the first IP to the edit-warring admin board (
[25], but a second IP is now doing the same, so it's going to persist without page protection.
R Prazeres (
talk)
21:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page is directly associated to another page (Gavin McInnes) that has been vandalized multiple times, and is semi-protected. This page is about McInnes' company, so I'm asking for semi-protection before the inevitable happens.
Machiavellian Gaddafi (
talk)
21:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Multiple IPs at work hijacking and vandalising the article. Recent vandalism came with this edit summary: "Lol. Stop me if you can. Block all IP adresses and make people login to edit".
Archer1234 (
talk)
03:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reverted to the last good version and recommend trouting all editors restoring the vandalized dates while insisting on additional sources to undo the vandalism without looking at the original sources provided in the linked articles. —Farix (
t |
c)
04:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Further clarity: There was a bizarre stage rushing incident at the end of the event that is quickly becoming an internet meme. Much of the vandalism is based on that incident. –
WPA (
talk)
05:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Target of IP socks of
User:MariaJaydHicky going back several years (see protection log). Pending changes has not deterred them too much, as seen in the page history. The last non-sock IP edit was from more than a year ago so I don't think semiprotection will do too much harm. (Alternatively, the reviewing administrator could block [[Special:Contributions/2A04:4A43:55DF:E4B6:0:0:0:0/64|], but the user switches IPs frequently.) Thank you.
Aoi (青い) (
talk)
16:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: This was protected as a high-traffic page on the date of the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, it was clear that many people were searching for such an article on 9/11, though now, I doubt that it is as high traffic as it was then.
Among Us for POTUS (
talk)
02:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
There's only been a single rejected edit request in the last three years, and the page has 63 watchers. Since, well, literally every person named on that page has been dead for twenty years, no BLP concerns. I kind of feel like protecting it is probably overkill.
Valereee (
talk)
15:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The page is being vandalized in its early development while editors are trying to have serious discussions about how to strengthen the content of the page. IP users and users with less than 10 edits being barred from editing for the meantime will give us the chance to develop the article while not being constantly disrupted by our content being randomly deleted senselessly & childish nonsense being edited in because they find it funny. Thank you for your consideration.
4theloveofallthings (
talk)
05:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There was one such edit, and it got reverted. Doesn't merit protection at this time. If it becomes too frequent to deal with via reverting the vandalism, please start a new RFPP request.
Jayron3214:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Maybe 1 or 2 edits in the past week have been about this. Not enough to justify protection.
Jayron3214:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined Does not qualify per
WP:UPPROT "Pages within the user space should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected without good reason or cause." Unless there has been vandalism, it should not be protected. RTV makes no statements on page protection.
Jayron3214:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Dear admins,
I`m starting to notice this page is experiencing a considerable amount of vandalism.
... from Social media bloggers, twitter activists, unencyclopaedic opinion writers and IP vandalism.
Please consider locking this page for a few days.
Cheers much appreciated, many thanks and kind regards,
Professor Guru.
Professor Guru (
talk)
12:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing by various IP after news of member Jinni left the group on December 9. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝)12:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Only one previous protection (by yours truly, apparently), so not a good candidate for long-term protection at this time, not to mention indef. Nice dress btw!
El_C18:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. I blocked the /64 they were using for all of their edits. Lots of questionable edits from that range across a wide swathe of hip hop related articles. --
Jayron3216:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Well, there have also been a similar number of good edits from new accounts and/or IP addresses, so I'm leary as yet to protect. The proximate disruption has been blocked, and taken care of. I'd rather manage this with blocks for now, with no prejudice towards a protection in the future if blocking becomes impractical. --
Jayron3217:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Jayron32: The only edits by unregistered or new users that have stuck since the last protection lifted AFAICS are clear COI (
[42][43]) and a likely copyvio (
[44]). How about pending changes protection?
Nardog (
talk)
19:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Various IP editors who I suspect are the same person persist in reorganizing the denominational section of this article (leading most recently to having same level sections of "Protestanism" and "Other Abrahamic Religions" (with Catholicism as a subsection of the latter). The IP editors refuse to engage with other editors and have persisted in this behavior well over a month.
Erp (
talk)
04:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. Many IP users are adding Thalapathy 67 without providing a reliable source saying that it started filming but actually it hasn’t started filming.
Theoder2055 (
talk)
06:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Had a problem with how much is sock puppets on this page. Not sure if that's what's happening now so let's just lock this up. Moxy-02:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Terasail: I see, sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought you wanted to edit the template itself. I've removed those two parameters. This would have been best as an edit request. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
04:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Following rumors of canceled films and recast actors over the past few days, this page has received various examples of unintentional vandalism and low-effort edits. I am suggesting that this page should be protected until this current commotion from fans calms down.
Vader13289 (
talk)
03:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
the page seemed to be deleted on request of americanwikisecialist.com because they requested money to maintain the page and it was refused. It is a ransomware action. In order not to allow ransomware dominate wikipedia, the page must be available for review
Europecentralasia (
talk)
06:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: A topic as sensitive as this one and that gets so many views and edits per day should have some sort of protection.
D4R1U5 (
talk)
12:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: A more complicated request: well-meaning IPs and some inexperienced users mass-editing article containing information on many current controversies. As much as it is mostly in good faith, the level of "I think it should say/be like this" that does not meet delicacy or readability, is just a bit too much to be constantly monitoring. A split discussion is underway to hopefully relieve this; if the article is split before you get to this, please discard.
Kingsif (
talk)
14:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Is there actually a need to unprotected this redirect, or any of the other two? If it's just to adjust stuff whilst leaving it as a redirect, wouldn't an edit request be enough?
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
14:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Please unprotect the page so I can create the page using authentic sources. This person had an activity during Mahsa Amini's protests in Iran, which can be useful for Iranians to inform about. @terasail
Garshaasp (
talk)
12:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Please unprotect the page so I can create the page using authentic sources. This person had an activity during Mahsa Amini's protests in Iran, which can be useful for Iranians to inform about.
Garshaasp (
talk)
10:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – There's IP disruption of this BLP, adding unverified birth dates, in a slow moving edit war going back for over a year. The previous protection in 2021 was evidently about the same disruption. bonadeacontributionstalk18:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – New spate of attacks from non-discussing IP swapper. Close to edit warring ... can we take a break please? Thanks.
DBaK (
talk)
19:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. As for as recent goes, added once this month. Once last month, but we're getting into Stale territory.
El_C23:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Multiple IP users changing Introvert/Extrovert as the third album from Saint Asonia, however, the AllMusic source states that the record is a compilation album and AllMusic is generally a reliable source.
Shout4Serenity (
talk)
04:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Two IP addresses and a newly-registered user - very likely the same person in every case if you look at the edit summaries - are engaged in trying to censor this article. Short term semi protection would stop the edit warring and help get this person onto the article's talk page to engage in a more productive discussion.
10mmsocket (
talk)
08:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Daily (and multiple times each day) unsourced additions to the article, specifically the subject's middle name. Article has been protected previously because of the same editor, I believe.
Seasider53 (
talk)
11:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection.
Pichemist, you say IP editors (plural), but it's really just the one (added/reverted Nov 29). Unless we go back to July, which would be deemed Stale. Generally, we're looking for days rather than weeks or months. Unless you're asking for
WP:PC, but disruption would have to be overlooked for it to make sense — if disruption is reverted on the same or even next day, there's little sense in adding even that (pc) lowest level of protection.
El_C15:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Multiple attempts to add unsourced material on a BLP as well as other vandalism. A combination of IP addresses and at least one new user - who may well be editing as an IP skipping user as well. The subject of the article did something notable on 10 December, so a few days semi-protection should calm things down hopefully.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
18:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This was previous protected due to persistent vandalism but the protection expired on December 9 with the note that the vandalism "should die down given enough time after Thanksgiving". However, there have been several more instances of vandalism after Thanksgiving.
Midwood123 (
talk)
20:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page was the subject of a recent edit campaign by
Teader to remove "Category:PlayStation 5-only game" without discussion or valid reasoning. Teader has been blocked from Wikipedia, but now suspiciously similar edits have started happening with IP editors.
ProtoDrake (
talk)
20:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Again, another editor has come along & changed the intro, which I've since reverted. I think it best that the page be protected for a month, with status-quo ante (the version I reverted to) in place. We don't need the intro jumping back-and-forth.
GoodDay (
talk)
19:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined. That was strange, that some random person edited in your sandbox almost as soon as you created it. On the other hand, it was a one time thing. If it happens again, protection would be in order and you can ask here for it.
MelanieN (
talk)
03:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring –
Special:Contributions/200.88.93.222 and
User:Imperial meter have engaged in consistent edit warring about a hatnote and the contents of the article's infobox, and refuse to use the talk page to resolve the dispute despite being told to do so by myself,
User:BeywheelzLetItRip,
User:Beauty School Dropout, and
User:Nick Levine. However, both have cited the Talk Page in their edit summaries, making it clear that they both are aware that it exists. I hope that protecting the page for a day or so will force them to discuss the issue on the talk page and bring this to a conclusion.Withdrawncasualdejekyll00:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment:: I answered you here in the discussion:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Crunchyroll#Crunchyroll_parent_company and remember that it was Imperial Meter who added the initial sentences and the infobox to explicitly know that Crunchyroll (the service) and Funimation (currently Crunchyroll, LLC) are the same companies and that also generates a lot of confusion for many users and IPs that edited.
200.88.224.219 (
talk)
01:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Given that before today neither editor had touched the page since Dec 6th, I question whether any protection that brief will make a difference.
Nick Levine (
talk)
01:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Subject of the article was arrested for assault and is a college basketball coach. Poorly or unsourced information has been added and will likely continue to be added as the story develops.
Cerebral726 (
talk)
14:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: These pages have been targeted by a cellular IPv6 vandal/hijacker since, in most cases, October 2022. Because the vandal's IP changes, blocking IPs is only effective for, in most cases, only a matter of days. Perhaps a 3-month protection on these pages will help convince the editor to pick another hobby. —
Archer1234 (
talk)
18:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
For some highly visible Wikipedia pages, Extended confirmed protection is more recommended then semi protection when semi protection fails, while template protection is too restrictive.
64.114.207.63 (
talk)
19:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Seriously bad IP edits of BLP. Recent news also indicates her charity work has been put on pause for safety concerns, so possibly part of wider real-life harassment.
CT55555(
talk)
22:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Note that template sandboxes are sometimes erroneously called by non-sandbox template, and this can cause the bot to protect it. The fix in this situation is to not transclude the sandbox.
Cleaning up transclusions
[46] should fix it. However, I removed the only transclusion in article space, but a few other sandbox templates are using it as well.
RPI2026F1 (
talk)
18:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Done - As there are no CV issues, I've moved it to mainspace. Note that I changed your sandbox history to move the relevant diffs over, which is why the log is a little odd. Fair to let the page run its course, and if necessary, and disputes about notability should go through AFD.
Anarchyte (
talk)
09:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Please see history. Persistant disruptive editing from IPs in Malta.
Peaceray (
talk)
04:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Please see history. Persistant disruptive editing from IPs in Malta.
Peaceray (
talk)
04:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Please see history. Persistant disruptive editing from IPs in Malta.
Peaceray (
talk)
04:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Please see history. Persistant disruptive editing from IPs in Malta.
Peaceray (
talk)
04:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The odd disruptive edit every few weeks isn't even enough for pending-changes protection.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Please see history. Persistant disruptive editing from IPs in Malta.
Peaceray (
talk)
04:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi Constant addition of spam link by changing IPs. Very slightly changing IP, in fact - could probably be caught by a minimal rangeblock. -- Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
08:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined Edits don't have to be "authorized; Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that everyone can edit. I see no disruption that would make it necessary to protect the article atm.
Lectonar (
talk)
12:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There have had to be more RD's on this RfA than any other recent RfA. Given that it is a highly trafficked page it also ends up getting seen.
Barkeep49 (
talk)
15:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
This IP's appearing out of nowhere, might be a banned editor or someone deliberately signed out. Recommend IPs request be ignored.
GoodDay (
talk)
18:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
+1Reason: Constant disruption by a user named Surtsicna. He is reverting most people's edits. Either ban him or protect the page.
DDMS123 (
talk)
18:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP hopping anon is insisting a huge list of
WP:GAMEGUIDE material be reinstated. Discussion on its talk page has gone nowhere and I've been suggested to change my username to FailerKid. A temporary block might give off the signal Wikipedia is not for gameguide material.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK18:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
disruptive editing – Over the course of months, people keep on editing the article to call this person Ukrainian, despite Ukraine not being it's own thing until several decades after this person died.
RPI2026F1 (
talk)
14:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – In the last week a spate of edits by anonymous IPs and newly registered accounts have been altering the figure in the Avatar 2 entry and moving it to the top of the chart, contrary to the accompanying source. It's not that surprising, the page often gets a wave of disruptive edits when a high-profile new film is released. Can we please semi-protect this article for a couple of weeks to get us through the film's release? Otherwise, it will only get worse over the next week.
Betty Logan (
talk)
06:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. Edit warring IP that has now created an account (if the account is already ac then feel free to ecp if necessary) ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654518:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
There are little disruption on these pages by extended confirmed users
These pages need maintanence (the first should add {{R avoided double redirect}}, and the categories of the latter two are ten years old and need updating)
For the maintenance, why not put in a request at
/Edit? Given the
AP2 nexus the likelihood of these being unprotected/given reduced protection is fairly slim, as other than the maintenance there's little reason for anyone to edit these redirects. —
Jéské Courianov^_^va little blue Bori14:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done because there is nothing to do. @
ItsMeKeys: the article is already extended-confirmed protected. If there is any disruption, lowering the protection to semi would just make matters worse. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
22:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
All articles semi-protected for 3 months to a year, except for "Far Away", semi-protected indefinitely due to the last protection having been for a year.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined The last move away from the weak 2013 discussion was four years ago. I don't think protection covers a situation like that.
Johnuniq (
talk)
06:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined@
HistoryofIran: Sorry but this request and an edit summary of "rv, back to stable version" don't show the need for semi protection. There is no need to be exhaustive but which edits are vandalism that would justify protection? Which recent bad edits would not have occurred if semi protection had been in place? Some editors I checked are auto-confirmed.
Johnuniq (
talk)
06:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The articles about the referees of all of the latest five games of the
2022 FIFA World Cup have been semiprotected during or shortly after the matches due to persistent vandalism. I think it would be reasonable to preemptively protect this one. --
Sirio Resteghini (
talk)
21:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:Long-term extended confirmed protection: Repeated extreme vandalism and harassment (rape threats and posting seemingly the home address of subject) by LTA. The abuse has been ongoing since July.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
23:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The article has been extended-confirmed, but only for two days, given how serious and persistent the vandalism is here, I think months long extended confirmed protection is warranted here.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
23:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Barkeep49: You ECP protected this article for three days. The recent vandalism was apparently serious (now suppressed) but only occurred on 13 December 2022 so three days protection might be enough initially. If you want to make a change given the views above, please do so. Otherwise, ignore this and I will protect it if asked if problems recur.
Johnuniq (
talk)
06:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indefinite would be too much at the moment, given the large gaps in disruption in November and before, as well as nothing in the first week of this month.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
14:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:Temporary semi-protection –
WP:DE and
WP:BLP-violation editing from IP editors ignoring article's own sourcing and talk page discussion. May be a
WP:MEATPUPPET situation. As this has going on for a couple of weeks, semi-protection for a few days likely will not work. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
15:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism has and is expected to resume. There is currently an open Talk Discussion on this page about a semi-protected edit request that was denied. Page appeared in recent discussion and controversey.
PerryPerryDTalk To Me15:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent, typically small edits that have been proposed and rejected on the Talk page. For example, capitalizing the Bulgarian spelling of "Bulgarian" in the language infobox (which I have just reverted, and which has been reverted numerous times). This page was previously semi-protected for the same reason, with disruptive edits coming from sockpuppet accounts. I recommend that it be returned to semi-protected status.
Chernorizets (
talk)
06:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Current high level of IP and non-IP vadalism at present, people claiming he’s returning to EastEnders without providing any sources this is following his brief return for Dot’s funeral earlier this week.
Hlliwmai (
talk)
16:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)reply
El_C, I am afraid I do not see the logic in fully protecting the page for 3 days at the request of a user whose
sole contribution (two whole edits) to Wikipedia has been to 1) make a controversial edit without taking any part in the talk page discussion, b) immediately after come here to request article protection. This begs to be looked into.
Surtsicna (
talk)
17:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Surtsicna, the requestor is of no consequence. I mean, it's obviously suspect, but that'd be an
WP:SPI matter. If you happen to figure out your issues with
DDMS123 before the protection expires, let me know so I can unprotect early.
El_C17:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The dispute with DDMS123 was
solved yesterday; yet today you protect the article at the behest of another(?) party who apparently registered only to make that one edit and then ask for protection here. It is, frankly, bizarre.
Surtsicna (
talk)
17:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Surtsicna, I, at least, am not gonna always check for user talk pages split discussions. Next time, make a note of it on the article talk page (there's no way for anyone to tell this happened from
#Capitalization alone). Downgraded Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected..
El_C17:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Thanks to a
string of useless edits performed right after your account was created, you are in fact auto-confirmed and may edit the article. A certain improvement in quality on your part is suggested.
Favonian (
talk)
16:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Please review our
WP:PROTECTION policy; this article has been edited 5 times since August, with only a single revert, and has never been previously protected. How would this merit indefinite protection? OhNoitsJamieTalk05:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month (almost all), after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Sable232, please double check before submitting lists of items here. I've removed
List of Honda vehicles (for obvious reasons), so that the bot doesn't annoy me about not protecting it. Still, 9/10, not bad.
El_C14:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism and other vandalism trying to insert "avid hunter of .22 gauge shotgun" as a means to make fun of her from a YouTube video since ".22 gauge" is not a thing. Please at least protect this page from such IP level vandals while this recent story is still developing and will attract attention from randomers. —Moops⋠
T⋡01:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Dr.Pinsky, that page has never been protected before and isn't even edited that actively, so an indef protection is not gonna happen this time, nor likely the next, or even the next next next.
El_C14:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Over the course of a year or two, multiple IPs have added a host of unsourced information to this page. The entire article has been rewritten from scratch since it was impossible to determine what was legitimate since the article had no references. I think pending changes protection would help control the level of IP spam while still allowing them to edit.
RPI2026F1 (
talk)
02:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing - repeated unsourced entries in the films section which are poorly formatted and randomly inserted without consideration for chronological order
Fieryninja (
talk)
15:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
ToBeFree: You semi-protected the above on 10 December 2022 saying it "can be unprotected if the user returns". That's pretty clear but if you are available, perhaps you might like to unprotect.
Johnuniq (
talk)
06:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The article is heavily outdated and needs serious work, also the person who protected the page is sadly no longer with us.
SarahBx (
talk)
08:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The request make no sense as I the account isn't relevant to any sockmaster or sockpuppeteer,and I also have doubt about the changing actions after 9 December 2022 as the case connecting the proposer,might censering topic of multiple cultures and controversial matters of Russian history.
Longway22 (
talk)
10:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
PS. I would like also report another case to this topic happened month ago,that the user Pktlaurence also has making unsourced changes not only the enwiki but also zhwiki,I 've metioned to some local sysop privately not in detail but haven't receive respond,only the zhwiki sysops have followed cases in the jurisdiction AS I REPORT IT.
Longway22 (
talk)
10:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
You restored the changes
[55] the indeffed user made
[56][57] after it was reverted. Your first edit in 3 years(!) was making edits to this article after that account got indeffed
[58][59]. What plausible explanation is there?
Mellk (
talk)
10:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I suggest Mellk is making
Witch-hunt but no help for reveiewing other individuals'activies that against the rules,and basicly if double-check the geographic information anybody could learn that
Kazakhstan and
Bulgaria actually are in part of
the steppes,I am curious why a editor wouldn't like information of multiple cultures showing in the topic as it no need additional sources.
Longway22 (
talk)
11:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
Jayron3213:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
Jayron3213:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – current darts world championship, the page is already prone to plenty of original research, this will help limit this for the duration of the championship. All my warmest wishes,
ItsKesha (
talk)
12:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I am requesting full protection for this article. Since 15 December this article has been edit warred primarily by 3 newer accounts whose total edits number 20. I am not sure what is really going on here, but meat or sockpuppetry could be an issue.
Kansas Bear (
talk)
17:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The founder
Ngozi Fulani was the vitim of recent high profile racism and is in the news and the article about her was a vandalism magnet, now thankfully protected. Now a number of IP addresses are all determined to edit this article to change her name away from her current/actual name towards her former name, reliable sources don't support. Also seem to be white washing of changing "racism" incidents towards softer words, despite reliable sources supporting status quo.
CT55555(
talk)
18:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: An IP hopped makes disruptive changes without discussing anything. This happens for several days already. The article is under discretionary sanctions, though not directly related to Russian-Ukrainian war.
Ymblanter (
talk)
18:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Over roughly the last 10 days (see most recent 50 edits in page history), there has been persistent, inappropriate forum-like content by IPs. Usually there's plenty of latitude for tolerating this disruption on talk pages (vs. their connected articles) before there is a need to request protection, but this is starting to become ridiculous.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
16:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent IP vandalism by multiple IP addresses, range-block likely ineffective (roughly 30 vandalizing edits in last 48 hours) ~
Pbritti (
talk)
19:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Three editors all pushing the same thing - overwriting the existing reasonably well-sourced content with multiple inline links and copyright infringing images. They are all three clearly connected with the subject of the article and need to be stopped (at least for a short time until they get bored).
10mmsocket (
talk)
19:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Consistent and ongoing IP vandalism over the past few months, both in regards to unsourced if made up information and outright nonsense edits (see the most recent revert).
Armin Reindl (
talk)
21:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continued vandalism by someone who often is introducing bad information and is hopping IPs like no tomorrow.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
21:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP vandal(seemingly the same one) always comes and starts adding random unsourced information on this article. They seem to be back at it, so I request that protection is added to the page.
Zingo156 (
talk)
08:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Shouldn't we at least be able to propose possible edits to this page? Here's one I (a newly registered user) want to propose:
The suggestion is to add a header saying "known use cases" which would essentially just list all the various uses people have discovered thusfar for the AI tool. Such a list would be helpful in consolidating the known knowledge about this AI's true potential and enable people to get the most out of it.
Socialworker2022 (
talk)
20:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)reply
While
Ohnoitsjamie could of course undo the good decision, I'd just archive this by saying I'd have performed the same action, and 23 December is an optimistic, probably too-early end date. Even the unprotection request provides reasons for protection.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
23:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Ukrainian social media campaign yet again, a stream of IPs and driveby users changing "Russian" to "Ukrainian" not based on any scholarly sources.
Ymblanter (
talk)
07:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Helpful information can and should be more easily added; Some information is outdated, misleading or altogether untrue, and should more easily be changed or removed
USAD1776 (
talk)
08:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. One IP being reverted (two if you consider the past week) is nothing by Wikipedia standards.
Favonian (
talk)
11:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP keeps adding Filipino to nationality for this player. WP:FOOTBALL convention is to use their birth nation and the country they represent internationally. For this player they were born and played for Canada. IP keeps adding Filipino because of ancestry.
RedPatch (
talk)
11:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Persistent
vandalism – myself and
Patagonia41 are constantly having to revert edits which are unsourced and original research, this occurs several times a week if you look through the history of the article. All my warmest wishes,
ItsKesha (
talk)
10:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
ItsKesha, thank you very much for your work. The page is already semi-protected and I have blocked the user who has disruptively edited through the protection for two weeks. Full protection, as I guess Twinkle has erroneously asked for, is obviously not an option for any noticeable timespan. As semi-protection combined with blocks hasn't yet proven ineffective,
extended-confirmed protection is currently not an option either. Please keep me updated, though. If
Theatulbera continues their re-addition of challenged unsourced content, or if others join in the disruption, feel free to notify me on my talk page and I'll have another look.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
11:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Despite discussion on the talk page and
a previous protection, various IP users still keep adding the alternative name "knook" without supplying a reliable source. Like last time, 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)
15:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The subject of the page is a person who promotes a poorly-supported theory that the massacre of Kyiv protestors in 2014 was committed by their own supporters.
Page has a long history of edits from ip users who are pushing pro-Katchanovski narratives
[60][61][62][63]. It looks like one person. Messages have had no effect.
[64][65][66]
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism – Unsourced content repeatedly being added to a live event article, several sections has unsourced content and original research constantly being added to it. This is now the second time I have requested page protection, I was told it was "pre-emptive" despite the fact it is ongoing. All my warmest wishes,
ItsKesha (
talk)
09:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page was semi-protected yesterday, but today a registered account with the same name as the article subject has arrived and is repeatedly inserting the same unsourced content. Needs more protection.
SPECIFICOtalk16:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – After an editor was blocked for sockpuppetry on the talk page after edit-warring at the article (
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Virgiliosarvanitis/Archive), one puppet's name Kiwieuro2022 identifying as from New Zealand, New Zealand IPs edited article talk page and one was blocked (122.57.69.102) for "Disruptive editing, personal attacks and probable block evasion". Now a new editor
User:Greekalbanian has repeated the blocked IP's editing - especially edit summary - with their first and only edit.
[68][69]. Would semi-protection work better than playing wac-a-mole with IPs and socks?.
NebY (
talk)
18:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely. This has been going on for years. Article was indefinitely protected in 2016 but protection was accidentally removed earlier this month by another admin dealing with some edit warring.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
18:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
To clarify, it seems that the other admin had actually increased to full protection for a week, which resulted in the protection being dropped entirely when that week expired. It was not a mistake by the admin, just a shortcoming of the software.
I think at the next Community Wishlist, I'm going to propose the idea of layering different levels of protection and blocks, so in this case once the full protection expires the semi-protection would continue.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:IP vandalism of infobox by adding “sus baka” to media section of infobox. I have reverted that edit, but it needs semi-protection to prevent future vandalism.
Super yoshi013021 (
talk)
16:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
There has been further
WP:NPOV-violating on the page from an autoprotected user even shortly after the semi-protection. I think it may be a good idea to keep a close eye on the page to determine if a higher level of page protect or any user blocks are necessary.
Aveaoz (
talk)
20:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because I got blocked for getting into an edit war with an administrator called Sjones23, who was making useless and disruptive edits. He should have been blocked not me and now that the page is protected, I can't edit it but Sjones23 can because he is an administrator and I'm just an IP address. It's just not fair. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2.26.1.139 (
talk)
17:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Some evidence that this is being coordinated somewhere is all the new comments acting as though the article is called "Thursday Night massacre" eg.
[74] when it was in fact moved from that a while ago.
CharredShorthand (
talk)
22:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason:Temporary semi-protection – After just coming off a month of semi-protection, same IP editor who got the article semi-protected in the first place has picked up the same pattern of
WP:DE content removal: either need semi-protection again, or a block of the IP. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
23:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Come on, now – it takes 5 seconds to verify that this TV movie actually exists and has already been broadcast. For example:
[75]. You think I wasn't sure that the film existed (I should actually know, as I've watched it) before doing something about it?! (Also note that it is mostly another editor reverting this IP – I just watchlist the article.) Anyway, this is the kind of TV movie that is not going to have a great quality inline source available to back it up, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The IP is just being disruptive. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
23:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Yeah, yeah, I see the point. It's just tough to make a decision when one editor stubbornly removes material about a living person that lacks a citation, and experienced editors revert the content back into the article asking for protection.
@
26zhangi: It might be easier to request this at /Edit or at
WP:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories rather than ask to have it unprotected just to make the redirect. This would also allow the admin to reprotect the page after creation if they feel it's necessary to keep the new redirect from being hijacked (considering the three deletions on this title are all
G11 deletions). —
Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)
20:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
26zhangi:Unprotectedhere. Please create your redirect. Since the request has been made here, the redirect can be protected after creation, if necessary (no need to make him request at a different venue).
Sdrqaz (
talk)
23:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Anonymous editors repeatedly inserting the same few POV bits (trying to downplay convicted crimes) despite being reverted by many editors.
ℰmi1y⧼
T·
C⧽22:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – In addition to semi-protection for whatever period, I also request IP blocking on 49.2.116.174(
talk·contribs·WHOIS) for a year, since the vandal's semi-dynamic IP appears to last several months at a time and 49.2.116.174 has no useful edits. This user resumed the same vandalism right after
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2022/03#Anna Chapman expired on 2022-03-29, and continues to add "Brooklyn Denaro", claiming for a while in edit summaries that the edits are by "SVR" (Russian intelligence?), but now simply reverting without any explanation or response to talk pages. Since 2022-07-28 the vandal has been using 49.2.116.174(
talk·contribs·WHOIS), but before that was still on 114.75.148.145(
talk·contribs·WHOIS), same as when the 2022-03-25 page protection was applied. (There is a
Commons:User:Brooklyndenaro whose uploads imply the same country as the vandal, but as far as I can tell the account hasn't shown any inclination to vandalism.).
Closeapple (
talk)
02:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary full-protection: An genre warrior won't quit no matter how much I explain why I am reverting their disruptive edits. This edit war needs to stop.
Bowling is life (
talk)
12:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – disruptive edits on talk page after being blocked for one month.
Archer1234 (
talk)
15:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Someone or multiple people seemingly associated with this station keep trying to add in unsourced material, violations of WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE, WP:ADVERTISING, WP:NPOV.
Stereorock (
talk)
02:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting permanent semi protection. The page has been temp protected 4 times with the last protection being 2 weeks due to a user with a dynamic IP making disruptive edits with personal attacks in edit summary. The user has returned again after the end of fourth temp protection
[81] and I'm tired of making this request each and every time.
Ecrusized (
talk)
10:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Prolonged high level of IP-vandalism. A week ago one IP was banned, yesterday an admin has refused to protect the page, but the vandalism is going on non-stop.
Jingiby (
talk)
14:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Ad Orientem and
ToBeFree: I figured it was fine but wanted to make sure there wasn't anything else procedurally required (ie. did I use the wrong noticeboard, etc); I haven't run into a COI issue like this before. Thanks!
Sariel Xilo (
talk)
17:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: needs semi-protection locking due to a IP vandal which is known to change the European percentages on pages related to Argentina and Uruguay (83.223.224.0/19 is one IP range used) who has been vandalising said pages for nearly half a month. Would be appreciated to lock Demographics of Argentina as well.
Tweedle (
talk)
16:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – Recent laicization has produced a news event which may have attracted UPE socks back to the article and edit-warriors around the pro-life movement.
Elizium23 (
talk)
19:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
Khrincan, thank you very much for your request. The page has been
extended-confirmed protected shortly afterwards and you have expressed interest in increased protection, so I guess this is indeed now Done.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent disruptive editing from a ban-evading dynamic IP user. They've been especially targeting this article for around a year now, returning each time protection expires.
Prefall21:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I was just going to report this for protection ASAP as well. It has been relentless from the IP vandals lately. Please put this one in place ASAP. TY. —Moops⋠
T⋡01:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Debate on whether or not the category of Veganism (the essence of which is being debated) should include links to Category: Sustainable Diet and Category: Vegetarianism
Compare these two statements:
(Veganism involves a vegan form of vegetarian diet (a vegan form), and that is a form of vegetarianism, although some 'radicals' disown any association with the word 'vegetarianism' and will act to enforce that interpretation.)
and
Vegetarianism is soley about food (a diet lacking a philosophical take). Veganism is a philosophical belief based on (animal) rights/justice) which also impacts diet (just like religious beliefs impact diet).
MaynardClark (
talk)
00:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I'm begging, pleading (maybe even crying) for 1-month protection. The page should be stable, particularly the intro, while an RFC related to that intro is ongoing.
GoodDay (
talk)
03:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined Article already has DS and, in particular a 1RR rule applied. That should resolve any issues without the need for full protection. Lord Roem ~ (
talk)
05:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Looking at the history - not just today - and this page has been the subject of edit warring for months. Lots of IPs and single-edit new accounts popping up to make the same fundamental change (or revert that change) It has previously been semi-protected and this now needs doing for longer or permanently.
10mmsocket (
talk)
09:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't really know what the last-known-good revision was, although the disputed content doesn't really look Wikipedia-worthy to me, so I'm not going to get involved in the page. It might warrant someone better experienced to take a look at that. Also, there definitely seems to be an element of sockpuppetry here.
10mmsocket (
talk)
11:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Page has been at "Pending Changes" for 5 years, seems a little excessive, considering there does not seem to have ever been a huge issue with vandalism anyway.
JeffUK (
talk)
09:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. No problem edits since October. No edits at all in last three weeks. Please read the protection policy linked all over this page before future protection requests.
BusterD (
talk)
13:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Since semi-protection today other accounts have continued to war on this article. In particular,
Baklokk (
talk·contribs) has popped up. This user looks like a classic autoconfirmed edit cheat having done 10 single character edits in a very short time. Extended or full protection would help against this and others.
10mmsocket (
talk)
16:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Per
WP:PIA - as you will see from edit history it was recently moved (to remove Palestine from the title) by a now-blocked sockpuppet / autoconfirmed edit status cheat. Looks like this needs similar protect to the other article he/she has been mangling.
10mmsocket (
talk)
16:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page has incomplete informition .A chineese locked it without any knowledge I am descendant of Habibullah Khan and I know about the history of this town. I edited because I have book references of British Empire over India. Kindly unlock this page
2407:D000:A:4B14:E56C:98F1:BADC:705A (
talk)
16:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Pending changes protection. There are good and bad IP editors. Last night some one changed the casualties from 1 killed to 1600+ killed and the page stayed that way for over 12 hours. Requesting pending changes protection as the user has a Dynamic IP adress and keeps coming back. Diffs:
[84][85][86]Ecrusized (
talk)
07:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely. The article has not yet been protected in any form, and as semi-protection can be very effective against an editor constantly finding new IPs, I don't think we need to go there yet.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Total area of Garhi Habibullah was 29000 Kanal which was divided equally among 5 Hundis and 4000 Kanal was left Shamlat between these 5 Hundis which is still Shamlat in today era.This page is just for the historic knowledge of Garhi Habibullah and now many lands have been sold to other people by the descendants of these Hundis. These five people were actually from Pakhal and came here to defend borders of Pakhli Sarkar from the nearby Kashmiri Kingdom of Maharaja.
Reason: Note that I am explicitly referring to the redirect page itself, KISS. It's been fully protected since February 2009 as a result of a brief edit war and because there was, according to the admin applying protection, NawlinWiki, "no reason to move or edit redirect without discussion". A couple of tags have been added since then as the result of edit requests, which I think might undermine that rationale, and with extended-confirmed protection now being an option, full protection seems like overkill nowadays. -BRAINULATOR9 (
TALK)20:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
Brainulator9, thanks for the request. Ironically, extended-confirmed protection isn't an option because, well, semi-protection hasn't proven ineffective yet (cf.
WP:ECP).
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Especially not for replacing indefinite semi-protection by temporary ECP (which needs to be months-long for this to be effective, and ends in unprotection)
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
23:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Especially not for replacing indefinite semi-protection by temporary ECP (which needs to be months-long for this to be effective, and ends in unprotection)
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
23:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Especially not for replacing indefinite semi-protection by temporary ECP (which needs to be months-long for this to be effective, and ends in unprotection)
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
23:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Krunker.io was drafted twice in 2019 by an unaffiliated party and was rejected twice for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I would like to re-open this page for the community to provide a knowledge base for the game.
KR highnoon (
talk)
03:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. IP vandalism, dunno if there is some meme about Hazelnuts being called "Gilberts"? Anyway, several varying IPs have been messing about here, and a day or two off should let them forget about it.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
07:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Range of similar IP addresses is intent on adding names of subject's children, despite Wikipedia's policy about only naming notable family members.
Seasider53 (
talk)
07:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Pending-changes protection seems to be adequate.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
05:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Single IP today, one disruptive account two days ago, and before that the last disruption was a week before that.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
05:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Quite a bit of IP-hopping edit warring over this person's nationality. I've reverted some of it myself, and made attempts to get a talk page discussion started; a short period of semi protection may force people to engage on talk.
GirthSummit (blether)14:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Long term persistent vandalism on the article without positive edits made, it would save time for both pending changes reviewers and people with the article on their watchlist if the protection here was upped from pending to semi.
TylerBurden (
talk)
19:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The article is completely biased and is in bad need of revision. Complete lies are perpetrated in the article and not backed up by any facts whatsoever. Typical of Wikipedia, it needs major revisions
Covidencephalitis (
talk)
15:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined I'd have to ECP it to prevent socking; as the latest one has been blocked and there have been no edits in 24 hours, I'll let it lie. If it resumes, let us know. Katietalk19:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Multiple IPv6 across different /64 ranges making unexplained, unsourced edits contrary to manual of style, poor grammar, removal of content/maintenance tags, etc. Editors revert back to edits that have been challenged and are not participating in a substantive way in a discussion on the talk page to resolve the dispute over the edits.
Archer1234 (
talk)
08:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Resumed within a day of a week-long protection expiring. I think IPs are going to be removing the word "fictional" from this article about a recent internet hoax for a while.
Belbury (
talk)
20:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. One IP doesn't justify protection. If persistent disruption begins again, just let us know. Katietalk19:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Page-move vandalism – Targeted with malicious page moves twice in the past day. A vandal was undeterred by the move protection applied to
Elon Musk the other day and decided to page move the talk page instead.
Schierbecker (
talk)
22:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page was protected and protection ended today, and two hours ago was already vandalized by an unknown IP with the same nonsense text, deleting data about the new trophy.
Luiscardo (
talk)
02:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page is being vandalized since Lex and Elon Musk discussed the possibility of Lex taking over Twitter. Removing his time at MIT when MIT lists him as a researcher... Lex has posted to Twitter complaining about the harassment.
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. It seems like the constructive edits have been more recent than the disruption, which makes me lean towards declining this.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
04:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined –
Warn the user appropriately then report them to
AIV or
ANI if they continue. Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There have been two non-extendedconfirmed accounts that have disrupted the article this month, which is not a high enough level of disruption for protection.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
04:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: My user talk page was
protected to prevent vandalism and abuse by LTAs/cross-wiki vandals here, similar to what has been done on a few other projects (
example), but the protection has been lost since a legitimate user
created it to contact me. I would appreciate if you could restore the protection to prevent it from becoming a target for LTAs/cross-wiki vandals (which is a matter of time to happen). Could you please semi-protect the page indefinitely, according to the previous protection, which was [Create=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) and did not disallow editing only because the MediaWiki interface does not grant the option to protect a non-existing page for edits, only for creations AFAIK? Thank you.
Defender(talk)03:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Blaze Wolf: It's not your fault, it's a software issue that would show up sooner or later. Before you contacted me,
only vandals have created the page, and since I'm not really active here, I didn't bother to leave a page with a redirect to Meta and ask for its protection, which would have been the best course of action, so this wouldn't have happened.
Defender(talk)04:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Yep. I saw the page creation history when I viewed your talk page, hence why I said that if you would prefer to not have a talk page here that's fine. ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654504:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Sockpuppetry yesterday has carried on today. Given the recent protection of this page it looks like it needs to be done for a while longer.
10mmsocket (
talk)
12:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Saskatchewan IP-hopping LTA removing talk page notice about a hoax affecting this article. This talk page disruption has been going on for 4 years .
Talk:Ruby has the same issue because of this LTA, and was recently protected.
Meters (
talk)
19:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting semi-protection. On this article related to gun control, one or more IP editors have persistently added content that is incorrect and without any references, such as
here,
here, and
here. They have not joined the discussion about this at
Talk:Oregon Ballot Measure 114#Misinformation Must Be Corrected -- a discussion started by a different IP who opposes the measure but who nevertheless objected to the additions as counter-factual. Thanks. —
Mudwater (
Talk)23:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. The page was semi-protected and after the protection ended, the IP vandalism continued. So please add full protection for the page
MT111222 (
talk)
13:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The COVID-19 pandemic response in the US is very polarized and politicized. For any infectious disease expert messaging about COVID-19 in the US, anti-vaccine hate groups are going into their biographies and editing them with anti-vaccine content. Request locking of this COVID-19 expert page for 6 months during this polarized time.
128.218.42.34 (
talk)
15:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
+1Reason: This is a high time of polarization and politicization of the COVID-19 response in the United States. We request a short period of time of locking of COVID-19 experts' biographies on this site as anti-vaccine hate groups are systematically going into these pages and adding content that is untrue and against scientific consensus.
2601:681:5E80:1DB0:D9EC:200E:89A:9431 (
talk)
15:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Apparently this page is protected from being created. I've just approved the creation of page
Robo Form (with a space), but the non-space version is canonical. I'm unable to move the page to
RoboForm (without space) because apparently "this page is protected from creation". Looking at the history for the target page, apparenty there was some
WP:G11 advertising versions back in 2017.
Chumpiht14:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated vandalism from new accounts changing the obscure redirect to point to random country articles. The redirect has been protected in the past for the same reasons. Imzadi 1979→06:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: BLP Policy Violations. Persistent unsourced additions that he is now the captain of a baseball team ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Host Country: [Flag of Qatar] Qatar
as the other editions of World Cup have their host flag next to their name, Qatar should have too
NubFix (
talk)
01:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The page for the country of
Malta is consistently faced with edits by unregistered, newly registered or known vandals. Unlike other pages for countries, like
Cyprus,
France, or
Italy, the page for Malta is not semi-protected. This means that the page is periodically vandalised and edits have to be rolled back and removed. The only respite from the persistent vandalism is when the page is temporarily placed under edit protection for a few days. Please, consider adding semi-protection to
Malta. Thanks.
Zugragatalk10:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
Kosack (
talk)
10:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP account reverts of good faith edits to this BLP article. Reverts are not neutral and remove content that is may be perceived as negative and replace with positive tone.
Seaweed (
talk)
19:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. The initial disparity in dates of death appears to have subsided. This should probably ease off now.
Kosack (
talk)
11:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP account reverts of good faith edits to this BLP article. Reverts are not neutral and remove content that is may be perceived as negative and replace with positive tone.
Seaweed (
talk)
19:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. The initial disparity in dates of death appears to have subsided. This should probably ease off now.
Kosack (
talk)
11:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – There are now multiple people, IP editors and new editors (who I suspect may well be a single editor) removing content from this page without any explanation. Could we get page protection, please?.
Joeyconnick (
talk)
05:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Some "new" accounts in action removing content. This has been a recurrent problem with this article over the years to an indef semi is probably justified.
Bon courage (
talk)
06:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Lots of COI editing (which I have partially reverted); talk page and protection log seem to show this is a long-standing issue. (It probably also needs someone uninvolved and patient to work out what remains of the COI editing, and whether any of it was justified.).
Dorsetonian (
talk)
18:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism - ship caught fire today, and every vandal on the planet seems to want to make Shack jokes about it.
BilCat (
talk)
04:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose - not enough recent disruption and there appears to be a/some active good-faith content dispute(s) that should be resolved before requesting protection. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(
work /
talk)17:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined Verging on a content dispute; I suggest explaining to the user why the edits are inappropriate, and reporting them to AIV if they persist. Vanamonde (
Talk)06:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined A difficult decision, but with the page already protected, and PC-protection not an option for talk pages, semi-protection would entirely lock IP addresses out. It would also need to be indefinite; this isn't a single bad actor. I don't know that that is quite justified; I cannot recall cases of indefinitely protecting talk pages, though I can see the case for making an exception. I suggest taking this to
WP:AN, as other individual admins are also likely to be reluctant to take this action. Vanamonde (
Talk)06:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Since early October, multiple IPs making unsourced changes, primarily to cast listing. Given how long they have been doing it, I suggest protection for at least 3 months.
Archer1234 (
talk)
09:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Newly released, highly popular streaming series. Vandalism and non-constructive edits by IPs and new users resumed immediately after the page was unprotected.
Throast{{ping}} me! (
talk |
contribs)
14:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Low-level but persistent breaking of this redirect. Has been happening since it was created in 2018, but maybe not serious enough for permanent protection. I'd suggest a fairly length term though.
Lithopsian (
talk)
15:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: If you check the past edit history, the page is being vandalized. This is coming from a 19-3 loss for the New York Jets against the Jacksonville Jaguars. Where American Football quarterback Zach Wilson, after a poor and lackluster performance, was benched for Chris Streveler. People are vandalizing the page because of Zach Wilson's poor performance and saying that Streveler is better.
BrownsFan99 (
talk)
15:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP edit warring (and claiming edits are vandalism). They have made three reverts already but I've no doubt they will continue past 3RR if the article isn't protected.
Number5716:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm sympathetic, but to an outsider the IPs position doesn't appear to be disruptive, and you're on a similar number of reverts. I suggest reporting the IP to AIV if they refuse to engage on the talk page, at which point protection can be lifted. Vanamonde (
Talk)18:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Vanamonde93: Please could restore the pre-disruption version (and yes, I know about
WP:THEWRONGVERSION, but as a fellow admin, when I intervene in stuff like this, I make the restoration and do think it should be standard practice). Thanks,
Number5719:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Number57: I'm not sure I'm comfortable doing that; there's no talk page discussion, no evidence that anyone else tried to tell the IP they were wrong, and nothing obviously wrong with the content policy-wise. I don't think WP:ONUS is enough for me to make the revert in this case, though in general I'm willing to be flexible when full protection is applied. Vanamonde (
Talk)21:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I feel that most of the IP activity is constructive, and semi-protecting the page would cause unwanted collateral damage. I will appreciate a second opinion.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
07:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. I agree with Ymblanter above. Vanamonde (
Talk)18:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – Might be wise to semi-protect the pages of the multiple socks of Vandman (I know there's at least Vandman1 through Vandman32 and Vandmanf) considering they've targeted them with their nonsense.
LilianaUwU(
talk /
contribs)02:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary since I was trying to improve the article and i didn't know I was making disruptive edits and also I got blocked because of it and I regret making those disruptive edits. It wouldn't make sense to protect an article all because an IP address was making disruptive edits he didn't know he was making. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2a02:c7c:38bd:ec00:b8fe:b1f1:6a0a:4f89 (
talk)
11:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The families listed on the Astor family page are a lie. The page should read: Webster family, Rockefeller family, Aldrich family, Rothschild family and Romonov family. Please make the edit or remove the lock. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Astoriaaldrich (
talk •
contribs)
21:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Given the request isn't in English, I'm wondering if it was meant for the RFPP equivalent on their home wiki? —
Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)
00:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page was create-protected seven years ago because it was repeatedly spam-created, but now
a draft has been written that showcases notability. Since the admin who create-protected the page has been desysopped, they cannot unprotect the page and therefore the draft cannot currently be moved to mainspace.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
00:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism by IPs, with random additions and removals (never sourced) and removals of suspended (but not cut) flights). The Bannertalk10:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I believe the disruptive editing history associated with the title of the article I'm trying to move was not about the same subject matter. I find it a very straight forward case since the subject matter I'm writing about is a notable woman who was named one of BBC's 100 most influential women in 2022 earlier this month with a long list of international honors. Her name is also cited on BBC 100 Women Wikipedia page as a 2022 laureate (
/info/en/?search=100_Women_(BBC))
I imagine decreasing the protection would be appropriate in this case.
This page isn't (nor has it ever been) protected, therefore there is no need to unprotect it. The log has a lot of entries in it, sure, but none of them involve fiddling with the protection settings. —
Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)
16:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The overwhelming majority of edits to that page within the past three weeks are vandalism and reverts thereof. The protection looks justifiable. "Highly visible" is only a protection justification for templates, not articles. —
Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)
16:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I would like to request that... (I be able to make a specific edit to the page that clarifies that he is widely regarded as one of the best players in the world) .
Nix0011 (
talk)
03:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
+1I would like to request that... (I be able to add that Nikola Jokic is widely considered to be one of the best players in the world) .
Nix0011 (
talk)
04:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing to the Former artists section since last protection expired. This section was also the same reason on why the last protection was requested previously. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝)11:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Some IP users (or "user", perhaps) have been messing about with this page subtly. New and IP edits to this page should be reviewed before being made live. Probably for 6 months?
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
08:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Ongoing edit war over a content dispute which has garnered some productive discussion at
Talk, but remains one-sided because of an IP who engages in personal attacks,
battleground behaviour and block evasion, whilst repeatedly reverting to a non-stable edition of the article (14 November and prior).
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
19:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)reply
In closing, the above was more baseless accusations and more self-victimisation by this IP. Without any reservation I've
expressed willingness to go along with a change to the existing format, but the IP's hostile conduct makes it impossible to form a consensus in good faith.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
20:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – long-term disruptive editing by IP editor, has been warned multiple times about re-adding unsourced info & removing sourced content (+ previous harassment on page talk page).
HarrySONofBARRY (
talk)
04:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing among IPs- from other disruptive IPs in the past, I believe all the '102.---' and '197.---' IPs are all connected.
Most recently has been adding completely irrelevant templates/categories, as can be seen
here with the addition of irrelevant Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards, Grammy Awards, and Teen Choice Awards categories, templates, and links.
Magitroopa (
talk)
08:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Endorse long-term protection. Multiple experienced editors have attempted clean-up of this article, but the persistence of the IP editors is daunting.
Schazjmd(talk)16:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Request temporary semi protect for logged in users. Various IP users repeatedly restoring removed content that I don't think meets BLP. I don't want to constantly edit-war over this content. I think this is due to the recently published article so semi-protection for a short time may help this.
JeffUK (
talk)
12:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yes, BLP is being violated here; sources are provided, but they don't support the content as written. Vanamonde (
Talk)22:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Requesting RPP because of recent vandalism, obvious evidence this page was created as an ad (the user that created it has been perma banned for creating pages for an undisclosed paid amount), and disruptive editing. The article is neutral now, but I think it needs temp page protection. Dillard421♂♂(
talk to me)17:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – For the past two weeks, ongoing disruption - mostly inserting inappropriate language into the native_name field of the IB.
MB00:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Most IP edits appear well-intended and there is indeed a possible discrepancy in the death date given in reliable sources, which hopefully will be resolved as more information becomes available. I don't feel protection is warranted now, unless a pattern of mostly disruptive editing from IP/new users occurs. Complex/Rational01:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Persistent additional of unsourced content. Was protected up for a bit a couple of days ago, but the problems resumed within 5 hours of protection expiring, and haven't let up since.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
14:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I will say here the same thing I say every time there is a big media circus AfD: I don't think having it protected is a good idea. Indeed, it avoids some work for clerking editors and closing admins (i.e. they are spared the effort of having to skip over a couple dozen silly !votes that don't cite policies or guidelines). However, this action carries a significant cost, namely that it is extremely powerful propaganda to the effect that we are indeed biased, or run by a cabal, or in the pocket of Big Reptilian, or just plain jackoffs.
When we AfD an article, we put a huge red notice at the top telling readers that we want them to offer their opinion at the AfD -- as we've wanted for almost twenty years. Is this not true? If it isn't, we need to change the template, and indeed, the entirety of the AfD process.
The message we send by holding a deletion discussion open to the public -- or by refusing to hold one -- will be received by untold hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of readers. Overall, the cost of alienating them seems like a rather steep price to pay for the privilege of avoiding a couple dumb comments. jp×g04:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection is an effective and perfectly fine measure against disruption caused by media attention. The protection policy explicitly mentions this use-case at
WP:SEMI, and the page was protected in compliance with it.
I don't think alienating those you are referring to is damaging the encyclopedia. Wasting productive editors' time by forcing them to monitor the discussion for disruption 24/7 would, though.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
14:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The template mentions that people who cannot edit can submit an edit request/use the talk page, which quite a few of them are (generally not usefully or with reference to policy, as one would expect, but we are at any rate not silencing them).
CharredShorthand (
talk)
16:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. No disruptive edits in ten days. Please read the protection policy linked everywhere on this page.
BusterD (
talk)
15:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page has been persistently edited with biased and poorly sourced edits today. This
particular edit is exemplary of the problem, as it portrays Right to Life in a very positive manner, calling it a "grassroots organization" without at all proper citation. I have tried to contact the editor about such problems, however, they continue to do things such as use primary sources closely associated with anti-abortion interest groups and cite opinion pieces.
RoundSquare (
talk)
21:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Persistent edit warring from based on geolocate Australia based IP editor using different IP's so blocks not effective, also other vandalism.
TylerBurden (
talk)
01:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Only one user, but due to the contentious subject matter, going softly for now (i.e. less intrusive than blocking).
El_C04:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Crazy IPs kept changing "hiatus" to "disband" when there isn't any official news from their label nor reliable sources stating such. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝)04:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Per
TFD, {{Auto archiving notice}} is being merged with {{Talk header}} after all of its current transclusions are reviewed and replaced with either {{Talk header}} or {{Archives}}. This has been done for all unprotected pages, this is the last page remaining.
Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Only one previous (semi-)protection. We normally reserve extended confirmed or indefinite protection for cases with far more dedicated disruption.
BusterD (
talk)
16:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism, with non-logged users persistently adding a player in the squad when it's not the due time for it, despite warnings and explanations about why shouldn't it be done. All efforts were ignored:
[98],
[99],
[100],
[101],
[102],
[103]Skydream1721 (
talk)
13:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined The specified page is a redirect and from what you've written it looks like all you want to do is promote your business.
Nthep (
talk)
15:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Twice previously protected; at the first opportunity after the protection was removed, incomplete and inaccurate, updating of the page resumed.
Eagleash (
talk)
18:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Extensive recent history of IP vandalism. I realize that protecting it for 3 days is the standard procedure, but please consider something longer than that so we won't have to revisit it again in a week.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk)
19:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I see two recent edits by them, and none for a long time before that. I do not see much other disruptive editing going on to even justify semi-protection, much less EC.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Lots information of information has been removed and very little contritubed
1keyhole (
talk)
20:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite something-protection: No reason for this to be edited, and an IP user found it funny to revert back to an older version of the page, for goodness knows what reason. See
[104]Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
03:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing- this has started again quickly after the last protection measures expired. Protection had previously been set to require autoconfirmed or confirmed access.
Drchriswilliams (
talk)
09:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Change the arrow next to the "2022 estimate" population number from Green to Grey/Neutral (or remove it entirely) as was the case before and as is the case with articles for most other countries.
As1999610 (
talk)
16:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)reply
---
Change the "2022 estimate" value in the main table from:
333,287,557
to
333,287,557
In other words, change the color of the arrow from green to grey (for neutrality) by changing the "Increase" to "IncreaseNeutral". This was the case for this article before and is the case for the articles of many other countries, such as Luxembourg below:
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism and deletion of licensing templates despite the existence of reliable and secondary sources and the article was also reviewed by an editor when it was created.
Mohammed Ali Joke (
talk)
07:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Unprotected – I doubt that the person who haunted this article is the same as the one rummaging around Johnson solid an assorted other math articles. Their respective, copious IP-socking indicate different countries.
Favonian (
talk)
11:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: There is a really serious problem with the quality of this article. It does not provide a balanced or impartial point of view of the topic. The introduction, writing, and some of the claims are sometimes too particular, too vague, or from a very personal angle that could be called biased. I wanted to fix these issues myself, but someone reverted them. I tried to voice my concerns on the talk page, and nobody responded. It currently feels that this page may be managed by one or some people that feel some level of personal attachment to it but are not actually the kinds of authoritative or at least neutral supervisors that the page actually should have. In other words, there may be some people protecting it article, but they are not actually protecting it properly or in a good or correct way. It's almost more like being non-collaborative, in my humble opinion. I want some kind of new form of support to come to some kind of public agreement about what the article should be like so we can make it without having any kind of competitive edit reversions.
2A02:3033:406:8FEA:653C:143:6CCD:3AB9 (
talk)
11:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
(for additional context: The two requests about
Republic of Crimea and
Autonomous Republic of Crimea were on the border of "unnecessary" and "belated", but I do protect such pages if there have been violations of the restrictions and ideally if users request protection. But when this request here appeared, I think the line to "unnecessary" was really crossed.)
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
12:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Currently in the news regarding a potential transfer to a big club, the page is now being vandalised and I don't want to violate 3RR. All my warmest wishes,
ItsKesha (
talk)
15:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – This still looks like a content dispute, so
WP:DR is the way to go unless you really believe it's edit-warring, in which case
WP:ANEW should be your next port of call. In any case, protection would be useless, as this is conflict between established users, and full protection is not warranted.
Favonian (
talk)
16:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I have also declined the user's ANEW since they didn't bother to include even diffs, much less evidence that they'd warned the user or tried to discuss it.
Daniel Case (
talk)
16:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Can please at least take a look the page and make some suggestions cause this is nonsense.
if you read the wilderness therapy talk page ParticipantObserver tries to suggest that wilderness therapy is go outside and play.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – He is in the news after announcing he will be retiring, this has made the article a target for vandalism and people messing with his height and/or weight. Rockchalk71718:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Since 2019, an editor has been
persistently using sockpuppets to push some bizarre pro-Italian POV on this article. They repeatedly add unsourced claims and their own interpretations of primary sources, then edit war when they're reverted. The latest sockpuppet was blocked on 1 December, but now their edits have been restored by an IP. –
Asarrlaí(
talk)18:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done – I assume you meant the article rather than the draft, which is not protected. The draft is not ready for a move to main space. If, at some later point in time, it's approved at
WP:AFC, it will be moved.
Favonian (
talk)
16:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry that I didn't supply diffs, but just talk a look
at the last 100 edits on the revision log, there is a lot of silly back and forth, and other editors can't keep up with this user's deletion of content.
Like you're trying to build consensus, you have the same problem as me. Here's an alternative proposal : how about neither one of our unregistered accounts use the page for a week and we come back to it then? Cheers!
107.190.33.254 (
talk)
23:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Vandalism from unregistered account and old report of an edit war, but apparently the most frequent problem is recurring reports, from more than one user, of unnecessary, "nonconstructive," "trivial," and un-sourced edits from unregistered accounts. "Poor grammar/structure" being a complaint on another occasion. Cf. revision history. Seemed notable enough to bring to attention, so put it up for review. Indefatigable2 talk00:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This bio of a living person has been subject to repeated vandalism by unregistered users over the last 24 hours. Southwest has been in the news a lot today and yesterday due to their high rate of flight cancellations, and many people are angry at the CEO.
IAlexR (
talk)
00:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: I have uploaded the event logo (File:2002 FIFA World Cup logo.png) in accordance with all the rules established by Wikipedia for using a copyrighted logo (reduce size, for event/brand identification purposes only). It turns out that there is a conflict, in which the user
JustDan7178 replaced the image that I had changed by another one that only has the written part of the logo (removed the part of the visual image). Even the file I uploaded had received a deadline to be deleted because the image was not used in any Wikipedia article, at which time I found out that there was this change. In order to settle this issue, I ask for the protection of the page.
Egtj (
talk)
21:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
This page has no protection history before today's application. Permanent semi-protection is normally reserved for those cases in which there exists a lengthy history of lesser protection regimes which have not worked. I would be acting outside of norms of protection policy if I granted more than a temporary semi protection today. A period of pending changes may actually be a better solution long term, since the page receives intermittent disruption. I'm happy to hear differing points of view.
BusterD (
talk)
02:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefatigable2, pending changes protection is effective against pure, obvious vandalism. This isn't the case here; we can't expect reviewers to look at these diffs and to see a need for immediate reverting. You may like to
apply for the permission to gain a better overview about the work involved, and you'll relatively quickly notice why pending-changes protection on such a page is ineffective and burdensome. As the page is currently protected and there is no evidence for disruption that happened after the last protection, I'll archive this request.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
03:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Persistent
disruptive editing by the same user; reverting edits that were normally accepted and claiming select programs aren't continuations, despite them being listed as such on show articles and in official press releases.
BrickMaster02 (
talk)
22:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 36 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indefinite full is absolutely wild, but a brief protection is warranted. Let's discuss this stuff on the talk page, please, this is such a silly thing to get into an edit war about. Lord Roem ~ (
talk)
07:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Edit warring, IP editor reverting and threats in edit summaries. Content which breaks
WP:NOTGUIDE has been recreated on Reddit so no longer needs to be hosted on Wikipedia. The constant back and forth puts all of us in danger of edit wars and 3RRs so putting here to return to protection for all sides to cool off.
Reason: High amounts of meme vandalism the person in question posted about it on their Facebook page so subsequently the page has been edited a lot more than normal
Jessica729 (
talk)
05:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Extremely high level of IP vandalism going back nearly two years. This page needs to be protected indefinitely. Every single time we've removed the page protection for this same problem on this page, it immediately starts again. The same ungrammatical nonsense in various iterations (either something about Jim Dear realizing Tramp is not vicious but at the same time saying he is, or something about the dogcatcher being either arrested or executed, but it's hard to tell because it's always in hideous grammar). It's different IPs and sometimes even named users, but if you care to search the history you'll see this exact same edit can be traced back to July 2021. Possibly farther. It needs to stop. If you want me to find it and post every diff, all 40 or 50 of them, I can.
EEBuchanan (
talk)
06:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
P.S. Whoever's doing this was also brazen enough to change all the "Do Not"s in the hidden notes to "Do"s, before deleting the hidden notes entirely. When I reverted it the first time, back to where I saw the hidden notes last, I only realized afterwards that these edits had been done and I had to correct it as well. Whoever's doing this, They're determined enough that this has gone on nearly two years, and starts up after every protection template expires, as I said. Hence needing an indefinite block.
THANK YOU! I hope the trolls/vandals aren't so determined they'll wait two years and come back and start again. Hopefully this should fix it.
EEBuchanan (
talk)
09:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Persistent addition of a (very blatant) hoax to this article that the Annabelle doll escaped from the Warren's museum and is now going around killing people.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
11:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Several IPs have been trying to insist that this channel is a Bell-owned premium channel with a preschool programming block (none of which is true). WCQuidditch☎✎05:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Callanecc: please reconsider, at least two accounts and an IP have vandalised this article. Furthermore, it falls under an arbitrary enforcement. I've heard an online troll group is behind it, but I'm not sure.
Thiscouldbeauser (
talk)
10:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Today, Google decided to highlight her life, which unfortunatley led to a mass influx of vandalism. Lili Elbe was a trans woman and some users have found it to be funny to change all of the pronouns on the page to "he". When I first entered the page, I was also confronted with these pronouns, luckily another user swiftly corrected this act of vandalism.
As today is her birthday and as all Google users are exposed to her Wikipedia page today it would be irresponsible to leave her Wikipedia page unlocked - As rampant transphobic changes, such as the change of all pronouns to the male form, are to be expected with an increase of users on the page.
ClemMSch (
talk)
13:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Since December 12, 2022, I have reverted vandals made by IP addresses 5 times (see the article's revision history for details).
Centcom08 (
talk)
13:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: This block should be temporarily lifted, this discussion in the talk page was not done yet. The user AukusRuckus is weaponizing false accusations of sockuppetry and weaponizing use of the page protections to avoid have a discussion about a fair compromise edit which was propose on the UAE LGBT rights talk page without him trying to collaborate or have a discussion whatsoever on his side. What was proposed was a minor edit which condensed his usage of the overabundant and overabused sourcing of one of the sources to limit it while still using it in select places in concise form and readding penalties that the community has approved of using for penalties. I request it to be lifted for a short time to have him address these concerns. And before he falsely says he was never notified, he was personally pinged by username. Thank you..
155.137.183.249 (
talk)
10:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. This seems like a content dispute to me. If a talk-page discussion isn't enough to defuse the situation, there are other venues.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Basically through film's release date (which we probably should have done several RFPPs ago) and then some.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – We have an IP trying to add content over and over during a GA review. Lets lock this up to them see if they are then willing to join chat over there additions. Moxy-17:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The IP associated with this page is blocked. Another editor using a dynamic ip is harassing the owner of this page. Been going on for a while, see edit history of page. Owner of page's unblock requests have been refused so only edits now are just the harassment edits.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
17:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – It didn't take long (two days) after the previous semi-protection expired for another IP to restore the poorly-sourced (to the same four copies of a press release), presumably
promotional in nature, material that led to that semi-protection. WCQuidditch☎✎07:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes protection - Many instances of persistent
vandalism, most notably around the sections which mention the tracking to be a simulation, and generally things along the lines of
WP:CENSORS5tayer (
talk)
20:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Edit protected for over two years. I don't see a ton of edit warring or vandalism before. No discussions on the talk page either. Edit protection doesn't seem necessary to me.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK11:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Done Protecting admin inactive; protection log was long enough to warrant long-term protection at the time of last protection, but I have downgraded to pending-changes protection. Let's see how much disruption we get.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm a bit wary of this, the article was under heavy vandalism loads when applied (not sure what Soetermans is seeing), and has a prot log a mile long. But I have it watch listed so will re-up if necessary. --
ferret (
talk)
15:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Rewriting this because the last request was poorly worded on my part. It was hastily added before a discussion could be completed in the talk page about a recent comprise edit. If lifted, it will not be written in but it will force the other user to discuss without a moderator shutting down the discussion. This block was a misuse of power of a user who turned a moderator into a WP;cowboy admin. Please reconsider this protection. Thank you.
155.137.183.249 (
talk)
01:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
This argument isn't any better, given the article was protected less than 24h ago. Accusations of admin abuse, especially
in a contentious topic area, are only likely to draw sanctions unless you have serious evidence to back them up. —
Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)
03:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I said the moderator may have been unwittingly turned into a WP:COWBOY by being told false accusations and getting tricked into putting on page protections. I did not say that the moderator was wrong or willingly doing something incorrect. In fact, the editor AukusRuckus who I was in edit conflict with was in the wrong entirely and I've said that from the beginning.
155.137.183.249 (
talk)
04:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely. I went with indefinite because the pattern of disruption immediately following the expiry of protection has repeated at least three times, and I don't see what duration of protection might break this pattern. Complex/Rational22:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Without any disruptive edits, why it is semi-protected for indefinite period? Adding upcoming broadcast section with reference is really distuptive edit?
The Banner is reverting all sourced upcoming section saying it as SPAM since a month of period. Please check history of the page once and atleast reduce its semi protection from indefinite to some period of months.
49.33.205.207 (
talk)
04:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Perennial target for unsourced additions & unexplained removals; edit war over inclusion of
Isaaq since at least July 2022; article has barely changed in the ~100 edits since May 2022
[105]. ☿
Apaugasma (
talk☉)22:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent attacks from /23 range of IPs also from one newish login. Possibly only one perpetrator but annoying to pin that down.
Nick Levine (
talk)
11:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Article subject is a bit too broad for the suggested ACDS indefinite protection. But there has clearly been some ongoing disruption that warrants a dose of page protection.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
02:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes protection: Persistent Vandalism. The article is subject to vandalism from different people several times each month. Roundish ⋆tc)01:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism by an IP-farm, with removals of suspended flights as being cut and random (unsourced) removals and additions of other destinations. The Bannertalk10:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Creation-unprotection: So I can create a redirect from it to the '
Niall Horan' article (with an uppercase 'H'). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
PK2 (
talk •
contribs)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Very difficult to deal with the vandal ips, who continuously change some stuff. Meanwhile when bots do some useful edits, it's difficult to retain those & revert the vandals.
Admantine123 (
talk)
08:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – An upcoming video game based on the Wizarding World intellectual property, better known as Harry Potter. With creator Rowling's controversial opinions this article is attracting a lot of disruptive editing. This month has seen several anon IPs and newly created accounts removing criticisms, section blanking and even adding transphobic comments in an edit summary (thanks to
Anarchyte for revdel'ing it).
We're getting closer to the release date and as such the marketing will pick up steam; with reviews this will lead to an increase of attention. I'd think that at least a months-long edit protection is needed.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK09:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated efforts by ip(s) to remove sourced material. Encouragement to discuss issues on article Talkpage is ignored.
KJP1 (
talk)
14:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Page was previously protected due to the same vandalism for 4 days (expired 3 Feb 2022), one month (expired 8 Mar 2022), and three months (expired 17 Nov 2022). Since the vandalism is continuing, could we extend protection this time to six months or longer? —
Archer1234 (
talk)
15:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Can't we bump this up to semi, instead of pending changes? I can't see a single constructive edit in months by anon IPs and newly created users accounts, yet the dozens and dozens of disruptive revisions still are unnecessarily saved.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK15:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Since semi-protection, the repeated addition of large tracts of unsourced information to this article has continued. The original research spammers need time to calm down.
10mmsocket (
talk)
11:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
harassment from LTAs. Also would I be able to get a longer duration this time? I was thinking more like 3 or 6 months. Since I feel that 1 month really isn't long enough to fully address the level of harassment from LTAs that I've received over the years. The longterm abuser in question literally waited until my talk page was unprotected before proceeding to harass me. ― C.Syde(
talk |
contribs)01:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)reply
pretty much every single edit made over the past month (~25 excl. reversions) has been reverted. These are mostly edits from newly registered users, who keep trying to add external links to their Python-related websites. Some new users also like to rewrite large swathes without citations or add unnecessary code examples. Furthermore,
the page has been temporarily protected three times this calendar year, and once this month.
While there isn't exactly an overwhelming number of these disruptive edits, they are persistent enough that it ends up wrapping up a non-trivial amount of community time in watching for and reverting them. So, I would think that an indefinite semi-protection is in order here. —
Jumbo T (
talk)
12:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Can the article please get a break from people needing to revenge-edit it? Can't do it on individual accounts because it's all driveby-throwaway ...
DBaK (
talk)
14:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Reason: consistent vandalism akin to Ethnic groups of Argentina which was protected two weeks ago. Same IP, same type of changes etc. Semi-lock needed
Tweedle (
talk)
13:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Semi-protection isn't enough to stop dubious changes from coming in, also it's possible someone is socking to insert these and/or created a single-purpose account to bypass semi-protection.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits)
17:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)reply