Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There is one IPv6 (/64) that has been a continual problem, but several new accounts also.
DMacks (
talk)
00:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: See @
User:El_C's
edit summary from September. Page was recently recreated based on unreliable sources, with notability still not established. I redirected it again. If there is a way to separately protect the page from being recreated without AfC, that might be worth considering.
DFlhb (
talk)
00:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
DFlhb The way may be to move it to draft without leaving a redirect and salt the mainspace title. I'd be down to do the move, would need an admin to salt the mainspace title though.
LilianaUwU(
talk /
contribs)01:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined for now. Vigorous discussion is valid on talkpages. Seems mostly one editor doing the disruption, who has already been reported to ANI and has also now stated they are retired. If the problem continues beyond this time, feel free to re-request.
DMacks (
talk)
21:25, 31 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'm also not convinced that there is enough recent disruption to justify protection. Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
02:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because ....... .
Astoriaaldrich (
talk)
03:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Family list name, Astor origins, religion not correct. Needs to be corrected. Astors were Jewish. Ethnicity tajik. Block needs to be removed and information corrected.reply
Not unprotected It's exactly this edit-dispute that led to the protection. No end-runs around talk-page consensus are allowed.
DMacks (
talk)
03:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Persistent addition of factually incorrect info, the IP is I believe logged out editing from Bezawada16 user. I've reverted 3 times in the last 2 days, temporary ECP could be beneficial or else blocking the user with Semi protection would also be helpful —
DaxServer (
t ·
m ·
c)
12:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I have warned the user about the edit warring policy and blocked the IP from logged-out editing for a week. This should suffice to either stop the edit war or to justify an
WP:ANEW report as soon as this continues. In case that really doesn't solve the problem, please re-request. Semi-protection, that is, as semi-protection is not yet proven ineffective.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
12:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Ah sorry,
Ymblanter, I had misread that, I think. I agree that the talk namespace is exempt from ECP, yet the restriction applies to the discussion. Okay. Hm. Semi-protection might be an option to reduce the noise, but I don't yet see a need for this when looking at the non-autoconfirmed edits alone.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
11:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Temporary protections have been applied previously, but the vandalism always immediately returns.
Xurizuri (
talk)
12:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite template protection:High-risk template – While this is not so heavily used, the formatting is quite complicated and as the history of the template shows, almost any non-template-editor who has tried to edit it has left it worse than when started.
Muhandes (
talk)
14:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Can we please get indefinite semi? That level of protection was working fine, until it was removed in May 2022. Basically more than half of edit since then has been vandalism—the constant reversion is wasting the time of too many editors. Aza24 (talk)23:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated, totally unsourced, additions about a sequel, that has not even been confirmed, let alone the title, or actors -
Arjayay (
talk)
17:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – IP-farm editwarring because (s)he does not believe that Dublin and Lublin can be confused. By now, 3 IPs are blocked in this case. The Bannertalk11:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., I do not see why full protection is needed. What is need is for the IP to engage to a discussion.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
11:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: There is one lines mentined caste Koery or Kurmi. Actually he is Koery not kurmi. please give permission to edit this page so that I can write authentic information,. Even in the below sectioned and also in all news paper and channels it's mentioned he is Koery by caste.
49.36.33.240 (
talk)
10:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Change the Closer section in Major works to:
Closer
Carucci's first significant body of work is first and foremost about the nuclear family but also touches upon the universal topics of intimacy, mother-daughter relationships, the female body, and mortality. Her parents, grandparents, and partner are the central players, each of whom she portrays gently but unflinchingly in her images. Her color photographs work with a definite color palette, with mesmerizing quality to the serene vivid reds and blues set against the myriad tones of bare skin. With her unique approach to making work, one that merges both planned, staged, and well-lit photographs, simultaneously with openness to the intuitive and spontaneous process, she creates images that highlight the depths of the beauties and pain of being human.
Delete the section Pain
Add the section MIDLIFE
Elinor’s vivid descriptions of Midlife depict the complicated, layered aspects of life that affect both men and women on an intimate level in an immersive and up-close look at these important years. Through love, generations, family, women's health, and intimacy, Midlife tells the story of getting older during the middle of life.
Midlife is a universal period for us all, yet this reach narrative is absent from our cultural dialogue, and in this body of work by Carucci’s asks the viewrs to look thoroughly and to collectively see what is so often unseen.
Reason: Multiple attempts of similar controversial changes which have already been discussed on talk page. Unregistered users are mostly responsible
Titus Gold (
talk)
13:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent Vandalism. Different IP editors have been changing "2293", the date in which the film is set, to "2023". This has occured about a dozen times starting on 2022-12-31.
Peaceray (
talk)
17:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Similarly to
Snowdonia, there continue to be multiple attempts of similar controversial changes which have already been discussed on talk page. Unregistered users are mostly responsible.
Titus Gold (
talk)
13:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Recently, the example of publicity of Elon Musk's jet traffic has been added to the Streisand Effect wikipedia page. There have been multiple reverts of the edits, attempting to exclude the legitimate example from usage on the page. There have, by my count, been 10 separate reversions related to this content in the last 24 hours.
Hlposts (
talk)
17:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: Of note is that this article has received so much attention in large part because it's been the subject of at least two prominent posts to /r/ElonJetTracker. I agree it should be temporarily semi-protected. TheTechnician27(Talk page)18:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Done. While there might be merit in discussing whether that's a good example or not, edit warring to remove it is not the way to go, so I've protected the page in the hopes editors will use the talk page.
Isabelle Belato🏳🌈21:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High fluidity of it being a "Breaking News, and developing story". cut down on the risk of "rumors and false information" being released
66.115.210.70 (
talk)
05:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – An IP user(s) keeps reverting information here without an edit summary despite their changes impacting several parts of this article. This has persisted regardless of requests being made.
Wozal (
talk)
18:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: continuous vandalization for no reason. User writing this has talked to users involved, and they have said that it was a "random page about a random show nobody cares about", so I am requesting for it to be protected.
木炭六十八 (
talk)
19:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – This page is still seeing a high rate of disruptive editing, with vandalism and unsourced additions. Most of the problematic edits are coming from IP users. The page was unprotected a week ago, so a longer period of protection may be needed.
Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (
talk)
07:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: There is not disruption from autoconfirmed editors on the page. Semi-protection should be applied, not superprotection. Maine🦞06:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: As an admin involved with editing the article and having to revdel some pretty ugly talk page vandalism, I would recommend leaving it unchanged and keeping the extended confirmed protection active. ("Superprotection" as stated above is the wrong term.)
Fuzheado |
Talk07:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Same. Thanks for the ping. This waa done in response to the disruption still present after semi-protection and is limited to 3 days.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
11:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – An IP user(s) keeps reverting information here without an edit summary despite their changes impacting several parts of this article. This has persisted regardless of requests being made.
Wozal (
talk)
18:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: continuous vandalization for no reason. User writing this has talked to users involved, and they have said that it was a "random page about a random show nobody cares about", so I am requesting for it to be protected.
木炭六十八 (
talk)
19:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – This page is still seeing a high rate of disruptive editing, with vandalism and unsourced additions. Most of the problematic edits are coming from IP users. The page was unprotected a week ago, so a longer period of protection may be needed.
Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (
talk)
07:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Ongoing vandalism where a joke disambiguation screenshot from September 2022 is still being circulated, and new/IP users check to see if it's real and have a go at adding it back when they see it's not there.
Belbury (
talk)
15:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Over the past year this article has repeatedly been edited by a variety of IPs making near-identical edits, to remove maintenance tags and add unsourced claims.
Dorsetonian (
talk)
17:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. This is the same editor who has been adding serial commas to articles and has realised that the alternative is to remove one item from a list of three to ensure the absence of the serial comma isn't noticed. -
SchroCat (
talk)
14:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I have also rangeblocked 174.204.64.0/20 (block range · block log (
global) ·
WHOIS (partial)) for two years as they have resumed the same activity that led to the one-year block that had expired in November. Since the other Washington state-based Verizon IP they used is far enough outside the range that MediaWiki will not let me include it in the block, and indeed someone that mobile may find other IPs to use, the protection is needed as well.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent inclusion of unsourced or unrelated material, also vandalism such as the section "Notable Legislation and Accomplishments as an Assembly Member: None." has been removed, but requesting protection.
GeorgeBailey (
talk)
14:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined. No rationale provided, no history of disruption visible, and the page is already quasi-semiprotected by an edit filter. --
Blablubbs (
talk)
17:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined Since the two users who were edit warring have been blocked (one indef), it doesn't look there has been much other edit warring.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment The conflict on this page was initiated when examining a recent addition with clear BLP content. I removed the content, sourced exclusively to a defunct website "Focus Ecuador". Further examination of recent content additions found multiple other problems with thin-sourcing of BLP content: things like Daily Beast, HuffPo contributor platform,
international business times. The editor who added these problematic areas is keen to restore them, without regard to the higher standard of sourcing required for living person content, as they have made clear on talk. Cambial —
foliar❧18:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The editor who added these problematic areas is keen to restore them Ive asked you to just to discuss the changes and you just revert them again and ignore
WP:BRD. At this point thats all I want especially since you removed at least some things like the Washington Post without knowing it or looking at them
without regard to the higher standard of sourcing required for living person content I disagree and think its an odd thing to say about stuff that includes how much money WikiLeaks raised through Bitcoin
Softlemonades (
talk)
21:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There seems to be some confusion at to the topic of this article as there is a new album to be released with the same name. Skipple☎19:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. The disruption by autoconfirmed accounts doesn't rise to the level where extend-confirmed protection would be needed. I have watchlisted.
Lectonar (
talk)
10:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP vandals changing the dates of his first tenure in office. For outgoing presidents, the term ends on December 31. Not January 1. This is a widespread dating format on other articles for Brazilian presidents.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
02:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment This was
previously proposed 4 days ago; BLP subject has edited the page again after the previous request, but stopped 3 days ago. Unclear whether he could have seen the COI warnings (see linked COI noticeboard discussion). Regardless, if allowed under
WP:IAR, I support page protection, to nudge the subject into using the talk page and avoid him risking sanctions, since I believe he edited his page with rare good faith.
DFlhb (
talk)
05:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined Even protecting the page will not make sure the IP, be they Brendan Miller or not, will use the article talk-page. I would follow what is spelled out at
WP:BLPEDIT, and repeatedly link to
WP:BIOSELF in edit summaries and talk-page warnings; even with changing IP adresses this ought to be seen after some time.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
Jayron3212:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
With apologies,
Jayron32, I seem to have decision conflicted. At the same time you declined to protect I went with one year of pending changes protection due to the low level but steady history of vandalism and other disruptive edits with a few constructive edits mixed in, including over the last couple of months. You're welcome to remove my protection if you think it's best.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)12:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The disruptive edits are few and far between, and at least for the last 4 weeks come from the same IP. At need report to an apppropriate noticeboard.
Lectonar (
talk)
12:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – IP Jumping editor repeatedly adding hyperbolic and promotional content over the last month.
Escape Orbit(Talk)16:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Unaware that you had already done this, I gave the article six months of protection, because as noted both here and at ANEW this user has been going on doing this since October.
Daniel Case (
talk)
23:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Per suggestion on Talk page - this is to address the addition of unsourced content which looks like
WP:OR by an IP editor - as it is possible IP editor is not aware that other editors are trying to communicate with them.
Tacyarg (
talk)
14:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. it is at a Wikidefcon 3 level,as this is a new political figure.there is a high level of vandalism because people are using it as a forum of sorts.
ItsMeKeys (
talk)
21:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Page is subject to persistent long-term efforts by various IP or inexperienced editors to tweak this page (likely due to the figures very important role in history). Unfortunately, the vast majority of recent changes have been more disruptive than constructive and have had to be instantly reverted by experienced editors. I would suggest that having this page open has become a time sink and waste of community time.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
10:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The protection policy requires that user subpages aren't protected pre-emptively protected without good reason or cause and I don't believe that a subpage is likely to be modified nor that the purpose you're intending to use it for requires it to be protected. Focus on the articles rather than making a personal list of editors you've warned. I won't decline this so other admins can have a look and see what they think. Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
12:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
DeclinedThis provides enough reason for the moment, as there has been no disruption. I personally would refrain from maintaining such a list (it seems somehow to go against the "spirit" of Wikipedia, and if you intend to warn plenty of people with say changing IPs, it would quickly become rather unwieldy), and I concur with my esteemed colleague above.
Lectonar (
talk)
12:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – an ip is constantly making changes to the number of soundtrack albums without a source. The ip has been reverted by multiple editors and continues to vandalize the page.
JOJHutton12:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I am not sure if protecting this page is desirable ... the logs show it has never been protected despite continuous vandalism. Semi-protection would leave IP editors with nowhere to report false positives, which do happen.
Daniel Case (
talk)
23:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Daniel Case, I fell for this first too. The reports page is at
Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, though. The talk page of the shell around these reports should (at least theoretically) never see any reports. That said, keeping some of the disruption on this specific talk page rather than elsewhere could even be desirable.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP has being changing value for months without providing sources. Latest edit behavior shows we can't assume good faith anymore and IP is clearly a troll or vandal.
McSly (
talk)
18:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Talbert Swan is a public figure and social critic whose public positions result in persistent vandalism to his page and frequent violations of the biographies of living persons policy. Non credible sources are referenced to slander a living subject by his critics. This page needs to be protected.
Mjones3927 (
talk)
19:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Needs to be protected. Every single time prior to a thread on Reddit about Louis Conradt being released, people attempt to edit political history, and omit sources.
64.231.234.195 (
talk)
23:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: (or at least, one long enough to stop the nonsense). Persistent
vandalism – The disruptive editing started as soon as the protection expired. Please note that a) similar disruption (regarding the picture) has been taking place on Commons (leading to the image being fully protected) and b) the edit requests on the article's talk page that keep being declined (as they go against what the source says).
M.Bitton (
talk)
01:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High levels of vandalism, see
[1] for cause, IPs persistently removing references to Algeria or falsely claiming photographs of lions taken in Algeria were actually taken in Morocco.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
05:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Downgrade to auto confirmed: Please remove the ECP and downgrade it to semi-protection to prevent one sockpuppet from returning. Otherwise, please use the pending edits mode.
Imperial meter (
talk)
19:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: There is a draft at
Draft:Mark Wiens which in my view meets the WP:AFC acceptance criteria of having a greater than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion. It is a borderline notability article, which is fine. A prior version has been deleted at AfD, but in 2017. Things have moved on with Wiens since then. I have no concerns that it may well be sent straight to AfD, since the community can decide its fate. There is a lengthy discussion at
the AFC Helpdesk. It might be seen that this request is sidestepping that discussion, which is why I have linked to it - to seek to ensure that is not so, and that there can be no accusations of forum shopping. 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦
16:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Happy to accept the article from AfC now, with sufficient sources, but would encourage semi-protection in any case as I am aware this page has a little bit of a history!.
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk)
18:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – New user editwarring over infobox image, open discussion on talk. Please return to statusquo while discussion is on. - FlightTime Phone (
open channel)02:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – Persistent page move warring, despite previous RM consensus not to move. Have been moved at least 3 times in the last month.
– robertsky (
talk)
07:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Considering the history the article prior to its increased protection (first to full, then down to extended when that was introduced), it does not seem like a good idea open the floodgates.
Favonian (
talk)
11:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Hes with holding general information regarding the identity of hiss family members. Ive been working on this case for over a year. You're order by the CIA to change it.
24.75.165.55 (
talk)
12:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not done It is not clear what text you would like changed in the article. Please include what text you want added or removed, and include a rationale and a source for the requested change.
Jayron3214:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Vandalizing a page yourself just so it gets protected will only lead to the page remaining unprotected and you getting blocked. ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: There are unconfirmed reports that he is going to change from France to Algeria in international football. Several different IPs have been editing it writing this (5 of them) today (it just got reverted). Even though it was only one revert, given 5 different IPs were editing it, I think that shows it might need page protection to prevent addition of rumoured but unfinalized information.
RedPatch (
talk)
16:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Requesting user is page creator, however, I will back that a majority of the IP edits on this page since creation have been nothing but vandalism or violations of
WP:NPOV.
Jalen Folf(talk)23:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated unsourced information about a revival - all that was confirmed was that talks had begun but no deal confirmed, no date, no judges, just confirmation that a network was talking to the show's creators. Either way not encyclopaedic or factual to keep adding that "season 4 is coming". >>Lil-unique1(talk) —
19:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – Removing talk page access on User talk:Montgomery alligator might be needed, as the blocked user continues to post off-topic. Chris Troutman (
talk)22:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not done It would be better to ask the blocking admin to remove talk page access, but it also appears the user has stopped posting off-topic messages. Will keep an eye.
Isabelle Belato🏳🌈14:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Please add protection to the page, The page faces constant attacks of spam, wrong info entered and so on . Change the protection to Semi-protected at least.
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – An IP is adding political claims based on a social media post, but (so far) we have no proof that the social media account is really the BLP it claims to be.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
06:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Needs higher protections. Looks like user Fourthords is vandalizing the Wikipedia page by deleting the page for Louis Conradt - and re-directing to his suicide instead of his Wikipedia?
64.231.234.195 (
talk)
09:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm surprised! There is an anonymous IP that puts false information more than 14 times in just four months, and every time I apply for protection, it is rejected for a different reason. How can I protect this article then? Can someone help me with this, I'm fed up with this anonymous IP --
Mishary94 (
talk)
00:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There has been a tiresomely slow-burning edit war on this page by various random IP/novel editors to remove a certain body of slightly raunchy historical material - this has spiked in the last six months (though it dates back as far as 2018), resulting in time-wasting edits far outweighing constructive editing of late.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
20:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated vandalism and edits without citing sources by anonymous and registered users. Please consider at least semi-protection for this page. Thank you.
Johnnycorns5354 (
talk)
07:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: We need semi-protection, as newbies & IPs aren't waiting for official tallies to be announced, per ballot. They're changing numbers constantly, every second & creating confusion, let alone making the page difficult to edit.
GoodDay (
talk)
19:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Frequent IP vandalism in the last 24 hours. Page has previously been protected. Suggest a period of semi-protection for a month
RM-Taylor (
talk)
19:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of vandalism due to speculation about his changes in sponsorship. Please block edit requests from users with no accounts.
PerlDreamer (
talk)
20:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: In the last few hours minutes this redirect has been vandalised numerous times by multiple IPs. Might be a good idea to temporarily semi-protect it.
AP 499D25 (
talk)
00:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enough apparently productive edits coming off that range that this seems like the better option.
Daniel Case (
talk)
06:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: pro-nazi editing - this page was basically accepting the insane premises of the book, one of the most famous Nazi party tracts - I'm fixing it and just got the first serious pushback
Victoryodaiken (
talk)
23:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The data on these pages are at risk of being changed because of bias from certain ethnic groups. User Editors are more reliable, as we can discuss any changes to frequencies based on the actual data and references. In fact, all pages with heavy information like specific Y-DNA lineages and their Distribution tables should be protected from such unsourced edits.
The Watchlist Editor (
talk)
11:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The data on these pages are at risk of being changed because of bias from certain ethnic groups. User Editors are more reliable, as we can discuss any changes to frequencies based on the actual data and references. In fact, all pages with heavy information like specific Y-DNA lineages and their Distribution tables should be protected from such unsourced edits.
The Watchlist Editor (
talk)
11:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Temporary semi-protection, as same as yesterday, high level of IP vandalism on this article. Yesterday,
Qarachar Noyan was protected as well due to edits of similar IPs starting with 103.
Beshogur (
talk)
14:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Significant cultures like these that have contributed to early human history are always subject to vandalism by people with agendas, hence the history of disruptions on this page. Protection will prevent disruptive editors with from clearing information they don't like.
The Watchlist Editor (
talk)
12:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing by the same IP, who's also removing sourcend content on "The Motto (Tiësto and Ava Max song)" article.
Iaof2017 (
talk)
19:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection.
BusterD (
talk)
00:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The data on these pages are at risk of being changed because of bias from certain ethnic groups. User Editors are more reliable, as we can discuss any changes to frequencies based on the actual data and references. In fact, all pages with heavy information like specific Y-DNA lineages and their Distribution tables should be protected from such unsourced edits. This article in particular (look at the revision history) has had lots of citations removed by Arab centrists who are against North Africans (Berbers/Amazigh).
The Watchlist Editor (
talk)
12:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is rather slow-burning vandalism which I would normally consider managable through normal editing, but a serious BLP violation was on the page for more than 24hours, so protected. Page could use with a few more watchers.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions)03:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I can see a good argument to do this but given a short-term semi protection has already been placed I'll ping
Kosack who placed it and
Courcelles who placed the pending changes protection for them to make a call about. Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs) — Preceding
undated comment added
08:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm a bit reluctant to be jumping into indefinite given that the article hasn't been protected for a period longer than one month since 2017. Also, the majority of disruptive editing appeared to be related to him being re-signing with the Yankees and being named captain? Would this not have been confirmed and died down now?
Kosack (
talk)
08:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined One instance of minor vandalism since unprotection. Right now, I think we're at stable level. Please feel free to rerequest if disruption picks up.
Kosack (
talk)
08:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection of this page should be reduced because it is an author who is very famous. I collect information about famous people and send them to Wikipedia. This helps a lot to your users.
Little Angel IVF (
talk)
05:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Started as soon as the last PP expired, asking for a longer one this time around as the protection log shows this is not going to go away anytime soon.
Gotitbro (
talk)
11:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Last disruption was more than 2 weeks ago...no edits at all until your edit from today. Afaics, far from needing permant semi-protection. If another admin disagrees: feel free to protect.
Lectonar (
talk)
14:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. One disruption every 2 or 3 days is not enough disruption to semiprotect the article.
Lectonar (
talk)
14:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Edit warring on BLP article about allegations of sexual misconduct. Needs either semi-protection or pending changes.
10mmsocket (
talk)
17:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Page was already protected once after anonymous IP continued to remove template, ignoring talk page requests to discuss/stop. Protection expired, IP is right back at it, removing template with no explanation and without adding anything to the article.
Fred Zepelin (
talk)
20:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: I am requesting page protection for all NFL playoff teams until February 19, 2022, a week after the
Super Bowl LVIII. Once a team loses in the playoffs it instantly leads to childish changes of the ownership in the infobox to the winning teams quarterback or stars. These childish posts are quickly screenshotted and end up on meme pages fueling more vandalism. To prevent this I am requesting page protection from IP editors as the damage of IP vandals far outweighs any value from valid IP editors over the next five weeks. I will request lowering of page protection after two weeks for defeated teams, the period of time in which these immature vandalism sprees usually ends. Words in the Wind(
talk)05:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi
Words in the Wind and
Isabelle Belato, the pages where actual recent vandalism occurred are now protected as suggested (2023, not 2022, though; I only noticed when Twinkle told me the date is in the past...). If, later, there's actual recent disruption on the remaining pages, please individually re-request protection.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
04:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Everyone always changes it so it says “yOu GEt tO bEaT tHe pAcKeRs.” It’s a highly disruptive, irritating edit.
Eg224 (
talk)
02:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: New user SnoopyBird reverting to keep in video whose license is not yet verified. Also would be happy to have the copyright status verified, or for someone else to explain copy vio to him. Given that the article is about the storming of the federal complex in Brazil, there is a high probability of various hijinks.
Elinruby (
talk)
03:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Different new editor now at my talk page telling me it's all cool because it's from a YouTube channel (!). I suppose it's possible, but I have never heard of that, this guy doesn't look like an admin, and the article has already had one copyvio removed. Leaving talk page section up for reference for now
Elinruby (
talk)
04:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – This article has been subject to the "Persian Gulf" / "Arabian Gulf" controversy for years. Temporary protection has not dissuaded IPs and new accounts from disruptively and repeatedly changing "Arabian Gulf" to "Persian Gulf" throughout the article. I think it is time for indefinite semi-protection. Archer1234 (
t·
c)
14:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting protection for
First Iraqi–Kurdish War and
Iraqi no-fly zones conflict. These articles have recently experienced mass infobox edits (and associated edit warring) by the dynamic IP 86.141.92.231/86.137.14.137, whose edits (involving grandiose claims of "Iraqi victory") consistently fail
verification and who is temporarily
blocked for violating the 3RR per an AN3
report. (The IP has also engaged in edit warring and misrepresentation of sources at
Iraqi invasion of Iran, but seems to have stopped after a particularly egregious
instance of misrepresentation was pointed out.) Because this specific IP address will not be blocked for long and may change dynamically in short order, I am requesting extended-confirmed protection to minimize the potential for further disruptive editing. Thank you for your consideration,
TheTimesAreAChanging (
talk)
06:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: An IP-hopping individual from the Netherlands appears deadset on including unsubstantiated (and refuted) content regarding a stunt performer & actor to this page. BOTTO (
T•
C)14:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Four different IPs (43.229.88.175, 43.241.192.189, 103.240.205.83 and 43.241.192.211) keep making the same disruptive edit over and over again without any justification for their changes and despite having been told to stop. A look at their contribution pages strongly suggest that it is the same person using different IPs. I've already reported this problem before and the page was protected for 2 weeks, but as soon as the protection was over, the vandalism resumed. I'm therefore requesting a longer protection for the page. Thanks in advance.
Johnn Francis (
talk)
23:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Technically non-autoconfirmed users aren't allowed to edit this topic anyway. It's true however that this may become irrelevant in some time. Volunteer Marek 05:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Since we have four different requests for the same set of socks, let me elaborate on why I have declined them all. 1) At least some of the accounts reported for socking were not found to be socks. 2) We have constructive edits by IPs during the same period. 3) For most of these articles, we have two socks in ~2 months; this would be borderline for protection in any case. 4) The socks were all autoconfirmed, meaning we would need EC-protection to have stopped them; and that requires a greater threshold of disruption to be met. Vanamonde (
Talk)05:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – I'm going to be honest: I was wrong requesting looser edit protection for this article. In less than two weeks it has attracted a lot of IP and newly established editors wanting to add inappropriate material, very few that have actually anything constructive to contribute. Please make this an semi edit protection again; IPs and newly established editors can always use the talk page to request changes to be made.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK06:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Ongoing vandalism, most recently in December 2022 but it also happened earlier. I had applied and received protection for this page earlier but only for a short time span. Can we please protect this page from non-confirmed editors indefinitely? It's quite time consuming to keep protecting this page from vandalism.
EMsmile (
talk)
12:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
EMsmile:Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I don't see sufficient vandal edits to justify protection at the moment, and certainly not for indefinite semi-protection.
SmartSE (
talk)
13:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined - I can't see how this page falls within the scope of the Israel-Palestine conflict, as the material is about a controversy involving antisemitism generally and Palestine does not seem to be mentioned at all. Consider the
edit warring noticeboard if the conflict cannot be resolved through discussion with the new user.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
15:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:A/I/PIA refers to the Arab Israeli conflict in general, "broadly construed", not just Israel and Palestine. ("the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces") The edit notice says the article partially relates to AI conflict. Note there is material concerning the Israel Lebanon war as well as the Gaza report. The editor already refused to participate in discussion. These single purpose, low edit count, new accounts are typical for the AI area. Anyway never mind, I can see that you do not want (or cannot) protect the article "partially" so I will deal with it another way.
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
You're right, my (ancient) reading of the Arbcom decision was that the scope was specifically Israel and Palestine, but it seems to have been expanded to include all Arab-Jewish conflict worldwide. But you're also right that I can't protect part of an article, and I'm not keen to protect an entire article on an American human rights activist under the scope of these particular sanctions, as I'd be protecting a lot of material that's clearly out of scope. The sanction says that you are free to revert to enforce the ECP requirement without regard to 3RR, although it's not really a good idea to lean on that freedom too much. However, if the editor continues to be evidently only here to
right great wrongs, you could ask that they be blocked.
WP:ANI or
WP:ANEW would be appropriate for that, depending on the circumstances. I'll also watchlist the article.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
15:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined - the vandalizing users have been blocked, and there are several administrators already watching the article, so protection doesn't seem to be necessary at this time.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
15:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated vandalism by non-logged in user. User has changed the track listing for this Riverdale TV show episode to the track listing for the album Nickelodeon Celebration Parade 2005.
24.143.190.162 (
talk)
15:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Non-logged in user is vandalising this page in the same way as they have repeatedly vandalised the "Chapter Thirty-One: A Night to Remember" page.
24.143.190.162 (
talk)
15:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Please protect it until at least a few days after the holiday, which is January 22 this year.
Near the holiday this page is repeatedly modified by people who have strong opinions about The One True meaning, name, customs of the holiday. But the holiday is celebrated in many different places, with different overlapping meanings, names, and customs.
Reason: The main article at
Graham Hancock has been semi-protected for years, but following
press coverage we've seen an uptick in disruptive IP edits to related pages:
All semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the pages will be automatically unprotected.
Joe Roe, if this starts up again after protection expires I'd argue that this sort of editing is overt vandalism and falls under the exemption clause of
WP:INVOLVED, but if you're worried about blowback feel free to ping me and I'll protect for longer.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
19:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined - talk pages can only reasonably be protected for a few hours at a time, perhaps a day at the very most, and the inappropriate messages are so infrequent that it wouldn't make a difference. I have added an editnotice to the page, hopefully that will help.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
19:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: I protected this, despite being a contributor to this page, per
WP:IAR, given the slow response times here. This is on the main page, and the vandalism rate is high. I welcome review by any other admin here. Vanamonde (
Talk)03:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalized a bunch again after the latest (1-year) protection expired. With the kinds of atrocities this man is committing, which are only escalating (see
2021–2023 Myanmar civil war), I don't see any clear end in sight to the disruption that is going to come to the page. It is time for indefinite.
25stargeneral (
talk)
02:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page was inundated with scammers attempting to steal cryptocurrency donations. It promoted a significant amount of spam, as well as at least six external links, all of which led to GitHub repositories asking for donations. All future edits must be discussed on the talk page, so the page must be protected.
38.25.15.67 (
talk)
03:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: The number of edits probably isn't enough to justify protection but given what's being added I believe that it's problematic enough to warrant protection - probably pending changes but I'd like a second opinion. Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
06:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
It's a tough call but I hate the idea of leaving the article wide open for future scammers and I am unable to monitor the article forever so I support indefinite pending changes (or two years if indefinite bends a rule somewhere, or long term semi-protection).
Johnuniq (
talk)
07:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Almost a textbook case for pending-changes protection, imho. 6 months for starters, and I have watchlisted. More eyes on the article might be helpful.
Lectonar (
talk)
09:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Question: Is there a need to use the newest poster? Is this laid down somewhere in the
Manual of Style? This is a disagreement, but not necessarily something which should be solved via page-protection.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Wikipedia:Communication is required. This is a content dispute with experienced editors using revert warring to enforce an opinion instead of discussing the change. The page is full-protected and I have removed the image, pending a discussion that I will start momentarily to determine which poster should be used. If the image is restored against consensus I will start using the block button instead.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
14:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: I request you to reduce protection on Varisu page so that general public users can easily contribute since users
Theoder2055 and
BangaloreNorth are spreading negativity about the film in the name of reviews based on personal hatred against Vijay eventhough the film reviews are mostly positive from critics and audience.
58.8.255.121 (
talk)
12:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because there are no vandalism on this page since and now have reliable sources on this subject. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
117.226.163.84 (
talk)
17:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected – Protection does tend to prevent unwanted activity, be it vandalism or advertisement. At any rate, this article has way too long a history of such disruption, not to mention sock-puppetry, for protection to be lifted. Should it be possible for someone to create a draft living up to Wikipedia's standards with regard to notability etc., it should be submitted through
Wikipedia:Articles for creation.
Favonian (
talk)
17:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Appeared to be a good-faith dispute, but given the user talk discussion IP appears to be unwilling to engage, and some IP-hopping is occurring. Vanamonde (
Talk)18:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: BLP issues; IPs and newly registered editors have been changing the forward's active team despite the lack of evidence that he has been signed by anyone other than Leeds. Suggest protecting until a reliable source reports that he has indeed been signed by Wigan or anyone else. –
Skywatcher68 (
talk)
20:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined –
Warn the user appropriately then report them to
AIV or
ANI if they continue. Bit of a stretch for the ARBCOM EC restriction; and in any case this is a single user, best handled by blocking if the behavior persists. Warn them, please; I see no evidence that any attempt has been made to communicate with them. Vanamonde (
Talk)18:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected – Please use an
edit request to request specific changes to be made to the protected page. The protection is a logged arbitration enforcement, not to be easily lifted. I notice that you have already been informed about these matters on your talk page.
Favonian (
talk)
17:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined This isn't vandalism: see
WP:NOTVAND. However, there may be issues with sourcing.
Marcelus, please warn the IP appropriately about needing to support their edits with reliable sources, report them to AIV if the behavior continues, and list the page here if it continues with multiple IPs. Vanamonde (
Talk)18:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: On 9 January 2023, user DawnSP removed entries of two new singles released under Zhang Zhehan's name, including their references to the official lyric videos and Apple Music, on the English, Chinese and Japanese versions of his Wikipedia page. The note user DawnSP has written for their edit said "controversial content(there's no proof that the two newly released singles were recorded by Zhang Zhehan)", is introducing a conspiracy theory suggesting songs released officially on music platforms under the artist name "Zhang Zhehan" are not by Zhang himself. Hence, this song removal edit is inappropriate to do on Wikipedia. I have since restored the entries of his new singles on the English version. Previously in 2022, there had been many single purpose accounts who edited Zhang's Wikipedia page, which prompted the page to be protected until 30 December 2022. Since the lifting of the protection on his page, it is evident that single purpose accounts are returning to remove new updates about Zhang. I hereby request protection of Zhang Zhehan's Wikipedia page to prevent future vandalism from occurring.
Durianpizza1991 (
talk)
00:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)reply
So, I'm not going to this. As a general rule, we want articles to be open for anyone to edit. We do restrict editing on articles when there is a lot a vandalism being done to them, or if so many bad edits are being made that we need to monitor them before they go live, but at least for now, this article is not having these problems. If you notice that problems pop up, just list it here again. I'm going to add an official declined notice so the archiving bot will remove this entry. Cheers.
XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done02:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined The overall proportion of edits that are vandalism seems low right now. I think the downsides of semi-protection would exceed the benefits right now.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
07:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Disruptive editing made by another user while correcting outdated brand page. This fast fashion brand is in the media lately and as media is quoting Wikipedia, the public is getting misled that the brand is still under
LVMH when they are in fact not. I tried to update information of the actual group they are under with references but it keeps getting removed. It is not known when LVMH dropped them, but the year the other group took over will be crucial information, which is why I am citing them in the references.
The other user seems to want to hide all that new information and just keep adding fluff like listing all the 37 countries the stores are located.
Requesting page to be protected. Thank you.
2404:E801:2003:2430:792C:F613:F2EE:9CFE (
talk)
09:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for raising page protection. I had hope it will not come to this. Charles and Keith is an independent company while Valiram Group is a retailer group selling Charles and Keith products (similar to it selling other products and brands). The phrase The brand is currently under Malaysia-based retail and lifestyle group Valiram Group indicates Charles and Keith is now another brand under their group while it is not. LVMH purchased a 20% stake and subsequently their stake is sold back to the company. This is actually a content dispute and slowly becoming disruptive editing by IP editor. Thanks.
Justanothersgwikieditor (
talk)
09:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I was the one who updated the LVMH reference. You can choose to paraphase if you are so offended by the particular statement. I am just pointing out they are no longer affiliated to LVMH as they have been portraying and in fact now under Valiram. That is the truth. Why are you hiding the facts that they also listed fast fashion, specializes in selling footwear? That is disruptive editing.
This is not the venue for content dispute. I had updated the buyback by the Wongs
here but you had insisted on adding Valiram Group which simply sells C&K products. C&K is not under Valiram Group's management, unless as the other editor had said
here that it is not owned by valiram. going by this logic, coach, michael kors, versace, victoria secret, bvlgari are also owned by valiram? which you agreed to
herelisting the group they are under is important and Noone is saying Valiram owns them, hence the word under but C&K is simply not under them at all. This is a case of
righting great wrongs but introducing the wrongs here.
Casting aspersions and outright lying is rather unacceptable here also. --
Justanothersgwikieditor (
talk)
10:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Disruptive editing / vandalism from a lot of IP editors based on the fact this NFL player is in the news. Lots of discussion regarding who he'll play for and if he'll be released.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
17:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: See talk page. An IP user, presumably the same person with a very narrow range of interests, has repeatedly added the prefix "Sir" before the subject's name, despite an explanation note saying this is not true, and an open invitation to discuss on the talk page. The user has been repeatedly active in recent days. There was pending changes before, but I've seen pages indefinitely protected for less sockpuppetry than this one.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
14:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Edit warring to add that she is transgender to the lead,
WP:BLP. Two IP blocks could also potentially be effective, this appears to be one editor adding the same content.
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk)
20:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Graham Hancock is not a pseudoscientific and does promote pseudoscientific. He is a journalist. Moderators with an agenda should not be able to label or stigmatize anyone and by by labeling a "pseudoscientific" is wrong. Graham Hancock is a British writer/journalist who writes and discusses theories involving ancient civilizations and lost lands.
204.141.132.10 (
talk)
19:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I always prefer that pages in my userspace not be semi'd, but if it reaches the point where it's a drain on anti-vandalism resources, I have no objection to a brief semi. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)20:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated addition of violent and sexual content to this article by IP editors. I have reported the most recent IP editor to ARV but similar text was added earlier in the month from a different IP, so also requesting page protection.
Tacyarg (
talk)
02:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. It looks like this was the featured daily article yesterday. The vandalism has subsided now that it's not the daily article.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
01:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Normally this wouldn't be enough activity to justify by itself but when considered in combination with the disruption on the other redirects it's justified. Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
07:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Edit-warring and disruptive edits from most likely one editor via a couple of different IPs. Warnings given on IP talk pages and through edit summaries already, but it continues.
R Prazeres (
talk)
09:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Linter errors on the user page, 1 obsolete font tag + 1 tidy font link bug. User talk page is currently full protected so I had to post the request here.
One replacement only; <font color="green">[[User talk:Graham87|87]]</font> --> [[User talk:Graham87|<span style="color:green;">87</span>]].
Sheep (
talk •
he/him)
00:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Would be incredibly helpful to have page protection on this page, largely due to the nature of the events which took place. This page occasionally attracts vandals (mostly IPs), so I think PP would be helpful here to let editors get on "with the important stuff"...!.
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk)
06:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Continual edit warring. There is a discussion on the talk page, but the protagonists seem to have given up on that and have, despite my efforts, continued to edit war. Full protection would force them to use the talk page.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
09:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Anonymous user(s) has been changing the track listing for this 14-year-old album without any provided sources. Googling their changes comes up with nothing.
Warned user a few days ago, but the edits continued.
Grk1011 (
talk)
14:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I need to upload a personal image to my page. Previously, my wikipedia profile had a picture of someone else. I was alerted to this mistake by several people. I requested Wikipedia to change it. I see now that the wrong picture has been removed. I would like to add my portrait to my page, but I have not been allowed to make this addition via the Edit Source -> Visual tab. Please help.
Maha A. Maamoun (
talk)
11:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia does not allow
deep linking to other websites; you need to upload it to Wikimedia Commons first under an appropriate content licence assuming you hold the copyright to the image. —
Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)
16:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: in 1962 Nelson Mandela arrives in Morocco and not algeria on his clandestine trip for military training and to get support for the armed struggle
196.119.34.200 (
talk)
15:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Talk page of an editor who has not edited since 2007 that has been vandalised multiple times today by an IP-hopping banned editor. --
Ferien (
talk)
20:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 48 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. by
Barkeep49. I would request no one ECP the page except as an absolute last resort, as I feel ECPs of admins' talk pages run counter to accountability (not meant as a criticism of all cases where they occur; sometimes it's the least bad option). Thank you. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)22:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: That's 7 reverts so far today, of edits accusing this referee of being biased in favour of one sports team. I'm not a football fan, but I'm guessing someone just lost a match!
DFlhb (
talk)
22:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Sockpuppetry. Long term problems with persistent sockpuppetry on this article by
Jellywings19 socks. Not much else constructive coming from IPs on this page, many are socks, or are causing disruption. Socking resumed within hours of last time protection expired.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
00:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Sockpuppetry. Long term problems with persistent sockpuppetry on this article by
Jellywings19 socks. Not much constructive coming from IPs on this page, many are socks, or are causing disruption.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
01:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – A plethora of IPs keep adding improperly sourced information about Barr's personal life sourced from social media, including depression and the end of a relationship. Its overly personal and not relevant. >>Lil-unique1(talk) —
23:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – There have been multiple disruptive edits in the past days to the article made by IP users, like removing big amount of content or adding various technical data to the article without providing any reliable sources for these changes.
BlackFlanker (
talk)
22:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent edit-warring; non-logged-in users keep removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced Lost Cause myths about Union war crimes.
Tulzscha (
talk)
12:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note:Kailash29792 The article has been semi-protected since Christmas. Are you requesting that we lower the protection to
pending changes? The high frequency of editing, which will only increase with a lowered level of protection, speaks against it.
Favonian (
talk)
10:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: this page has been actively monitored for over two years, with no signs of vandalism or rash article creation. I want to ask that this page gets decreased in page protection.
GenesisGSE (
talk)
09:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected – Clearly, you are referring to the article, which is create-protected, rather than the unprotected draft, so I've changed the request accordingly. Earlier today, you submitted the draft through AFC, where it was rejected. The draft was then deleted, following your own request. Now you want to create it in main space? Sorry, but that looks like an attempt pull a fast one.
Favonian (
talk)
10:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Semi was needed in 2015 for BLP issues created by a list of station personalities that became a magnet for grievances about pledge drives.
Special:Diff/861475968 removed this section in 2018, and semi is not necessary. The protecting admin, FreeRangeFrog, has not been active since August 2015.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
16:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I second this. Several new SPAs have appeared and are adding nonsense templates and legal threats (in Italian, for some reason) to the article as well as the talk page.
MrOllie (
talk)
19:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent attempts by an IP to promote this concept as a serious one, and to remove sourced content showing that it is widely regarded as pseudoscience.
GrindtXX (
talk)
21:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)reply
"High levels" is a bit of an exaggeration,
Words in the Wind. There has been one single actual attempt to vandalize the page today. The rest was caused by well-meaning editors who didn't actually undo the edit.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
22:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – A controversial subject. A number of instances of vandalism from IP users have had to be reverted over the past few days, as well as unsourced additions of content. -
GA Melbourne (
talk)
22:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Moderate level of IP vandalism - this person's job is under threat as it is, and if Chelsea do decide to pull the trigger (with Chelsea being Chelsea), there's a good chance vandalism will only increase?
PeachyBum07 (
talk)
06:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. As with many current events, disruption can't be avoided; on the other hand, many IP edits are constructive. The article is well watched to boot.
Lectonar (
talk)
09:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: I would like to request a decrease in page protection so that any editor can help make edits to this draft and so it can be moved if deemed necessary. This article was protected a long time ago enough time has passed for there to be no issues with IP edits or moves to the main space.
Declined The draft isn't protected, the article is. When the draft has been accepted after being submitted for review, the article can be unprotected.
Lectonar (
talk)
12:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Seems to be once again attracting silliness and throwaway accounts. Is PC a good way of getting the article a break from this, please?.
DBaK (
talk)
09:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – For the last one year, the page has been repeatedly disrupted by IP users who are replacing the sourced content with unsourced details. The pages like this one are targeted by dedicated
WP:SPAs who spend their whole day disrupting this project. So it needs a long-term semi-protection.
NitinMlk (
talk)
19:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because there has been no vandalism on
Damar Hamlin since unprotection. It seems 3 weeks was too long to protect in the first place, and given how the more notable figure was only protected once, see no reason for protection to continue here.
71.125.36.50 (
talk)
16:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected. The request makes no sense. Damar Hamlin and Tee Higgins are two different articles. There was significant disruptive activity from anonymous IP addresses just prior to protection. It has a week to go. If you want to change something, make an edit request on the talk page. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
20:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer because this protection is almost 2 years ago because persistent editing never happened in the last 2 years.
Solaris5296 (
talk)
17:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected. The duration of existing protection is irrelevant. The declined edit requests on the talk page suggest that protection is still needed. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
20:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected. The request has a false premise, as sockpuppets editing that article as recently as 8 months ago have been blocked. Semi protection prevents their new accounts from disrupting the article. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
20:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Unprotected This may be a mistake just based on the subject's last name, but it has been over 12 years on a BLP protection and the subject is now deceased. Protecting admin is no longer active, so I will test out unprotection. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
23:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Muboshgu: My first thought when I saw this article title was "that's a name that just begs for drive-by vandalism." We'll see how it goes. At the very least, it would likely be a good candidate for PCP. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
23:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
This was upgraded to semi-protection from
CRASHlock late last month. Also, "not many protections applied so far" only applies to the past few years. It was last protected in 2015 and put on indefinite CRASHlock at the same time (as that prot was temporary). —
Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)
21:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because it was protected for almost 3 quarters of a year, disruptive editing no longer active.
Solaris5296 (
talk)
17:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The protection applied here looks like a natural escalation - the last protection lasted 6 months and, clearly, issues cropped back up in short order. Note that
CRASHlock was attempted first and removed in favour of the six-month prot in 2021. —
Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)
21:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected. There is no reason to go against the normal escalation practice. We'll let it expire as scheduled, and then reprotect for a longer duration if disruption resumes. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
23:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The indef semi is an escalation from indef
CRASHlock, the implication being that CRASHlock was being overwhelmed. (CRASHlock does not work on pages seeing high volumes of edits.) —
Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)
21:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected. The escalation from PCP was applied only last month by
Materialscientist. Again, please examine the edit history and protection history before making these requests, and please try to trust that administrators know what they are doing and have good reasons to escalate to indef semi from PCP. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
23:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected. The duration of protection is irrelevant to the continued need to protect, and that need is highly evident on the talk page, which shows many declined edit requests that would have otherwise been disruptive edits to the article. However, move protection has been applied. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
20:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Weird, unexplainable recent IP vandalism: altering year of birth; removing a college team he played for from the infobox; changing the years in which he played for the other college team etc. Seems like one person using several IPs with a vendetta against this player. Asking for maybe a month's protection to deter future abuse?
SportsGuy789 (
talk)
18:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – The article is already salted under the title
Petzone, so this title should be salted too to prevent any further evasion of the protection. (Requesting here rather than doing it myself since I'm arguably involved.).
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
01:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
If an admin wants to unprotect the redirect to allow IPs to edit it again, I do not mind. The protection probably has not stopped any legitimate edits from happening in the last five years.
~ GB fan09:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Partofthemachine, please take a moment to explain which steps of thought led to this request. What happened; where is the reason? How did you notice this specific protection? Is there something you'd like to change while logged out?
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
12:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Occasionally I will go through logs of pages that were indefinitely protected many years ago, to see if they should be unprotected. In this case, I did not realize that said page was a redirect.
Partofthemachine (
talk)
17:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected. The reasoning given is speculative and asssumed incorrectly that the title was an article rather than a redirect. @
Partofthemachine: The duration that an article has been protected is irrelevant to whether it needs to remain protected. Duration should not be the sole reason to request downgrading protection. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
23:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Last round of protection expired Dec 24, since then, multiple IP edits and newly-created accounts attempting POV edits. All of them ignore talk page warnings and do no discussion.
Fred Zepelin (
talk)
17:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I have been monitoring the discussion on the talk page but haven't had anything to add. I stand by my request for protection.
–DMartin02:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because of very-long term vandalism no longer active for years. 3 years ago it was protected. 3 years is enough.
Solaris5296 (
talk)
17:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
JBW: You protected this in 2019. The phone is now obsolete, although because of that the only edits we'd be seeing from anonymous IP editors and unconfirmed accounts are likely to be disruptive. What do you think? ~
Anachronist (
talk)
23:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Regular attempts to make changes to the lead of the article which had been agreed upon by recent discussion. 10 reverts in the last month
Titus Gold (
talk)
23:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Looking only at the back and forth for the last 10 days, and the talk-page, my guess is that a precisely formulated RFC might be needed to form consensus.
Lectonar (
talk)
09:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Solaris5296: Yes, it is. Please examine the editing history and protection history before you make more requests like this. Besides the now-blocked disruptive editors, there have been disruptive IP address edits. Protection escalated naturally to indefinite. I'll leave it up to the protecting administrator
El C to decide if unprotection is warranted. I would say, not at this time. Because Windows 7 is not receiving updates anymore, there is likely no reason to make further substantive changes to the article, so the only edits likely to occur from unconfirmed accounts and anonymous IP addresses are vandal edits. There is nothing preventing these editors from proposing edits on the talk page. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
23:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected –
El C hasn't edited since New Year, so I'm calling it. The history of the article shows that we're better off keeping the protection in place.
Favonian (
talk)
10:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Edits made by the Tribal Government are being overwritten by external sources that aren't affiliated with the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
Sonnymattera (
talk)
16:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Editor using different IP addresses repeatedly making same OR edits:
2607:fea8:4f9f:9740:c145:8245:cff7:a0a3;
2607:fea8:4f9f:9740:4d88:fc83:c68f:7b6d
Similar series of different IP addresses were used to make same OR edits to main
Lost Girl article:
2607:fea8:4f9f:9740:b518:385b:f3f0:9d1e;
2607:fea8:4f9f:9740:58a:7363:7675:7783;
2607:fea8:4f9f:9740:c950:6949:4fdf:5357;
2605:8d80:680:6c1b:cd56:321a:db64:1687;
2607:fea8:4f9f:9740:4d68:5732:5e25:5094
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – continued disruption and vandalism after protection expired:
[17][18][19][20][21]. Has previously been protected 6 times in escalating increments up to the recent one for 3 months which expired in December 2021 and has been vandalized repeatedly since —
Shibbolethink(
♔♕)16:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I request a long semi protection (6 months/1 year/permanent), instead of PC protection. Almost all edits to this page by non-autoconfirmed users have been unhelpful. See history. It is spamming my watchlist and using volunteer time. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
20:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. One batch of BLP-violating edits reverted, otherwise low-traffic article, no pattern of recent disruption. Complex/Rational01:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: For reasons that are beyond me, this page is a constant target for disruption from IPs and unregistered users. Requesting longer-term protection.
Novemberjazz03:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Should this be protected against IP editors? I see an edit summary making reference to
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hong Kong geography warrior, and I suspect the large number of IP edits to this article, some of which are rather dubious, are from this person? I would have already added this protection, but I am editing the article as well and would like an opinion from someone uninvolved. Thanks! --
Beland (
talk)
07:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. As can be seen in the history, this article goes sometimes weeks with not being edited at all, so semi-protection would be overkill. Let's see how pending-changes does. I have watchlisted.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined@
Lauriswift911: last IP edit was about 5 days ago, and the talk-page of the user you keep reverting is still a redlink. So time to start talking, or go to an appropriate noticeboard.
Lectonar (
talk)
09:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: This tiny, 87x40 image (used on a whopping 16 pages) seems to have been indefinitely fully upload-protected in 2009. Presumably, it was used in some ubiquitous template, but this seems to no longer be the case, making the protection unnecessary (?). jp×g03:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Favonian: I would add that semi-protection could be an option. Many other targets have semi-protection. It appears autoconfirmed throwaways are not the problem they may have been and it may be interesting to test the waters. On the other hand, rather notably, this article should be considered a centrepiece of their activities. --
zzuuzz(talk)11:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. The article is pending-changes protected, which means that the disruptive edits don't go "live". Disruption is not heavy enough to warrant semi-protection.
Lectonar (
talk)
14:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism -- this has become such a large problem that some editors have questioned its legitimacy as a notable article. Requesting a stronger level of protection than before.
HackerKnownAs (
talk)
19:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because Dr. Joseph Muscat is no longer the Prime Minister of Malta and has now moved into the private sector.
Marfar2 (
talk)
21:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Unnecesary reverts keep being made by an IP user over an infobox change despite the fact that there is no set guidelines in place on how an image montage should look, and there were previous discussions about this on U.S. city articles like the one for
New York City. There is no reason for these reversions to keep being made. -
Evelyn Marie (
leave a message ·
contributions)
20:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Two accounts strongly suspected of sockpuppetry and
under investigation are edit warring and repeatedly adding and pushing the same content to the article despite a talk page discussion. Neither sockpuppets are extended confirmed, so make this protection to stop the disruptive editing and edit war. Their edits are 100% disruptive.
Paul Vaurie (
talk)
15:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – For the last six months, anons are adding an unsourced claim in this article and also in
Makhaya Ntini. I opened a discussion one year ago (see
here), but they aren't interested in discussion or even in citing any reliable source. So the article needs semi-protection to stop this disruption.
NitinMlk (
talk)
19:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent re-addition of disruptive edits by socks of Belteshazzar. See
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar and
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar/Archive. Each of these pages has been disruptively edited by multiple socks of Belteshazzar more than three times recently. Most of these pages are in the Wikipedia space and would not normally see much legitimate editing from the new and anonymous users who would be covered by the semi-protection. As always, protection may inconvenience some people but I think it is worth it if we can dissuade Belteshazzar from constantly reinstating their bad edits using new IP addresses. other affected editors can always use the Talk pages to request changes.
DanielRigal (
talk)
20:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The edits in question only fixed problems and added useful content. By contrast,
Daniel's revert restores borderline BLP violations, since some of that wording might make it sound like the authors of the letter are partly to blame for the disastrous repercussions. If that page is protected, it should be full protection, with that last revert undone.
103.103.3.6 (
talk)
20:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
That's another of their socks. This demonstrates their persistence, their astonishing brazenness and their complete lack of respect for Wikipedia.
DanielRigal (
talk)
20:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
It's been going on for a few years now sadly. After this user is blocked they always leave messages on their talk-page but not in a single one have they ever apologized, serious lack of self-reflection. They are using a vpn service but they will likely be back on accounts as well. I am watching many articles so I will easily identify their behavior.
Psychologist Guy (
talk)
21:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: This article receives a great deal of discussion. It would be helpful to the experienced editors who watch the article if accounts were confirmed before commenting. Please review the "A few points..." discussion. Thanks!.
Nemov (
talk)
18:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Agreed, especially considering the issues we’ve had with problematic unregistered IPs, most recently one who was both disruptive and vitriolic towards other users.
TheScrubby (
talk)
04:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. I think for now we're fine...2 days of calm after end of semi-protection, and then 3 disruptive edits today. I have watchlisted, and will up to semi if it becomes unmanageable.
Lectonar (
talk)
11:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Many users are changing his club when the transfer news has not been confirmed by a valid source, e.g. official website of either club. His year of birth and goals and appearances stats has been vandalised as well
Jeremy Hulber (
talk)
13:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. He seems to be changing clubs a lot; I saw in the logs that I already protected the page in 2016 :).
Lectonar (
talk)
13:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Because of a recent controversy, it has been vandalized by IP several time e.g. they added death of the person! 1/2 weeks of semi protection would be nice. Thanks.
আফতাবুজ্জামান (
talk)
13:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Return of vandalism/speculative editing after page protection expired. Couple of days should suffice, as he may have changed clubs by then
[22].
Joseph2302 (
talk)
16:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I also blocked one of the IP-hopping users as they've been adding unsourced content across many film articles.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
19:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Unprotected Article has been salted for nearly 15 years despite only being created twice (first time speedy deleted, second time AfD consensus to delete), no reason for ongoing protection at this point. This is probably a good example for why indef protection should be avoided in most cases. @
DecafPotato: Feel free to add a redirect. If someone replaces the article with a redirect, then it's probably worthwhile to take it to AfD to ensure consensus hasn't changed. Otherwise, I don't see any need to protect these redirects.
—ScottyWong— 20:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I was about to accept this request and set ECP for one month based on the high number of reversions by multiple editors. I think ECP might be a good idea for a bit.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
22:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Edit war imminent -- little attempt by @Binksternet to reach consensus before repeated deletions. Incorrect application of WP:BLPPRIVACY and inconsistent reasoning for subsequent re-deletion. ~
subtleachetalk03:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Increasing number of edits by unregistered users possibly due to imminent presidential election to be held before 14 September 2023
Bcmh (
talk)
06:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If it resumes after this protection I'd agree with going long-term or indef.
Ks0stm(
T•
C•
G•
E)11:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – One IP and a second range have been doing a number on this page with vandalism. The one IP was issued a 31-hour block, but another IP is doing the work from the second range. Something larger is needed.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
04:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Erdoğan said the elections might be early but there isn't an official announcement yet (and legally there can't be until late March), but IPs and new users take his speeches literally and edit the pages to reflect his speculations. I'm requesting a semi-protection until 20 March.
Betseg (
talk)
13:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined –
Pages are not protected preemptively. For all pages; I have looked at all the pages...nowhere has disruption risen to the level which would make semi-protection needed at this time. So please relist if disruption picks up. Note: If any other admin wants to protect, go right ahead.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Recent spate of disruptive IP interventions, at least one of which has been blocked as a proxy IP, on a contentious topics/sanctions page.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
15:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Both this and
Rick and Morty (season 6) have new users and IPs constantly adding a clone of a main character with the same voice actress to the main characters index, and it's getting really tiring constantly reverting them. I was told to do dispute resolution earlier, but these are new users or non-users who I don't trust know about the talk page.
Unnamed anon (
talk)
15:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent disruptive edits from a block-evading IP-hopper. Adding cast member(s) without citing published reliable source(s) to verify. Previous protection was for 1-week. —. Archer1234 (
t·
c)
16:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Excessive vandalism. Media attention reporting that Hipkins is going to be PM, many disruptive edits have been made and reverted as a result. It may be useful to protect until Tuesday, after the official confirmation.
Carolina2k22 •
(talk) •
(edits)00:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined Page was protected to prevent harassment by a logged-out user. It stands to reason that this IP is the same person. —C.Fred (
talk)
03:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, that's not the only reason. If it were just 1 user then I would've just let them get blocked. But I have been getting annoyed by a lot of IP trolls lately so I decided I should jsut protect it for a week. ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654503:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Ensure that it does not get vandalized, especially since it's about a Wikipedian, while allowing the user that the userbox is about and other users to help improve it. MasterMatt12💬 ●
Contributions04:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. These are persistent and have been going on for months on end. Other country Wikipedia articles, like Cyprus, Italy, etc. are permanently semi-protected. Is it possible to extend the same protection to the Malta article too? It's very frustrating to keep rolling back attacks for all this time.
Reason: Persistent and aggressive IP vandalism. Upwards of 16+ times. Reported already to AIV. I am a regular patroller and reverter of vandalism, so I get frequent heat from the IP vandals. Whatever the maximum allowed personal talk page protection is, I request that please. TY —Moops⋠
T⋡04:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: A user insists on boldly splitting
HomePod to
HomePod (1st generation) and
HomePod (2nd generation) (with a cut&paste move, in the former case), despite having repeatedly been reverted by me and two other users. Don't think this rises to the level of a sustained behavioral issue, so I'm merely requesting page protection, so both of the latter pagess can remain redirects until there is any consensus for a split. Cheers,
DFlhb (
talk)
01:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined This would need extended-confirmed protection which I don't believe is warranted in this instance as such this is should be dealt with as either a content-dispute or a conduct issue (edit warring and copy & paste move). Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
09:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Ensure that it does not get vandalized, especially since it's about a Wikipedian, while allowing the user that the userbox is about and other users to help improve it. MasterMatt12💬 ●
Contributions04:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Ensure that it does not get vandalized, especially since it's about a Wikipedian, while allowing the user that the userbox is about and other users to help improve it. MasterMatt12💬 ●
Contributions04:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IP #1 claims there's been no killing (which might put this in BLP re supposed victim and the two accused whose conviction was quashed) and accuses Wikipedia editors of falsehood and more. IP #2 seems to know IP #1, calls IP #1 by name, refers to IP#1's workplace, so now we have accusations of trolling, bullying, whatever.
NebY (
talk)
11:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I semi-protected for 3 days. Over 500 edits today, almost all from IPs. I see no hope of sorting out the edit warring. Let's see if thinghs are calmer after the protection ends in three days.
Donald Albury21:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Seems like we edit-conflicted on this, Anachronist. There are four blocked/locked accounts I see that edited the article on 20 and 21 January. The account names are similar, but they're not one single account.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
22:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not all of those articles have been vandalized recently, and the remaining ones have been vandalized once each since protection ended. I think this request is a bit premature.
Donald Albury21:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent IP vandalism/ deletion of cited content - at least 8 separate occasions in the last 3 days by at least 2 separate IP ranges.
BilCat (
talk)
22:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Google Doodle has driven a lot of traffic to this page. Including vandals of course. Issues with IPs and named accounts.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
01:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting semi-protection: In the last several days there seems to have been a lot of vandalism and addition of unsourced content, mostly from IPs and new users.
AP 499D25 (
talk)
05:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The page might seem to be already protected, but only the history has been merged. I agree with protecting the page as it's used in
MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-CT. I guess noone would complain if I did, but it can't hurt to let someone else perform the protection.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
23:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: There has been an edit war on this page going back to October 2022, in which the infobox has been changed and reverted at least a dozen times by multiple parties. The editors involved have not used the talk page. Requesting full protection until talk page consensus has been reached.
Bartzyx (
talk)
14:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP socks have been going into editing disputes on this article dating back to only 5 days ago. (I bet this is going to be rejected lol).
Poodle23 (
talk)
18:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP keeps removing content. Also person recently passed away so page is undergoing an extremely higher than normal amount of edits
RedPatch (
talk)
18:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Almost every edit to this page by a new user is vandalism. While the volume of vandalism isn't huge, the fact that 90% of the articles recent edits are vandalism by new and unregistered users and
subsequent reversions is tedious to deal with, and long-term semi-protection would be appreciated.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
00:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: There has been a recent dispute surrounding the topic, which is why there have been a lot of destructive edits made by IP addresses. Trying to remove well sourced content.
Gothamk (
talk)
18:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The annual vandalism and unhelpful editing of this article around January 26 has started. Requesting temporary full protection for one week.
Melcous (
talk)
21:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. We don't protect pages pre-emptively. Page is already under indefinite pending changes which restricts autoconfirmed editors. Zero disruption from extended confirmed folks. We reserve full protection for cases in which experienced editors are editing the page disruptively.
BusterD (
talk)
00:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined While the vandal who likes to target this article and its talk page with such sleepers has been quite active lately, all those socks have been indeffed and there has been no such editing to the page since it was semi'ed 16 hours ago.
Daniel Case (
talk)
03:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Topic is associated with the contentious topics of critical race theory and postcolonialism. Talk page indicates the page may have been flagged as "personal opinion" based on the agendas of editors rather than any factual basis.
24.188.161.176 (
talk)
04:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Supported - for what that's worth. I came here requesting semi-protection, but see that Ckfasdf has already logged a request. --
Merbabu (
talk)
08:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This BLP is attracting an increasing amount of IP vandalism due to the subject standing in an election this weekend. Decided to send it here as I'm marginally involved (have worked a bit on the article). –
filelakeshoe (
t /
c)
🐱11:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Persistent unexplained changes and edit warring by Indonesia based LTA editor using numerous different IP's making blocks ineffective.
TylerBurden (
talk)
12:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Recently requested protection here, and more test edits and vandalism has ensued since. Being one of the most high profile football players in the world makes this article extremely vulnerable to disruption.
TylerBurden (
talk)
10:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: A bot (User: JJMC89 bot) removed the approved new logo update request leading to inaccurate information on the page. If the protection is not granted, please guide me on how to protect the page from further misleading edits. Thank you. Regards,
Techsap25 (
talk)
07:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
But today again the same bot @
JJMC89 bot has removed the approved logo although the logo has a suitable non-free use rationale, please see
/info/en/?search=File:Blackbox_logo.png Could you please guide me with some other Wikipedia guidelines or processes that will help in protecting the right information if the page protection is not possible in this case. Thank you again. Regards,
Techsap25 (
talk)
14:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Techsap25: I believe the issue was that the uploader,
EchidnaLives, added the non-free use rationale template with a bare URL for the article, rather than just the article name, which broke the template. Therefore, JJMC89 bot could not tell that the image was properly tagged, because it wasn't. I think I have fixed the issue.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
18:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Hello, I inserted a valid, referenced and related quote into a suitable section of this article (see my initial edit:
1), however user Marcelus keep removing it without providing a valid justification (
1,
2).
In my talk page he claimed that it should be removed because "I don't really see how this separate qoute enriches article" (
1), "We don't really need" (
2 - by the way, he wrote it himself alone, so it should have been "I don't need"), "In my opinion, the section "Political views" comprehensively describes the issue."(
3), but these are not valid justifications and is only his own opinion which is not supported by any Wikipedia's rules. Basically, he was writing different justifications again and again.
Marcelus also claims that the quote should be completely removed because in the Mackevičius' article it is written that "Šenavičienė claims that the account faithfully reflects the thoughts of Mackevičius himself, more than his testimonies written after his imprisonment, facing the death penalty" (the reference is not accessible online, so it is not even possible to check if it is really written like that in the reference). But that's not a valid justification to remove a quote either because it does not say that his post-imprisonment letters are not reliable and should not be described. Another user Cukrakalnis also noted (see:
1) that Marcelus' actions of censoring this quote are not valid according to Wikipedia's rules, but Marcelus ignores this.
The quote he keep removing is an excerpt from a letter which Mackevičius wrote when imprisoned saying that "The Lithuanian nation is hardworking, honest, religious, so it is worth my life. I am waiting freedom of my people as it was retribution...". Another referenced sentence in the article also say that "Mackevičius' main goal is the rebirth of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth"", but it does not deny the fact that he fought for the
Lithuanian nation (in his own words - his people).
Consequently, please take actions against Marcelus' provoking of revert warring in this article. We don't need to continue this and the quote must stay as it does not violate any Wikipedia's rules.
By the way, there is a case at administrators noticeboard (see:
HERE) which claim that Marcelus' actions are disruptive as he was calling a notable Lithuanian scientist and minister of education
Zigmas Zinkevičius as "chauvinistic pig" (see Marcelus' edits here:
1,
2). Such personal attacks against a famous Lithuanian should not be tolerated in Wikipedia. But it seems the disruption is spreading into another article - Antanas Mackevičius. Please stop this. --
Pofka (
talk)
18:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Ivanvector: So we accept removal of content and the one whose content get removed should seek for third opinion (two users support that it should stay)? I think that user who want to remove other user added referenced content should seek for others support to remove it. --
Pofka (
talk)
19:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Pofka I really hoped that after
the ban was lifted,
less than a month ago, you came back as a changed man. Meanwhile, you are back to your old practices. On your talk page, I wrote exactly why a quote introduced in such a way violates the
WP:QUOTE rules. But you simply ignored it, in addition you wrote untruthfully that the only reason I removed the quote is my own unjustified, personal preference.
In short:
you put the quote in the form of a motto, not in the body of the article.
the source is uncertain, AM's testimony was given in Polish and Russian, your quote comes from a random website in Lithuanian
researchers who are quoted in the text claim that AM's testimony does not reflect his intentions honestly, because it was given on death row, etc. Quoting him directly, without such context, suggests otherwise
the quote you chose is not even representative of what is contained in AM's testimony, since he gives various motivations that are partially mutually exclusive
Temporary semi-protection request Repeated introduction into the lead by IP of accusations that the BLP is a genocide denier based on a flimsy source + BLP's own (Serbian) Facebook page (accusation is already included as an accusation in the body). IP has been warned by me on their talk page but does not engage on article talk.
Pincrete (
talk)
18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined - multiple sources considered reliable for sporting news indicate that the trade is a done deal. I don't see why we need to wait for an official announcement, and you are edit warring.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
19:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Vandalism appears to be sporadic, with several good faith edits by new users and IPs mixed in. I'd recommend reporting these accounts to
WP:AIV when they pop up.
Isabelle Belato🏳🌈21:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason:Temporary semi-protection: Even for this page, there is currently unusually high actiivity, mainly from IP users, of adding unsourced numbers, specifically targeting India (vs. China) and the UN world total in the lede.
T*U (
talk)
21:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason:Temporary semi-protection The series Velma has been removed from the page twice now by the same IP user despite it being in the franchise, and it seems like this will continue so long as the first season is airing due to public backlash.
JayleyMq (
talk)
00:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: 1. Removing my text from an article that should be in an article.
2. The use of other states as their own, in particular the Mamluk Sultanate, the Golden Horde, which have nothing to do with the Kazakh people, Kazakhstan.
3. Rewriting history of Kazakhstan.
4. There are no sources for this article.
Lauriswift911 (
talk)
00:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – The article seems to have a steady stream of disruption, with most edits in the past few months being vandalism or reversion of vandalism.
TornadoLGS (
talk)
03:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism from fans (6 in last month I believe). Infrequently edited, and today I removed some vandalism which had been left for a long time. Previously protected, pending changes would be ideal.
2A02:C7C:AE91:2B00:3186:9C74:3E11:DBB5 (
talk)
04:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Edit history reveals lots of confusing edits that keep inserting the fake name "Ambatukam" in to the article. Ambatukam is not a real name but a meme which is phonetically similar to "Batu Khan". I believe this page will be very popular with vandals for years to come if not extended confirmed locked. NSFW:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ambatukamHunan201p (
talk)
10:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandal/someone with a grudge has this page in their sights. Was previously protected for a week and vandal returned as soon as protection dropped. Can we get a month, please?.
BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!15:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: 1. Removing my text from an article that should be in an article.
2. The use of other states as their own, in particular the Mamluk Sultanate, the Golden Horde, which have nothing to do with the Kazakh people, Kazakhstan.
3. Rewriting history of Kazakhstan.
4. There are no sources for this article.
Lauriswift911 (
talk)
00:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)(Moved from
WP:RFPP/E)reply
Reason: High level of vandalism by IP editor, that IP range that IP editor used is already blocked on other article due to disruptive editing.
Ckfasdf (
talk)
12:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined - there is a difference between citing an anonymous source, and citing a reliable publication which is referring to unnamed sources. Protection won't be necessary if you stop revert warring.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
02:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined - some of the IP editors seem to be making valid points about presentation of sources, which protection would stifle. I've blocked some of the more aggressive IP ranges, and if that's not good enough I'll happily expand them; I've watchlisted the page. In future you can report incidents like this to
WP:ANI for a faster response, or even
WP:EMERGENCY if you are threatened.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
02:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: The article is still seeing daily new user disruptive editing despite being semi-protected. Again, requesting extended confirmed protection and a block of the disruptive users.
HackerKnownAs (
talk)
17:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page was salted in 2009 because of promotional article creation about a musician unrelated to the rapper
Future. It should be unprotected and made a redirect to that page.
Partofthemachine (
talk)
00:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: In consistency with the pages for
Chris Hipkins and
Jacinda Ardern, I feel this new page should be protected. I think it's highly likely there will be some hateful IP vandalism towards Ardern on the page at some point in the future. I'm not an expert on protection policy but I do feel I should insist on precaution to prevent misogynistic rants and headaches for editors who have to tidy them up.
Aubernas (
talk)
03:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Indefinite semi-protection; currently pending-changes protected but vandalism has been occurring in the past two days, plus Australia Day is tomorrow and a controversial subject in modern Australia, so I'm being bold an requesting indefinite protection.
Thiscouldbeauser (
talk)
10:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Disruption. Again. Fuck. I don't care if the semi-protection is indefinite or temporary. This shit just needs to stop. This should have been protected years ago. And now there's a second reason these IPs are disrupting too.
As before, there is the same stupid shit of IPs and new users constantly adding a clone of a main character and a car to the main character box such as
here today and
earlier this month refusing to go to the fucking talk page.
I am so sick of this. These people refuse to go to the fucking talk page and ignore the clearly written hidden note, in fact removing it in most cases. I am so fucking tired of this. I know I keep saying this, but I really fucking am. They need to be forced onto the fucking talk page if they refuse to read a hidden note.
However, there is also the case that at least in this first disruptive edit, as well as
another edit here, and a
third one here, I can already predict that people will be adding that Justin Roiland is no longer part of the show. There is now more than enough disruption to protect this page.
Unnamed anon (
talk)
06:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I know this comment I’m replying to is automated, but a new, vastly more serious reason for IPs and new users to cause disruption just recently came up today, on top of the previous egregious disruption that also had been added today.
Unnamed anon (
talk)
06:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Username: Kuru is displaying Vandalism; deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. We are restoring the article back to the successful edit but keep having issues with this user for sabotage attempts on getting this submission approved. Could we please option for protection on this page so their deliberate deletion of edits won't harm the submission? Thank you for your time.
Devydevdev09 (
talk)
13:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Rather than educate, and acknowledge that a mistake was made, you opt to protect a page with bad information on it. I have followed ALL of the protocols that have been communicated to me. I have affiliated. I have updated the username. I have posted the need for update on the Talk page. All I have received from
MrOllie is punitive and accusatory behavior. This is unacceptable in a community where I am simply trying to update citable facts. This has gotten out of hand.
ChrisKatBSC (
talk)
20:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Disruptive edits from numerous accounts and IPs recommenced on the same day that the previous protection expired (2022-12-11). Requesting page protection because this article appears to be a target for vandals.
Kbseah (
talk)
18:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Article is being plagued with vandalism, unsourced claims and widespread disinformation. It appears as though Anthony Gordon is currently trending through news outlets.
Ashleyknowsthings (
talk)
21:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The mainspace target being salted has no bearing on whether or not a draft will get reviewed. In fact, if it had passed muster, the reviewer would be the one filing this request, not you. —
Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)
18:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
In the second paragraph, I suggest editors remove Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and provide a better example to demonstrate the "AI effect." OCR is *not* a good example. The 4th citation references content published in 1991. AI has a HUGE influence on the development and adoption of OCR technology. OCR companies like Transkribus market themselves as a place where "AI meets historical documents."
FnordY2K (
talk)
04:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Replace [clarification needed] in introductory paragraph with:
Any formulas known are no more computationally efficient than testing numbers with brute force, by individually checking divisibility by smaller primes.
134.114.223.245 (
talk)
04:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note that the reporting editor Progrock70s is a disruptive editor and his genre warring is the root cause for the problem on that page; his behavior previously led to full protection on another page
[26]. He uses shortcuts such
WP:GENREWAR etc. because he saw them in comments directed at him (see the history of warnings in talk history). He is feuding with a supposedly Brazilian IP editor, but also with the usual watchers of Thin Lizzy pages. —
Alalch E.19:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not done As Favonian noted, Progrock70s has been blocked for three days. As Progrock70s was reverting against everyone, that should stop the edit warring and need for protection. I will continue to monitor for a while. --
Hammersoft (
talk)
20:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
"The film marks the first Pixar film solely directed by a woman." to "The film marks the second Pixar film solely directed by a woman.", as the first was Bao.
Or maybe they meant "The film marks the first full-length Pixar film solely directed by a woman."?
StolenStatue (
talk)
02:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)reply
To clarify, the passage being objected to is On November 12, 2021, Stella Meghie was announced as writer and director, making her the first African-American director to helm a Walt Disney Animation Studios project. (There are other uses of "African(-)American" in the article that are used in different contexts.) —
Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)
02:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not done. See the instructions at the top. There has been no edit request on the talk page. Discussions concerning article content should take place there. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
04:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Persistent disruptive editing by IP. IP User keeps deleting sources wording, and keeps attacking other users. User was warned more than 4 times, yet keeps the same spamming.
Fragrant Peony (
talk)
22:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, because the Disruptive IP got blocked at that time, but has then kept the same disruptive editing behaviour which and changing sources wording, after being unblocked. The page needs to be under moderation.
Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Fragrant Peony, I have locked the article because this is a content dispute, with you on one side and both the IP and
Binksternet on the other side. The IP has started a thread on the talk page. That's where you need to work this out.
MelanieN (
talk)
23:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
As a matter of fact; Dalida's official short film and documentary done by
Paris Match and featuring her own brother is called: Dalida l’Egyptienne : les premières années.
[27]
The Wiki article of Dalida has a template stating: { This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. Please clean it up to conform to a higher standard of quality, and to make it neutral in tone. (September 2021) }
Many Western fans have been constantly and systematically deleting her Egyptian link, even though her own family members massively document it as a huge part of her identity, till the point that she made a song calling Egypt her homeland.
I tried to make the article as neutral as possible, and not so Western-biased, and indeed supported by sources.
The Egyptian-born Franco-Italian singer Dalida is renowned worldwide for her top-selling musical records. But in Egypt, she was a national symbol. Before emerging on the French stage, Dalida made her debut in Egyptian cinema. In 1986, Dalida returned to her birthplace to reflect on her past and star in the film The Sixth Day by Youssef Chahine. In this talk, we will follow Dalida’s journey from Egypt to France and back again to make her last film.[28]
With all due respect, you kept the biased edits, even though I am the one who brought many sources and an official documentary created by her own family members. Thank you.
Fragrant Peony (
talk)
00:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your note,
Fragrant Peony, but this is not the place for such explanations. That needs to be done on the article talk page, where you and the others can hopefully reach agreement/consensus. The protection gives you two days to do that. --
MelanieN (
talk)
01:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The protecting admin doesn't and isn't expected, actually not even allowed, to make a decicsion regarding content, see
this; the full protection is implemented to prevent disruption/edit-warring. Consensus has to be found on the talk-page of the protected article.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Communications person for FuboTV (Wikijen7 and EncyclopediaEditor0, which are the same person — Jennifer Press) has made several edits without disclosure, in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies.
TheMediaHistorian (
talk)
06:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined This really shouldn't be solved via page-protection; COI editing is strongly discouraged, but not explicitly forbidden. Direct the COI editors to the pertaining talk-page(s) please, see
WP:COIEDIT. If they edit disruptively, they can be warned off and be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I think consideration should be given to indefinite semi-protection. Looking at the past three months on this talk page, it appears that every edit by an unregistered user has been unproductive and has been deleted. Many of them needed to be revdel'ed as well. I will propose this at the page.
MelanieN (
talk)
15:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High levels of vandalism. Anonymous users continue to keep editing and posting incorrect Royal Rumble stats which does not reflect a true account for new users looking for information.
Kylo47 (
talk)
09:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – If you look over the page history, it seems like every week or two for basically forever (while the page was unprotected) an IP will come and try to edit the article to present the joke theory as if it were a real theory, presumably because it's funnier presented that way. IMO, having been protected 3 times already and it still happening, it probably needs an indef semi protection.
Endwise (
talk)
10:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
What do you mean by "reports like this"? Is it that protection is only considered when the repeated disruptive editing is recent? —
Kodiologist (
t)
16:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page continues to be edited by anonymous sources with incorrect information around the Royal Rumble stats, such as the ‘Total Eliminations’ records for men competitors section. I have put the correct info back to normal after numerous battles with anonymous users.
Kylo47 (
talk)
13:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated sabotage regarding personnel dispute at the university. Edits made only from unregistered accounts, e.g., IPs 146.241.104.4 and 81.235.168.26.
Propagandaman (
talk)
20:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP editor repeatedly adding an external link to a badly written journal article, probably a predatory publisher, probably the author of the article is the IP editor.
Apocheir (
talk)
21:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Multiple attempts by IP and newly-created users at reverting information provided by reliable sources and moving the article name without discussion or consensus. Possible
WP:Sock activity as well.
WMrapids (
talk)
17:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I'll leave this for
Daniel Case to decide, but in looking at the history it appears to me that most of the reverted edits and the move are coming from an auto-confirmed user, so that semi-protection would not help. I suggest you pursue the sock angle. --
MelanieN (
talk)
16:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
An SPI
has been opened and closed, with no action against the user causing all the disruption. Do we want EC or, perhaps, a partial block from this page for some long term? If it is the former I would like to see a formal request per policy as this is not to be done casually.
Daniel Case (
talk)
04:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: IPs adding club moves based on rumours, no official reports. 2 different IPs changed to two different teams in past few hours
RedPatch (
talk)
02:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended-confirmed protection: To prevent IP vandalism. Since it's my onw user page, I hope it will not be a problem to grant me extended-confirmed protection (indefinite, both edit and move). —
Akshadev (
talk)
03:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Two IP vandals today alone. WP:Weather has a well-known sock master who hops IP addresses vandalizing and causing problems on weather-related articles. Not sure if it is them, but vandalism seems to be the game on this article today.
Elijahandskip (
talk)
05:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Paginated the page history w/ 500 entries, still not a single edit that hasn't been reverted/revdel'ed, and they all seem fairly "recent." —
DVRTed (
Talk)
14:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Please protect for 12 hours; some ill-advised maestro de espanol in the U.S. is having students read Wikipedia articles and vandalism is the inevitable, foreseeable result. Julietdeltalima(talk)15:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Ever since the Disney World attraction closed on January 23, multiple IP editors have been trying to change the page. However, there are three attractions with the same name, but only one closed. Please take a look at the edit history, you will see lots of edit-sparring going on. A lot of drive-by IP changes need to be undone. It is getting out of hand.
—JlACEer (
talk)
16:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page is continuously edited by IPs to remove well-sourced material by editors affiliated with Crush Music management company. See talk page and edit history over the last year.
parqs (
talk)
17:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism, multiple editors trying to include the same thing about Iranian mythology without reliable sources.
Yoshi24517ChatOnline19:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Consistent vandalism and disruptive editing due to controversial topic and current news cycle, temporary protection may allow productive discussion about merges and the topic to be undertaken instead of the mess that keeps occuring with IPs and new accounts. ✯✬✩
InterestGather (
talk)
02:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Edit warring involving autoconfirmed accounts. Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced info to a BLP article. Admins, please review editor conduct to see if any further action is needed.
TornadoLGS (
talk)
05:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeatedly vandalized by IP edits. If approved, this would be the eighth time that the talk page has been protected, with the last time being on January 6th. Since the last protection, 19 edits have been made to the talk page. 10 of them are edits that had to be reverted and the remaining 9 edits were the reverting edits. Given that "Tag: Revert" and "Tags: Revert" appear a combined 230 times in the last 500 edits with an assumed ~230 additional edits made to undo those edits, I am requesting a month or more of temporary protection. --
Super Goku V (
talk)
05:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. For some reason, this talk page has been a strange attractor of vandalism. Having previously been semi-protected for a week and a month, a 3-month period is warranted.
Fuzheado |
Talk06:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing from IP editors who are not respecting Wikipedia consensus on an artist's nationality. Ss11208:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Would appreciate a mix of temporary semi-protection and 6 months pending changes being applied to the page to help fend off the recent spate of vandalism that has unfortunately accompanied the abrupt exponential rise in traffic to the page in the wake of the firm's damning revelations regarding stock market manipulation by a controversial Indian tycoon.
MBlaze Lightning (
talk)
09:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Question: Is there enough problematic activity to make a blanket conclusion about curtailing IP editing? Seems that there has been substantial contribution by anons, and 6 months is a long time for any kind of remedy.
Fuzheado |
Talk13:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your concerns,
Fuzheado. Yes, anons have actively contributed to the page in the past 48 hours, some clearly in a constructive manner, but a disproportionate number of them have also indulged in crass vandalism. What has concerned me is that the page seem to be short on watchers to be able to fend off the same in real time, and this has lead to unenviable situations with readers stumbling across mala fide content and then taking to Twitter to highlight the same. To illustrate: edits
likethese stood for hours before I detected and reversed them. Heck, the latest edit, a couple hours ago, was an
anon making unexplained change to the number in infobox, which remained intact despite the very telling edit summary. The firm's revelations have had a ripple effect on the Indian stock market, which is likely to continue when they open again after weekend. A temporary semi-protection will thus help deal with immediate vandalism, while a PC will bring more eyes to the article, while also concurrently allowing constructive anonymous IP contributions. If 6 months is excessive, how about giving it a trial run for a month? Regards,
MBlaze Lightning (
talk)
21:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Even though it was explained and well sourced in the talk page, people continue to do the wrong edits. Short summary: The film M3GAN is counted as a 2022 release globally per Box Office Mojo and The Numbers, but had its American cinema release in 2023.
Vestigium Leonis (
talk)
11:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Question: I can believe that this is an immediate need given the issue. However, since this is a popular article and could benefit from editors, what is the proposed protection period?
Fuzheado |
Talk13:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I would probably go for a 1 month semi-protection. It should be sufficient to cool this "back and forth" off. I think that BOM and The Numbers as sources are clear enough, but maybe there is a clarification needed on the talk page on how to treat releases that are split in 2 years due to for example releases in different countries in the last week of 2022 and first week of 2023.
Vestigium Leonis (
talk)
14:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
King john didn't voluntarily agree to magna carta, the barons put him under duress and because of this the vatican (pope) doesn't recognize the legitimacy of magna carta.
185.111.131.198 (
talk)
13:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: It is not the official information and it contains spoilers. The film is currently in its theatrical run and we want to remove the incorrect information.
Sakshimalik21 (
talk)
09:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected – The article already gets periodic "visits" from auto-confirmed sockpuppets. Combining this with the frequent IP disruption on the talk page, I must conclude that unprotecting the article is not a good idea.
Favonian (
talk)
18:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Favonian: damn, I only see this discussion now. I noticed the page in the WP namespace and didn't realise it was there because the target was protected... I have listed the article to AfD... --
Luktalk13:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Long-standing consensus is that only league (and/or state league in Brazil) appearances and goals are included in the infobox. Persistent adding of all career statistics by IP users.
Davidlofgren1996 (
talk)
15:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: There has been an ongoing IP edit war about basic facts with no sourcing or explanations from anyone (on topics such as cost of the project, opening date, height, etc.). I’m not sure what the motivation is, but there is a lot that cannot be confirmed.
Hydra88 (
talk)
20:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continuous blanking of content by IPs, to promote
WP:FRINGE (see conspiracy section). Unlikely to abate anytime soon as can be seen by the page's history, a mid-term protection is needed.
Gotitbro (
talk)
21:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page is being heavily targeted by IP socks of the long term vandal
Belteshazzar who is dominating the Talk page and making sensible discussion among other editors all but impossible.
DanielRigal (
talk)
23:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I am trying to invite participation but, while the vandal stomps all over the place, other people are not likely to feel welcome to contribute. It may well be that the lack of participation reflects a view that other editors are happy with the content as it is and that no change is needed but we need to allow for that discussion to happen if anybody (other than the vandal) wants to have it. Given the level of disruption being caused, I feel that locking anonymous editors out for a period is the lesser evil here.
DanielRigal (
talk)
23:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
After the "vandal" edited the article somewhat extensively, no change was made for over a month, until a mass reversion of everything that account had done occurred on December 12.
[31]. So that could be interpreted as other editors being happy with the revisions that had been made. In fact, had anyone else edited that article in that time, Bbb23's mass reversions likely wouldn't have touched that article.
79.27.179.171 (
talk)
00:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Belteshazzar, we see you changing your IP after each and every edit. This page is not yet another venue for you to try to defend your indefensible behaviour. Go away. If that article needs editing then Wikipedians in good standing will edit it. All you are doing is making that harder for them.
DanielRigal (
talk)
00:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
It would be easy for any Wikipedian to greatly improve that article, as they would only have to undo your revert. They might improve it even further, but that is definitely the place to start.
151.32.114.255 (
talk)
00:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
This is exactly the relentless, utterly shameless, IP hopping disruption that I am talking about. This clearly shows why the semi-protection I am requesting is needed.
DanielRigal (
talk)
00:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not done This appears to be an ongoing edit war since 2012 over whether or not the cause of death was childbirth. Sources therein indicate the IP is correct, and other editors disagree. But this is definitely not an issue for page protection.
— Maile (
talk)
17:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Some outright racist commentary being used to harass veteran Wikipedia users as well. I quote: "...it will remain, so leave the information alongside it, rabid persian nationalist"[32] -
LouisAragon (
talk)
13:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Continuous edit warring since August. IPs and registered editors keep parroting fringe POV which contradicts sources, but never heed instructions to start discussion and reach consensus at article talk page.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
16:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Additional comments: I have
removed a table containing contentious, poorly sourced material which had become, essentially, a sneaky way of reproducing the conflicting and disputed content from
this long-AfD'ed article. I have encouraged editors to participate at the
article talk page in the hopes that consensus can be reached, rather than reinstate the table, thereby resulting in more edit-warring.
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
18:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There have been maybe three such edits in the last two days. I don't think protection is warranted at this point.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Would appreciate a mix of temporary semi-protection and 6 months pending changes being applied to the page to help fend off the recent spate of vandalism that has unfortunately accompanied the abrupt exponential rise in traffic to the page in the wake of the firm's damning revelations regarding stock market manipulation by a controversial Indian tycoon.
MBlaze Lightning (
talk)
09:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Question: Is there enough problematic activity to make a blanket conclusion about curtailing IP editing? Seems that there has been substantial contribution by anons, and 6 months is a long time for any kind of remedy.
Fuzheado |
Talk13:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your concerns,
Fuzheado. Yes, anons have actively contributed to the page in the past 48 hours, some clearly in a constructive manner, but a disproportionate number of them have also indulged in crass vandalism. What has concerned me is that the page seem to be short on watchers to be able to fend off the same in real time, and this has lead to unenviable situations with readers stumbling across mala fide content and then taking to Twitter to highlight the same. To illustrate: edits
likethese stuck around for hours before I detected and reversed them. Heck, the latest edit, a couple hours ago, was an
anon making unexplained change to the number in infobox, which remained intact despite the very telling edit summary. The firm's revelations have had a ripple effect on the Indian stock market, which is likely to continue when they open again after weekend. A temporary semi-protection will thus help deal with immediate vandalism, while a PC will bring more eyes to the article, while also concurrently allowing constructive anonymous IP contributions. If 6 months is excessive, how about giving it a trial run for a month? Regards,
MBlaze Lightning (
talk)
21:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi
Daniel Case, anon vandalism has been recurring with unenviable regularity on this
highly trafficked page in consequence of the continuing effects of Hindenburg's report. So all this hemming and hawing strikes me as bit perplexing. Of greater concern is that the vandalism is sticking around for hours before being expunged. I proffer you semi the page for a few days and apply PC for a month.
MBlaze Lightning (
talk)
06:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This will give the registered editors time (more than enough, I think) to clean up the page and stabilize it. Let me know when you feel you've done that and then we can talk about going to indefinite PC.
Daniel Case (
talk)
06:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP-hopping user keeps adding who they personally think should be "The Greatest Indian" even though the official poll didn't include these people.
Bennv123 (
talk)
08:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IP range from Malaysia continously changing the count for acts awarded a first-place trophy from 3 to 4 in the lead when Chart history section shows, there were only 3 acts (Ateez, NewJeans, Monsta X) awarded the first-place trophy. — 🍊
Paper9oll 🍊 (
🔔 •
📝)08:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Dear, Wikipedia there are people who are trying to manipulate and claim the residency of murcanyo Town and they have been changing the information for the past weeks which is wrong and inappropriate please protect the page and never allow the manipulaters to change the information of murcanyo and its history Thank you.
Bursaalax122 (
talk)
09:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please read the protection policy linked everywhere on this page. Only three IP contributions in the last three weeks. We reserve indefinite protection to articles where lesser regimes have been tried and failed.
BusterD (
talk)
03:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Disruptive editing: Due to a widely publicized recent disputed fringe study, people are constantly editing the article to claim horses were present in America before the Spanish. The talk page consensus appears to be that this is fringe content, or at least the claims that this is fringe have gone unanswered and no responses whatsoever have been made in support of this study, while several reasons to ignore it, including a published expert opinion, have been posted. Recommend that the article be protected temporarily since this claim is making the rounds in various internet fora and leading to these unproductive unilateral edits. Things should fully quiet down in a few weeks/months once people move on.
☲Fireyair☲ (
talk)
11:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Persistent Vandalism. Talk page of a blocked editor being repeatedly vandalised by ISP/vandal accounts. No need for it to be editable.
Lard Almighty (
talk)
20:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: As much fun as reverting the vandalism on this page is, due to all the viewership of the game there's been a crazy amount of it since he's taken over as QB Gatemansgc (
TɅ̊LK)
21:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Please read the protection policy linked many places on this page. No IP edits since October. Nobody besides yourself has edited this page since December.
BusterD (
talk)
03:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Change the duration of the
WP:ECP to indefinite; there could be vandalism once the current protection, set for expiry on Feb 25 2023 (see log), expires, since it's a controversial topic nowadays.
RapMonstaXY (
talk)
07:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The article has been featured in a viral post by Twitter account "Depths of Wikipedia" and has been the subject of an edit war primarily regarding the picture of a toast with eyes. Suggest temporary full protection for some days.
Bedivere (
talk)
13:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – Ongoing and apparently relentless introduction of point of view and unsourced materials on the theme of criminality.
CT55555(
talk)
20:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't see any reason to apply indefinite ECP to this page at this time. None of these accounts are autoconfirmed (though one is close), so let's progress as we normally do. Katietalk02:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Hello, due to disruption in this article in the past (mass-removal of content) it was highly edit-protected. However, user Marcelus still recently tried to himself removal a large part of a well-referenced and extensive section in this article (see:
1,
2). His actions were opposed by user Cukrakalnis (
1,
2), but user Marcelus again tried to remove the content himself (see:
1). Then a third party user GizzyCatBella intervened and also reverted Marcelus' removal (see:
1) and said that it should be discussed first.
Consequently, a RFC was started (see:
Coat of arms of Lithuania#RfC: content of the section on Belarus) to solve the dispute between users with different opinions and to reach a
WP:CONS what should be done with the disputed section. The RFC is still not over (closed) yet and there is no clear WP:CONS what should be done, so no changes should be made to the disputed content.
However, another user Piotrus left his comment at RFC and tried to remove the section nearly entirely as well (see:
1).
I myself restored the content to a version which was at the start of the RFC so that anyone interested could leave their opinions at RFC (it is impossible to understand the purpose of RFC with content removed) and said that if there will not be any WP:CONS when this RFC is over (closed) then we will use other Wikipedia's procedures to solve this dispute at
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests (see my edits and explanations with pinging of the related users:
1,
2).
However, user Marcelus ignores my and other users good will suggestions to solve this dispute according to Wikipedia's procedures and continues to himself (without any WP:CONS at RFC) remove the content from the disputed section (
1,
2). So he do not follow Wikipedia's procedures for dispute resolution and clearly do not seek for a WP:CONS and aggressively provokes conflicts with other users (
WP:ICANTHEARYOU).
Moreover, Marcelus also openly expressed his personal opinion why this content describing Polish Army's atrocities against Lithuanians and Belarusians should be removed by such words: "badmouthing of Poland (...) Basically, the whole Belarusian part should be rewritten" (
1) or "the article is suppose to be about history of coat of arms, not an excuse to spread anti-Polish propaganda" (
2) and it raises further concerns about his aggressive actions which possibly violate the
WP:NPOV and
WP:NOTCENSORED.
Since "The contentious topics procedure applies to this page" (see this article's talk page template), urgent protection actions are required to this article and I believe that
WP:TOPICBAN should be considered for user Marcelus because he (unlike Piotrus) do not listen to other users good will requests, explanations and want to do everything as he prefers himself (this clearly is not
WP:COLLABORATE). We certainly do not need revert warring, but he is actively provoking it by ignoring RFC, so intervention by administrators is required because he ignores warnings by other users.
For a context: there also is a case at the administrators noticeboard already about Marcelus' actions in another Lithuania-related article (see:
HERE) where he ignored other users requests, explanations (similar behavior in a Lithuanian topic). --
Pofka (
talk)
20:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Another Pofka attempt to ban me from the topic where he wants to push his own narrative.
Currently, the section duplicates the content of the entry
1st Belarusian Regiment (which did not exist when the RfC was created), and is also simply off-topic, since the section should primarily describe the use of a CoA similar to the CoA of Lithuania in Belarus, but in the meantime half describes the history of the institution of the Lithuanian state, since the regiment was part of the Lithuanian army. In addition, it describes in bizarre detail the alleged (because based on a single memoir) maltreatment of Lithuanian and Belarusian symbols by the Polish military.
@
Pofka it is accepted custom to inform the user on whom the report is made, but I see that in your attempt to remove me from Wikipedia you are forgetting all the rules.
Marcelus (
talk)
21:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Disruptive editing resumed after unprotection a few days ago, including egregious BLP violations (
diff), borderline (
diff,
diff) and blatant (
diff) vandalism, and generally subpar edits bordering on disruption (
diff,
diff,
diff,
diff). The article has been protected and unprotected twice now; it would probably benefit from a more extended period of protection.
Throast{{ping}} me! (
talk |
contribs)
00:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – There is currenty a slowburning edit war going on with the contents of the infobox, The IP continues to restore a more trivial version without any explanations. —
TAnthonyTalk00:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. There has been continuous vandalism in this page for a couple of days now. I would like to request for this page to be protected to lessen it.
Loibird90 (
talk)
01:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – AAA video game title that was released recently and has received mixed reviews. Article has seen a lot of unconstructive edits and occasional vandalism. A temporary semi edit protection should be sufficient, for when things cool down.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK06:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: IP editor repeatedly making edits over the last couple of weeks and refuses to take to discussion or give a reason. Request temporary IP block.
Erp (
talk)
07:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Misinformation about hallacas being tamales, they're not, I removed the wrong information and added the right one, but some people may try to change it soon.
DemonioEkani (
talk)
08:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There have been maybe 20 edits, mostly constructively intended from what I can see, to this article in the last two months. Just not high-volume enough to worry. And we do not protect articles because we think people might edit disruptively.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – For reasons that elude me, anonymous editors keep wanting to put Djokovic first at 22 Grand Slams, even though Nadal did it earlier and we list them chronologically. –
CWenger (
^ •
@)
15:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply