Question:@
MNWiki845: I don't see any obviously disruptive edits from IPs within the past 48 hours, can you be more specific and provide diffs? I don't see anything overwhelming enough to warrant page protection.
Aoidh (
talk)
10:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Edit-warring by IP - on both this article and T-64, they have been reverted by 4 separate editors, but continue to reinstate their preferred version against consensus.
Loafiewa (
talk)
14:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Multiple drive-by unsourced/likely incorrect changes to cast listing by IPs and new accounts, possibly socks of 'SuperSharanya'. Film is planned to be released in January 2024. Would be helpful to get semi-protection through that month. — Archer1234 (
t·
c)
19:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring by editor refusing to get consensus on the talk page for disputed content (they're currently at 3RR). There's also been blanket restoring of
WP:RSP listed problem sources as part of this.
KoA (
talk)
19:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)reply
That was my initial thought too, though the escalation at the page has gotten pretty bad with the RSP-related sources and ignoring the talk page going on. If problems are going to continue, it'd probably be apparent within the next 12 hours, so it would be helpful for folks to keep an eye out. Just a 24-48 hour protection with that AfD is going on could help settle down the reverting too.
KoA (
talk)
22:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely.
Logged AE action. I nearly always decline preemptive protection requests, but I am granting this one and setting its duration not to expire (which does not mean infinite, however). Noting, though, that this is the first preemptive protection I've made in 2023, after having made none in 2022, and only one in 2021 (
Jill Biden from none to indef semi upon Joe Biden assuming the presidency).
El_C04:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring –
Magnolia677 (
talk·contribs) has immediately returned to his/her behaviour of deleting content once the protection expired - despite efforts to address his/her concerns. Reported at 3RR but protection would stop this tendentious behaviour.
10mmsocket (
talk)
22:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)reply
This looks like an instance where
WP:Boomerang should be applied. It completely misrepresents what is going on in the article. Magnolia667's inquiry about the use of unreliable sources in the article at RSN was validated, not rejected. There is nothing improper about removing unsourced text - that's how BRD is supposed to work. Edit warring to restore unsourced and unreliably sourced text without any effort to discuss it - which is what 10mmsocket has repeatedly done on this article, on the other hand, is a sanctionable problem.
Banks Irk (
talk)
23:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Not done. OPWarned.
10mmsocket, you cannot insist on including unsourced content, even with {{cn}} attached, once its verifiability had been objected to. The
WP:BURDEN, indeed, is on you.
El_C03:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. High levels of recent
WP:POV pushing by IP editors and editors with very low edit counts.
Top5a (
talk)
17:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The vandalism keeps persisting from IP users who do not engage elsewhere on Wikipedia. They (perhaps even the same actual person) edit the page from a random IP, and then disappear. This is why I requested semi-protection, as there is no way in which to engage on these users. The Talk page is a clear no
Wikipedia:Consensus, and these IP users keep engaging in
Wikipedia:POVPUSH, when the article is about as balanced as it can be (utilizing all the sources). Over half the sources clearly use the term that is in dispute.
Top5a (
talk)
20:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing by various IPs and newly registered users that continued the moment the page protection expired.
Turaids (
talk)
08:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: As the owners of the business that this page is about, Polarr, Inc, we want to be able to freely edit the page with significant company updates.
Indefenite extended confirmed protection: So no-one can edit it except users that want to add elements (autoconfirmed can edit, not autoconfirmed need to place an edit request on the talk page).
Diiinall (
talk)
09:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: I would like to request to protect this page from editing and would like to be a administrator for this page as I created this on behalf of Masjid Rahmaniya. Sahe Alam 12:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – For some reason, this talk page has been a consistent target of disruptive editing by the most random IPs. I know talk pages are rarely protected, but so far this entire year there hasn't been a single discussion, only reverts.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK18:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
This is a highly biased and partisan synopsis based in ideology at the expense of actual empirical data. It’s abhorrent, and false and wikipedia should be ashamed of protecting such hateful falsities on its platform. I request that the protections be removed immediately.
No, it doesn't; the source specifically states "among the teams with no geographic interleague rivals", which contradicts the claim the IP editor is trying to make. O.N.R.(talk)10:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent disruptive editing by IP hoppers. This is getting out of hand. Look at the edit histories. Won't anyone do something this time? Also pinging @
Sammi Brie:.
Mvcg66b3r (
talk)
20:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. This talk page has been consistently vandalized, including people occasionally mistaking it for an interface to a chatbot.
PopoDameron
talk19:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Yes, there has been some vandalism, but not a lot, and we are usually reluctant to protect talk pages unless they are really out of control.
MelanieN (
talk)
01:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: No ongoing reason to protect. The page and article were protected by
User:SlimVirgin in May 2010 when the subject was alive, due to unsourced article changes. The talk page had no significant activity at the time.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
22:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: No ongoing reason to protect. The article and its talk page were protected (as a redirect) in November 2016 before the film was announced.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
00:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Ongoing use of talk page as a forum by IP editors to "report" facebook impersonation scams despite clear notices not to. Could we try protecting the talk page against IPs (ie Semi-protection) and see if that reduces the misusage of this page as a forum?.
Zinnober9 (
talk)
07:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: No ongoing reason to protect. This page was protected indefinitely in March 2009 by
User:Prioryman when it was apparently a battleground for
Project Chanology. Unprotection of both the article and the talk page was discussed in April 2010, and the last apparent oversight action was in 2011.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
21:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: No ongoing reason to protect. The page and article were protected in January 2011 after oversight actions on both. Since then the talk page has seen no activity.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
22:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism. Not only is someone (on multiple ips and one account) keeps adding unsubstantiated claims of the subject's cause of death, but their "sources" predate her death.
$chnauzer14:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Highly contentious topic (also designated as such by ArbCom), In started the article 20 minutes ago, and we already had three non-constructive and zero constructive IP edits (all from different IPs).
Ymblanter (
talk)
17:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Done, it went out of hand and I applied extended confirmed protection. Feel free to amend if you think it is appropriate.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
17:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Long term edit war. Couple of editors trying to implement a major change without any consensus. Long term edit war that started with this edit -
1 .
Razer(
talk)
18:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: No ongoing reason to protect. All were protected by
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise in August 2010 due to persistent vandalism, and that admin's user talk page is also semi-protected. These don't seem like the kind of topics that would attract ongoing disruption.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
17:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected – They may not seem like the kind of topics that would attract ongoing disruption, but they were favorite targets of an LTA, who is still around.
Favonian (
talk)
17:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Not entirely sure why but it seems a vandal adding G5 tags to this page has come back. While the vandal is blocked, it seems for some reason this page is a target for speedy deletion tagging vandalism as it's happened twice in a week.
TartarTorte15:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: An IP editor has been edit-warring to restore dubious and unreliably-sourced claims, despite being reverted by several experienced editors. The IP changes periodically, so blocking alone doesn't work.
A. Parrot (
talk)
23:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: To determine whether protection remains necessary. This page was protected in January 2012 after a BLP oversight action. Since then there has been little talk page activity.
User:Jclemens is no longer an admin.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
00:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Article has been indefinitely semi-protected for almost 12 years, with no previous protection history outside of the 2010 pending changes trial. Protecting admin is no longer active.
Conifer (
talk)
00:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: The vandalism that prompted this protection is no longer active. TPs should not be protected for years without a good reason. Laser brain is no longer an admin. (
t ·
c) buidhe04:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Under Arts and entertainment, someone keeps adding "Good drawing," which has no basis to be on this dab
AugustusAudax (
talk)
22:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Agreed. No article under this title, or a reasonable permutation of it, seems to exist. (This is also something that we wouldn't have an article on in the first place, I feel, for being redundant with articles on regions.) —
Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)
21:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: LTA by IP from Italy, began in October 2022, had two protections so far, they are active on other tower pages.
GreenC18:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: I do not believe Marjorie Taylor Greene should be listed as a "Far Right Radicalism" She was a respected Congresswoman and if "radical" means supporting a past President, then the verbiage used against her is wrong. I wish to add some Conservative, positive, text to her page. Many Conservatives, 75%, view her as only a prominent voice for our U.S. Constitution. The current case against President Trump has seen many prominent lawyers and even guests on CNN saying the case is too political. Marjorie has fought hard against issues such as this. I hope you allow me to add some rebuttal arguments to the characterization of her actions. I have donated to Wikipedia many times. I use your site often. I am politically independent. I do not pick sides. I believe both parties have done some good. But I also believe both parties have done some wrong. Thank you for considering my request. Michael Belecky
HanSulu (
talk)
03:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: A new user that registered yesterday keeps on making disruptive edits in the plot section of the article. Probably going to need temporary semi-protection for this.
Edwordo13 (
talk)
17:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Either "Pending changes protection" or "Semi-protection" to prevent reverts from IP. The pages has already been through a discussion for delete and kept and the page is now just being reverted rather than good faith edits from IPs.
K.Nevelsteen (
talk)
08:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – This is one of many alternative titles for this same subject, some of the others are already protected but this apparently is still open. Please protect it now, thanks.
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
09:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Materialscientist: I see you semi-protected the Peter Joseph article in Jan 2012 as indef. I was not an admin in that year. I did the same to the talk page in March 2017. Do you have a recommendation of what we should do here? The same above IP has made numerous requests for reduction in protection over at
WP:RFUP— Maile (
talk)
23:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, because talk pages shouldn't stay protected indefinitely without cause. No agenda beyond that. The date that I originally gave is intended and correct.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
00:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I've added a note to your requests at Current requests for reduction in protection level. It makes sense to have all these addressed at one time, perhaps as a group.
— Maile (
talk)
00:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Respectfully, I believe Talk:Peter Joseph is your call based on your recollection of the circumstances. That's why I came to you in accordance with the instructions on RFUP.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
00:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I prefer it be dealt with here, since 2017 was too long to remember why it happened. Whoever resolves the rest of the listings for you, can also deal with this one. You can either accept that, or not, but I defer to admins here.
— Maile (
talk)
01:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: No ongoing reason to protect. The page was protected in November 2016 due to "persistent sock puppetry" although I personally don't see evidence of either, just two oversight actions more than a year apart.
User:Mike V is no longer an admin.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
04:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Requesting unprotection to create redirect for finale episode of
Star Trek: Picard (season 3), titled "The Last Generation"; as this article doesn't exist (and is unrelated to the deletions ten years ago), it doesn't need disambiguation. --
Alex_21TALK05:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Unprotected Ged hasn't edited in six weeks, and this is pretty straightforward given the rationale and that it would eb totally unrelated to the old page.
Courcelles (
talk)
12:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Mediaset Italia S.p.A. (VAT number: IT10900040964), founded in 2019 to spin off the Italian operations of Mediaset S.p.A. in view of the MediaForEurope project, is the subsidiary of MFE - MediaForEurope N.V. which deals with radio and television services (and not only) in Italy, through
RTI S.p.A.Telco4 (
talk)
16:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: To determine whether protection remains necessary. This page was protected in April 2016 when an arbitration ruling imposed a general ban on edits from new users. That is no longer the case, and IP vandalism on the page appears not to have been unmanageable except for a few days before the protection. Protecting admin
User:Ian.thomson is on break.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
15:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Maybe I'm mistaken about the terms of the current arbitration ruling, but some of the main articles related to the conflict (e.g. the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" article itself) do not have their talk pages protected.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
18:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
That is because enforcement via protection is intended to only be done once those pages become problem spots, primarily for logistical reasons. Also, prots under PIA 500/30 can't be unilaterally overturned here; you need to register an account, get auto-confirmed, and request at
WP:ARCA. —
Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)
21:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. Since like 2 months, an IP has been pushing to include a piece content which says HT is publishing pro-Russian propaganda. Except the sources cited (some of them just random rating websites), I couldn't find any other RS discussing on it. The article was protected earlier due to this exact reason. I would ask for another a bit longer duration protection —
DaxServer (
t ·
m ·
c)
21:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: An IP editor is repeatedly inserting a section titled "Proposal of creating a National Judiciary School for the selection of judges". There is consensus of the Talk page that the section doesn't belong in this article. Four different named editors, including me, have reverted this edit, but the IP editor keeps re-reverting.
Misha Wolf (
talk)
23:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Longer-term full protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – There appear to be a raft of
WP:COI editors (see talk) and for the most part
WP:SPA editors including several socks of
Janvez (
talk·contribs) using this article as a
WP:COATRACK to attack this academic. This appears to be an academic feud among Canadian agriculture academics spanning several years.
Indefinite protection: Persistent vandalism and LTA abuse yet again. Page has been targeted for egregious vandalism for a long time despite multiple protections. See page's protection history.
Quiet and Reserved (
talk)
01:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Since protection expired, a number of questionable edits have been made against established consensus on the talk page. Recommend six months of either ECP or SEMI. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c01:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Protection was just to stop a user from copying an external link in 2015 and not necessary now. Also, I would like to create the article.
PalauanReich (
talk)
17:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Do you have a draft that could be put there? I imagine one would improve the likelihood the page is unprotected. —
Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)
17:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request indefinite semi-protection. This article is about a pre-Islamic goddess worshiped in Arabia and the Levant. It is regularly vandalized to remove statements to the effect that she was a goddess, or worshiped in Arabia, or regarded as the wife or daughter of Allah, or other facts that are taken to be incompatible with Islam. Most of the edits are made by IP editors or inexperienced users with little or no history of editing other articles, or constructive edits anywhere. A majority of the edits made to this article for several years have been disruptive, and reverted. Pending-changes protection might be an alternative, but would probably not discourage attempted vandalism. In any event, this is a long-term situation, and unlikely to be resolved by temporary protection.
P Aculeius (
talk)
03:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Disruption isn't heavy enough for semi-protection. Pending-changes is actually rather effective at preventing vandalism, as the version doesn't go "live" with the edit, but is reviewed.
Lectonar (
talk)
10:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: A lot of unregistered accounts are involved in disrupting the article and adding unsourced material to the article. I request for a semi protection lock.
User:MNWiki845 (
talk)
08:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite protection: Persistent vandalism and LTA abuse yet again. Page has been targeted for egregious vandalism for a long time despite multiple protections. See page's protection history.
Quiet and Reserved (
talk)
01:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Repeated removal of referenced information by IP user(s), with edit summaries being rants about Chinese agents. Hopefully a pause will calm things down.
Robminchin (
talk)
13:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated vandalism - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and he is not yet sat at the Stamford Bridge desk with the hierarchy, but people keep changing his page. A week or a month lock would be my suggestion.
PeachyBum07 (
talk)
14:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: This might be pre-mature, but requesting an indefinite semi protection for this page. The reason being is that I am suspecting there will be a lot of unsourced changes by IPs by changing Earth-616 to 199999 all because of a throwaway Easter egg line in the latest Across The Spiderverse trailer. I think it’d save a lot of effort and wean off the fanboys trying to make their own canon stick. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs)
07:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Very few, if any, edits by those who are not autoconfirmed have been constructive ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654513:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The talk page's purpose isn't just to be a dumping ground for unconstructive non-autoconfirmed comments. I'm not suggesting indef, but protection is clearly needed here to attempt to stop the
WP:NOTAFORUM-esque comments. ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654515:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Like you said, "semi-regular". In a talk page edited so minimally since it was created that its edit history does not yet take up a full page, disruptive edits, while making up the vast majority, occur roughly a month apart, which does not appear to be anything the editors on the page can't handle.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continuing unsourced changes in vehicle size and removal of references by IP. This article was recently protected for the same types of edits.
Bahooka (
talk)
16:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I was just about to make the same request. Thanks for beating me to it. The fact that vandalism resumed the moment the protection was lifted suggests that this should receive long-term protection to me.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (
talk)
17:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent vandalism by IPs or new accounts who are apparently still salty about the outcome of a sporting event that happened over a year ago (see
here,
here,
here,
here,
here, and
here). Suggest giving it pending changes protection for a couple of years.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (
talk)
18:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Disruption frequency is too spaced apart for even pending-changes protection, in my opinion.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
00:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. For now. Two editors in the last 24 hours, but before that, disruption was on 1 April. Before that, 17 March. Please request again if frequency increases.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
00:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason:Semi-protection. IPs (probably one person, but multiple addresses) keep edit warring against multiple other editors, and are failing to take the dispute to the talk page. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
20:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: (semi protection) An anon IP editor keeps on adding hoax information on this article (about a supposed weekend edition of this newscast). This newscast only airs on weekends. -
WayKurat (
talk)
03:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason:Temporary semi-protect This article has been subject to edit warring for weeks from anon IPs (potentially they are the same person to avoid detection).
LibStar (
talk)
06:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request for *increase* in protection level, from Pending Changes, to semi-protected. Persistent disruptive edits from IP addresses, primarily on topics that have been settled multiple times on talk page and by common sense. Most come down to uncritically accepting church claims when they should not be. See talk page discussion for more details; when I requested consensus to request this change, I received no objections.
Trevdna (
talk)
02:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Disruption hasn't reached the point where semi-protection would be necessary.
Lectonar (
talk)
06:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Once again requesting page protection for this. The many months-long vandalism has persisted despite the user and their many sockpuppets being blocked. If this page is protected for some time (6 months, or even 1 year) it will remove the possibility for that to occur again, any time soon.
Yeehaw45 (
talk)
04:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Similar consistent vandalism as the
Where We Started page has received. It has been ongoing for months despite numerous blocks. Semi-protection for a lengthy period of time would likely be effective.
Yeehaw45 (
talk)
04:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
On January 31, 2023, Sonoma State University Academic Advisor and Researcher, published the first ever ChatGPT full-length Science Fiction Novel, ‘WHEN AN IDF GOES TO MARS. Storyline about the Adventures of several Human Astronauts and their A.I. Android who travels to Mars in Script Format. ISBN-10: 1365295648.
Vegapost (
talk)
13:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)reply
There is a persistent level of no
Wikipedia:Consensus, and the persistent levels of vandalism are being done by IP users, who do not engage in Talk pages or anywhere else on Wikipedia. They are one-shot users that vandalize the page then disappear.
Top5a (
talk)
20:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of a nonfree image by new users and IPs right after the old protection expired. Might take another week or two for them to forget about this.
PopoDameron
talk09:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Sockpuppetry from new accounts; seems to be a concerted effort to whitewash a subject. Disruption has amplified since last declined request. — Czello10:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Article has been protected for 12 years. I think it might be time to try experimental unprotecting to see if the pre 2010-vandalism is over.
47.227.95.73 (
talk)
10:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. My last request for temporary protection of the talk page was declined with the reasoning of it defeating the purpose of the talk page. However the talk page's purpose isn't to be a dumping ground of unconstructive comments from non-autoconfirmed users, which is all that has been going on recently (the most recent revision that was actually adding something meaning to the talk page was
here) ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The bar is pretty high for protecting talk pages, but I think this is above the bar. Let's see if another 2 week break will cause them to lose interest.
—ScottyWong— 18:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Please semi for 21 days. An IP-hopping vandal has changed the lede to refer to rigatoni as "a creamy tomato sauce" twice in a week, to the point of affecting/offending at least one new user (please see the talk page), and 3 weeks ought to give the vandal time to find a new hobby. Thanks. Julietdeltalima(talk)15:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Edits since the last protection I imposed expired do not appear to have been too disruptive.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent vandalism (disruptive reverts with the stated aim of removing verified information) by IP editors dating back to January 2022. A request for increased page protection was made on 28 March 2023, resulting in bans to some IP accounts. Vandalism has since reoccurred by new IP addresses (I'm assuming the same individual on each occasion).
Narkova (
talk)
10:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Can someone please semi this for a couple days to force a new editor to the talk?. Or p-bloc them from the article for a couple days, they're at 9 edits right now.
Valereee (
talk)
15:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Really, things have been under control since yesterday. And asking for indefinite ECP for a page never previously protected, even given that it comes under two contentious topics, is a bit of a tall order.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: It is significantly POV towards the topic, it is a controversial topic, it is prone to brigading and TIGERing, and should be protected to some extent to allow NPOV form and maintenance.
Keith D. Tyler¶18:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined Not only is this request CRYSTAL, if you'd look at the talk page you'd see that, as the central page in
a decade-old ArbCom case, it is already under
contentious topic restrictions, including 1RR and enforced BRD. If further protection is felt to be necessary, it really would be better discussed at Arbitration Enforcement.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes protection: Persistent Vandalism. There are more vandalism related edits on this page that nonvandlism related edits.
Starship 24 (
talk)
21:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Little to no good content is ever added by non confirmed users and lots of bad. I still have pending changes, not semi-protection. But the vandlism vs. good edits ratio is far over 1 @
KinuStarship 24 (
talk)
21:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
As Kinu said, there is not enough recent activity to justify protection. Protecting an article who's last edit was made last year is unnecessary. If further, more recent disruption occurs, request protection again.
47.227.95.73 (
talk)
21:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Tragic topic, claims by trolls it is a hoax (
[8]) repeated insertions of denialism into article text. Always by IPs. Please protect both article and talk page
Elinruby (
talk)
22:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. They seem to come in spurts every few weeks or so. If there's nothing in this fortnight of pending-changes, I don't see the point in continuing.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
02:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: These three pages have Tidy font errors and other
WP:lint within, and their other talkpage archives are not protected and not experiencing any issues. I'd like access to address these lint errors as I've done for multiple other pages recently. These pages were selfprotected by the user, and the user has been largely inactive since 2006 (they made a four comments in 2019 and 2020 to specific users on their talk pages, but have otherwise been gone). I don't feel a need to contact them due to this absence, and due to Fastily's July 2011
comment"Long gone user. Protection no longer necessary" when removing page protection to Katefan0's current talk page. I will ask on Katefan0's talk page if needed procedurally, but I'm not expecting to get a response if I were to do so.
Zinnober9 (
talk)
01:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Please note that I've merged all of the requests into one to prevent clogging up this page further. Declined all of them, given that the last activity was 22 hours ago. If it restarts, please request again.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
02:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing by an anonymous user. The IP user has been warned about disruptively editing other articles as well, and they keep doing it. They also keep saving changes, before making more edits to the page when it'd just be easier to use the edit preview. I recommend at least a week of protection.
TheVHSArtist (
talk)
01:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – This article is being edited heavily as part of an education project and the less-than-skilled student editor is making unhelpful edits from several IPs. Semi protection would at least force them to use the one account where they will see talk page messages/warnings.
Toddst1 (
talk)
21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. And yes, pages are definetely protected for sockpuppetry (just have a look at the protection log to find them).
Lectonar (
talk)
06:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not done Wrong venue; based on the request below, this appears to be a request to protect a title at the Hindi Wikipedia. Kinut/c06:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Same content fixating on Chinese involvement with company being added repeatedly by multiple IP's, with accusations made towards editors reverting them of working for the Swedish government.
TylerBurden (
talk)
00:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Same situation on this article as on
Volvo, edit warring to claim that Volvo Cars is Chinese using multiple IP's.
TylerBurden (
talk)
00:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I don't think we're quite at the level of requiring protection yet. Maybe drop a note on the talk page of why your version of the lead is an improvement, then if IPs change it, we can block or protect then.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
True, but if it is a page that only needs to be maintained by a bot, there is no reason for IP addresses to edit the page, so we are just opening up a page that doesn't need IP edits to potential vandals.
47.227.95.73 (
talk)
21:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected – The risk of IPs/newbies messing up the page, accidentally or deliberately, outweighs the ideological benefits of unprotection.
Favonian (
talk)
10:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of vandalism beginning today, either with removal of content from "Personal life" section or "changes" to career history of Zech without providing sources.
Historyday01 (
talk)
15:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – A quick perusal of the page's history shows that almost all edits to this page since the start of 2023 have been vandalism or reversions. Not especially frequent (generally a few times a week), but IMO the problem is widespread to justify protection. It'd probably be best to protect for quite a while, since
the meme doesn't show any signs of slowing down. —
SamX [
talk·contribs· he/him]
05:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined@
ImChessFan21: You are flooding this noticeboard with frivolous reports. No one has edited this article since March 28. Do not file any more reports here until you learn the proper standards for requesting protection.
Bbb23 (
talk)
15:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – BLP getting PROMO and uncited personal information from IP/mobile address.
CT55555(
talk)
17:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended protection: Arbitration Enforcement. Multiple non-extended-confirmed users editing an article that is subject to restrictions.
Nythar (
💬-🍀)
03:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: This is a new article on a rather obscure topic, but it has been subjected to persistent IP vandalism almost since it was first created.
Kevmin§18:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Several IPs are edit-warring in the lead over the language to use to summarize the published reviews by critics. A topic was opened on the talk page to facilitate a discussion leading (hopefully) to consensus, but none of the edit-warring IPs are participating. — Archer1234 (
t·
c)
13:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: A significant portion of the edits to this page are in the form of unconstructive vandalism, or reverting vandalism. The useful edits are mainly by registered users. Hence I believe it would benefit from semi-protection.
Praemonitus (
talk)
18:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Given the persistence and subsequent block evasion, this seems like a good idea, even though it's not the version that the disruptive editor who made the request wanted. --Kinut/c20:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP user keep adding information that is not fully confirmed yet. No matter how many warnings i put in the edit summary. Dates, times and cities for the match are confirmed as the tournament goes.
Guilherme (
talk)
13:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Multiple IPs continue to insert unsourced "future" projects in the filmography table contrary to
WP:FILMOGRAPHY, which calls for only adding them when filming has begun as verified by a reliable source. — Archer1234 (
t·
c)
13:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Multiple IPs edit-warring to add unsourced "future" film projects contrary to
WP:FILMOGRAPHY, which says not to add future projects until filming has begun as verified by a reliable source. — Archer1234 (
t·
c)
15:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. Semi-protection wouldn't help, as at least one of editors wanting to add
Tamils is auto-confirmed. Furthermore, some editors refer to a "consensus", but I can't find any recent discussion on the (horribly long and in need of archiving) talk page.
Favonian (
talk)
20:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Persistent disruption including BLP violations as well as vandalism, chronic issue with the article.
TylerBurden (
talk)
22:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Given recent events, this article has become a target for vandalism and probably will remain so for a short time.
Bneu2013 (
talk)
23:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Topics of legitimate interest, no ongoing reason to protect. All three were protected in September 2018 by AmandaNP acting as an oversighter. She hasn't responded to my inquiry, nor did she respond to
one from another user in October 2021. Of the three, only the World Bank is protected on the article side.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
00:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I will note that the only one that has (apparent) suppressed edits seems to be IMF, and given the
sortsofthings that warrant suppression I think the major question with that article is whether or not the situation has evolved over the past four and a half years that unprotection can be tried. Key word there is "apparent" - the logs on the other two pages indicates there are also revdel'd edits there, but there's flat out no indication those edits were ever made, more consistent with the older form of suppression I'm familiar with. —
Jéské Courianov^_^vSource assessment notes00:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined. I'm not comfortable overriding an Action taken as an oversighter, intended to be indef—that sort of wording implies that this should only be lifted by someone who can see what exactly is going on here. Feel free to email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org if you'd like other oversighters to take a look at this.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
00:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Previously semi-protected due to consistent removal of sourced content. As soon as the article was unprotected, the same removal commenced again along with a legal threat. ser!(
chat to me -
see my edits)22:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Edit warring over whether or not to include content despite editors being asked to use the talk page and gain consensus for their changes. Requesting full protection for a month. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c07:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree that this page needs to be fully locked, regardless of the length. Since the editors discussing their concerns have now started directly contradicting every single claim made like the similar ends of two magnets, the discussion likely won't be resulting in any consensus. —
Nythar (
💬-🍀)
07:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. @
Locke Cole: noted the suggestion re a month's protection but am hoping the policy discussion won't take quite that long. Can always be extended if necessary. --
Euryalus (
talk)
09:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Thanks for reporting this, and the history of past vandalism is noted. However there's only one disruptive edit this month, which probably doesn't justify protection at this stage. Let's see how it goes. --
Euryalus (
talk)
09:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Considering recent high-profile events in this state, this article has become a target for vandalism and probably will remain so for a short time.
Bneu2013 (
talk)
17:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Already a few vandalism edits, with the latest ruling would expect more vandalism and trolling here. nableezy -
23:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC) 23:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – A US Democratic politician has switched to the Republican party and IP editors are taking out their frustrations on the BLP. (Some IP edits were constructive but others are vicious, and I'm logging off soon.).
Schazjmd(talk)23:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Blatant vandalism involving multiple IP and sock puppet accounts. Some accounts have already been permanently blocked, but now they seem to be ban-evading. This attack involves multiple participants, it started recently and there is no indication of when it will stop. It is certainly being coordenated by a group outside WP, possibly by members of Predator Poachers themselves, as seen by the fact that they all started attacking at the same time with texts that are promotional to the group. I'm requesting a semi-protection of 1 month.
This is a recent article, I was still cleaning up some good-faith mistakes in it, but doing that now is impossible due to some troll always reverting what I have done in a matter of a few hours. 🔥
22spears 🔥
19:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The article hasn't been around a month, and as noted the disruption seems pretty recent. Let's see how a week works.
Daniel Case (
talk)
01:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:
Over the last couple days multiple IPs have been editing this page and changing/removing many things, such as: changing the infobox image, removing the other images, changing years active, removing his post-nominals from the infobox, and changed his birth place from Cheshire to Merseyside (despite it specifically saying NOT to do that).
Ollieisanerd (
talk)
20:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: In recent years, there has been a large amount of sockpuppet by undisclosed paid editors adding content in favor of Qatar and against Qatar opponents (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain). The sockfarms are primarily
Radovicdarko538 and
Bennet43 (AKA Orangemoody) and are active in English, French, and Arabic Wikipedia. We used to keep up with blocks, but since late 2020, they have increasingly moved to rotating residential proxies. That means that they use a different IP, usually from different ranges, for every single edit. I keep a more detailed account of this activity
here and
here. I think we should semi-protect the top pages targeted by this group. There are almost no recent significant contributions by unregistered editors in these, so I think collateral should be relatively low. Here's a subset I propose for semi-protections:
Reason: Please block
User:Onewikibarnes from editing article
Maximum subarray problem for persistent bad edits, (incorrect) original research, and
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior which have required repeated reverts by multiple editors (myself and Jochen Burghardt). At this point I don't think more than protecting that one page from that one editor is necessary. I am too
WP:INVOLVED to do more than merely requesting this myself. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
21:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I have engaged
User:David Eppstein in conversation on this page as much as possible. He discusses points about bad edits, but that are not bad edits and he keeps reverting changes that are succinct and accurate. The problem is a math problem that they've used source code to discuss. They have deliberately left the solution false in cases where the input is all negative numbers. I corrected the source code and he's consistently reverted the correction. This moved further when they simply tried to explain the incorrect behavior in the source code instead of simply fixing the source code.
A previous editor a few months ago tried to make this change as well, and
User:David Eppstein responded with condescension. I've received the same condescension in these updates and minimal constructive dialogue. I tried to engage him further on my talk page with source code examples, but this context has not been addressed. In that regard
User:David Eppstein has been farm more engaged in
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior than me.
Onewikibarnes (
talk)
21:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
In fact, the solution presented in the article is not false in cases where the input is all negative numbers. That claim is symptomatic of Onewikibarnes's poor understanding. The actual situation is that, for all-negative arrays, there is more than one definition of what to do in different sources, and that the article (except in the versions badly edited by Onewikibarnes) presents and clearly distinguishes both of the standard definitions. According to one definition, the result should be an empty subarray, with sum zero. According to the other definition, empty subarrays are not allowed, and the sum should be the least negative of the remaining elements. This is the exact locus of Onewikibarnes's IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Despite the clear statement of all of this on the article page, Onewikibarnes refuses to accept the empty-subarray-with-sum-zero solution, found in many sources, as "correct" and continues to edit-war to remove that solution from the article, instead reverting to an inconsistent and false version of the article that says it admits empty subarrays but actually presents code that uses the no-empty-subarrays version. This has been reverted multiple times, and Jochen Burghardt has worked hard to present this matter in an even more clear way on the article so that even Onewikibarnes might understand it, but to no avail; Onewikibarnes merely keeps reverting to their bad version. It is this repeated reversion, as well as the total lack of evidence that Onewikibarnes has improved their understanding at all, that convinces me that an article-specific block is required. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
21:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I will first respond to this context and then get to
User:Maile66's response.
User:David Eppstein is claiming that the all negative numbers scenario is my "poor understand" (I guess he insists on being condescending). He gives an explanation that's contrived and off-point. The explanation is off point and shows that there's no comprehension of a programmatic solution. I've provided code that proves this, but I'll state it here. If you're provided with an all negative array, there is, in fact a subset that is smallest in that array. It's essentially the negative number that's closest to zero. For example, in the array [-5, -7, -1, -2] the answer would be -1. You can't add any further negative numbers as this would be even less. In a non-positive array (containing a zero), the answer would be zero. In the case of the empty array (which programmatically is a very real and common input for programs) the code returned zero as well. There is no presence of numbers, hence a number shouldn't be returned. This is a common case of no input provided a no output response is given. In programmatic turns this is referred to as null (None in Python which is the code used in the example). Empty input in a program does not return a valid output. Any software developer would tell you this is a horrible thing to do. You respond with no-output can be given. You put nothing in, you get nothing out. In both these cases
User:David Eppstein keeps insisting that a solution that returns 0 is correct, and then is attempting to explain it away with specious reasoning instead of actually fixing the code. I'm not failing to understand anything. His reasoning just isn't sound, and insists that he's correct. Why? Who knows...
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that
User: Yongli Dai made the exact same correction in April 6 of 2022 and received the same pejorative response.
I came to this article as I was doing this exact problem in LeetCode and trying to check my work. I noticed it failed for some of the exact inputs that they made. I made the fix and immediately received a response of "what part of <x> don't you understand". Not engaged in constructive dialogue. Not an attempt to explain the position (it's said that this escalation is the most explanation I've received from
User:David Eppstein on the issue). Simply put, snide and nasty response dripping with hubris. This is not how we want Wikipedia content editing to occur. This will turn off contributors.
User:David Eppstein keeps saying that I'm in engaging in IDIDNTHEART behavior, however if you look at the dialogue and points I've addressed every single one of the points he's brought, he has not done the same, just stuck to his position that the wrong answer is right.
WP:NOTGETTINGIT
I'm a software engineer with over twenty years experience at enterprise software corporations. This code would be rejected immediately in any submission.
Onewikibarnes (
talk)
01:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Answer demonstrates clearly that Owb continues to fail to get the point. In an all-negative array like Owb's example [-5, -7, -1, -2] the subarrays and their values are [] with sum 0 (see
empty sum), [-5] with sum -5, [-7] with sum -7, [-1] with sum -1, [-2] with sum -2, [-5,-7] with sum -12, etc. Note that the sum 0 of the empty subarray [] is a bigger number than the sum -1 of the answer Owb states. Some of the sources on the problem (including, importantly, the original sources for the algorithm our article describes) define it in a way that allows [] to be the optimum. When they do so, the result should be 0, because its sum is bigger than the other numbers one can get in this way Some other sources disallow [] as being considered to be a subarray, and instead return -1, the sum that is least negative. Owb continues to insist that there can be only one answer (despite the fact that our sources have two different definitions), and to leave the article in a broken state where the text says that [] is allowed as a subarray but the code returns -1. It is not a content dispute, at least not in the sense that Owb has any claim of validity to their preferred content. It is much closer to
WP:CHEESE. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
04:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I guess again, I have to point out that
User:David Eppstein is using reason to support his own point, but isn't salient. The first point that the [-3, -7, -5] array contains the empty sub-array is specious at best. The input is provided as an array of 3 elements. The empty array is not present. If within the same code you performed the len() function on the array it would return the value 3. If we want to look at this from a perspective of linear algebra; when identifying sub-matrices, the empty matrix ([]) is not included. I have no idea where
User:David Eppstein is coming up with this reason.
User:David Eppstein, are you willing to cite a source?
The second point I've already spoken to, but I'll address again. The empty array does not have a value of zero. Zero is a discreet number which means a specific value was determined. There was no input provided, hence no determined or discrete value can be provided.
Onewikibarnes (
talk)
04:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The second error in your second paragraph is to use the word "discreet" when you almost certainly intended the different word "discrete". However, to address the more serious error: the sum of [] is certainly 0. For instance, typing sum([]) in Python returns 0. There are good reasons for this behavior: when you concatenate two arrays, you should add their sums, and concatenating the empty array makes no change to the other array so its sum must be the additive identity. As for the request for a source in the first paragraph: the "programming pearls" column in CACM, by Jon Bentley, already cited in the article, states: "To complete the definition of the problem, we'll say that when all inputs are negative the maximum sum subvector is the empty vector, which has sum zero." The other of the two earliest sources already in the article, Gries 1982, states (for a version of the problem that asks for the minimum sum rather than the maximum sum) "empty sections should also be considered. Thus, if the array contains only positive values, the minimum-sum section is the empty section and its sum is 0". —
David Eppstein (
talk)
05:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your response;
User:Maile66. I definitely did not want this to become as contentious as it has. Would it be possible to find a 3rd party (detached from both myself and
User:David Eppstein to review? I'm confident my edits will stand true provided this individual has both a math and software background. I think that's the only way (unfortunately) to resolve this conflict as of now.
Onewikibarnes (
talk)
01:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
WT:WPM is more likely to get a better response from people competent to read the article and not interested in stirring up unnecessary drama the way someone who steers new users to ANI might be interpreted as doing. However, the likely response from those people is just to continue to revert OwB and allow OwB to continue slowly edit-warring unsourced incorrect edits into the encyclopedia. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
04:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. This noticeboard is the wrong venue for settling a content dispute with aspects of edit-warring.
Favonian (
talk)
09:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Disruptive editing and deletion of information once again. The semi protection has proven ineffective. Suspected case of
WP:SOCK because 2 new users and IP address are making the exact same edits.
محرر البوق (
talk)
06:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Highly contentious topic would be best if we just semi this page.... long history of disruptive editing at this featured article. Moxy-02:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: For reasons frankly beyond my comprehension this article about a random Toyota seems to have become a persistent long-term target for block evaders and sockpuppeters such as
Alex Neman,
MrDavr, and the
"New Changes" IP (in some cases confirmed, in other cases what seem like fairly obvious
WP:DUCKs) as well as general disruptive editing from IPs and new accounts. Examples can be seen
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here, and
here. Note that in many cases this is editors who frequently edit about the subject matter reverting
WP:DUCKs engaging in stealth vandalism or other forms of disruptive editing that can be difficult to spot without prior context.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (
talk)
12:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Jjj1238, it's not that easy. As 180.195.117.246 is currently blocked for block evasion, that does justify applying the indefinite semi-protection. Please have a look at the sanctions description again.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
13:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Anonymous user keeps adding the same unreferenced content and getting it reverted
[11][12][13][14] by various editors. Some of their IPs have been blocked but they are (intentionally or not) changing addresses. ☆ Bri (
talk)
20:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Subject of article may have recently died; new users and IP editors have added date of death without citation. (I've looked for an RS for death and can't find one.) Requesting temporary protection until death confirmed and sourced.
Tacyarg (
talk)
21:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
This appears to have happened by now, so
WP:BLP's applicability is debatable.
Semi-protection: repeated addition of external links, removal of sourced content, addition of unsourced promotional content by Minneapolis IPs who are likely UPE sockpuppets.
Valereee (
talk)
11:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason:
There is a dispute between the person of the page and
h3h3productions, a popular YouTube channel with a large following who revealed the dispute on twitter.
The only sources for this on the page are first-hand sources from Ethan Klein. Also, there is obvious
WP:VD to show Shahrzad Rafati in a negative light (see “thief” in occupations or the first paragraph of the summary in previous history) as well as possible
WP:COI. In order to avoid undo/editing wars and remove biased editing, the page should be protected.
Fuser55 (
talk)
14:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Responding because I was pinged: I didn't actually protect this, I just reduced it to TE at someone's request. It was originally protected by
Mifter, but they don't seem to be around too often. I agree it should stay protected: the requested edit has been implemented, and there are about 850 transclusions which I think is well beyond the high risk threshold.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
19:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. A valid concern when this request was made, but there have been no edits to the page in over 24 hours at this point.
Daniel Case (
talk)
17:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Late 'Shah Maulana Abdul Majeed Chantgami (RA)' is a well-known person of our country. I request to open a Wikipedia page about this person.
Robayethc (
talk)
20:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. IP 67... has a valid point regarding this talk page. The disruptive talk page edits don't seem to be stopping anytime soon and happen about once a day and sometimes even require oversight ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654503:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply
To add background, most of the disruption comes from single-edit IPs who are deluded that Wikipedia is Facebook and are using the talk page form to log in, or run a search, or get their accounts "unlocked." Often they post their phone numbers and possibly other sensitive info.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
05:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: No ongoing reason to protect. The page was protected in March 2013 after deleting the prior history due to persistent oversight issues at the time. The article was unprotected the following May and the last act of IP vandalism there was in July 2018. Fred Bauder is no longer an admin.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
02:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Another case of "Oh no! 2 bad edits were made to a page recently. I know there hasnt been other problems for years, but I don't care. THERE WAS 2 BAD EDITS!!!!!!!! We must cascade protect it." We don't protect pages for 2 bad edits in a day when there havent been bad edits in years/
Starship 24 (
talk)
10:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – Regular attempts to insert uncited information about the ethnicity of the (child) suspect, trying to make this into a race-based event, despite reliable sources not doing so.
CT55555(
talk)
20:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Multiple IPs removing sections of the page, but not fast enough for regular semi-protection (happens every now and then), hence asking for pending changes.
LilianaUwU(
talk /
contributions)08:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Already protected by administrator Materialscientist. Semi-protected until 16 April. Last removal prior to 9 April was over three weeks before that, and three weeks before that. I don't think that this is a frequent enough level for pending-changes.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
00:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The vandalims is by a single IP. That is not a reason to protect. That is a reason to report the IP to WP:ANI/Vandalism. Also, there have only been 2 bad edits, not even enough to warrant a block. Additionally, the edits were 5 years apart. I strongly oppose this page being protected. Dont shut out everyone for one bad actor who vandalizes once every 5 years.@
AréatStarship 24 (
talk)
10:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. There is at least one disruptive edit a day. Being that this is on the main page, if it could be protected for a bit that would be good.
Starship 24 (
talk)
01:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Arbitration enforcement (
WP:ARBIPA). Supporters keep changing the article to say he's president of Afghanistan, and now someone changed the infobox to say he's the "supreme leader" and "King of Panjshir". Enough.
25stargeneral (
talk)
22:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This Person stays in controversies due to his controversial public statements continuously and people keep coming on this page to add/edit/delete things constantly. Kindly mark it protected for atleast 6 months or a year. --
BeLucky (
talk)
11:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – IPs in recent edits to this article introducing changes that are not overall improvements, leading to run-on sentences in the prose (changing semicolons to commas) and some other MOS guideline violations.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
18:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Multiple disruptive edits over the recent tabloid news; this is a biography and needs protection until the the intense tabloid frenzy clears up and reliable perennial sources emerge.
ℛonherry☘06:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply
2 disruptive edits today, sure. Last disruptive edits after that is... January 2021. That was before the semi protection. You say persistent, but 2 bad edits in 1 day is not persistent, espically if the article was never really vandalized before that with the current protection.
Starship 24 (
talk)
10:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Pending changes protection: Recent additions of events of questionable importance, such as hazing and oil spill in the Philippines (these may have significance in a Philippines-related timeline page, but not there). Requesting PC protection so additions of questionable value to the article could be filtered out.
TagaSanPedroAko (
talk)
22:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not done as mainspace page has been deleted and we're not yet at the "repeatedly recreated" stage sufficient to create-protect. However please re-report if this draft gets moved to mainspace again without significant improvement over previous versions. --
Euryalus (
talk)
01:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oh thanks. I was thinking a higher level, but it looks like the biggest changes were made by unregistered users so maybe no need.
Hi! (
talk)
02:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Most recent IP and new account edits have been about how NPR is being labeled on Twitter, mostly trying to force that labeling here as well. WCQuidditch☎✎03:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary Semi-Protection: Persistent spamming over the last week. Could also try to hit
106.205.0.0/16 and
106.194.0.0/16 with partial blocks instead, but there's a good chance those will ultimately prove insufficient. Probably best to watchlist this one either way.
74.73.224.126 (
talk)
04:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: ECP'ed for 6 months last August due to disruption. Now IPs are back claiming that he is a historian (per "online consensus") and removing conspiracy theorist, both of which have been discussed many times on the talk page.
~StyyxTalk?23:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Has been protected for 10+ years. I think it might be time to try unprotection/pending changes. I have already notified @
Mr. Stradivarius: (the protecting admin) about this, but he has not edited in over a week, so bringing this up should be faster than awaiting his respose.
47.227.95.73 (
talk)
21:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Seems like a reasonable
WP:TRYUNPROT case. The individual proximally responsible for the protection has probably moved-on, though we call them long for a reason. Some isolated autoconfirmed disruption from last September is not so concerning as to preclude a try on its own. (Non-administrator comment)
74.73.224.126 (
talk)
03:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Unprotected I've unprotected the page. It seems like a good candidate for pending changes, which wasn't available in November 2012 when I protected the page initially. I will monitor the page to see whether pending changes will be necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪07:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism – Every change so far has been vandalism by an IP or new editor. There's rarely a need for discussion on a talk page, especially by unregistered editors.
Laterthanyouthink (
talk)
10:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Brand new users attempting to portray this language as "Punjabic" with zero sources, something done in the past by socks. I have already filed an SPI for one of them.
HistoryofIran (
talk)
11:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)reply
If they don't like how we do things at Wikipedia they shouldn't edit here. We shouldn't modify our articles because they don't like them.
SuperΨDro13:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Also could be considered part of contentious topic (Ukraine War)
Starship 24 (
talk)
13:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – BLP violations have started again, only 2 days after the previous protection expired.
Woodroar (
talk)
17:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting protection for this page, as edits are consistently being made based on unofficial sources. In the past few months, the page has been consistently edited and has broken
Wikipedia:ESOPINION, as the edits made have primarily been based off of rumors, fan blogs, etc.
Ferntheplant (
talk)
17:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Please me to resolve problem with my page. I am trying to make a biography text for someone that is alive but after some request that I make I get Page protections,
@
Bajramishpetim, I'm afraid the reason for the protection of that page is to prevent you (specifidcally, you) from moving the draft there. You should be working on the draft, not trying to work in article space. :Not unprotectedValereee (
talk)
14:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Bajramishpetim: Furthermore, your draft has been rejected, not just declined. That means you are done with it. You are not improving it, and it will never be accepted as it is, so you need to move on. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
17:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Locked 13 years ago, with notation that it was locked until released. Appears to have been released. Please downgrade to semiprotection or ECP. ECP will permit review by reviewer.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
04:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
At least temporary semi-protection (maybe more?): Several accounts and IPs keep adding "and a nazi housewife" to the initial description of her; the last edit was left unreverted for almost an hour. There's a defamation case in Sweden where a person was recently found guilty of defamation for having called Hahne (a far-right
tradwife) a nazi housewife and screenshots of the Wikipedia article with the nazi housewife addition are making small rounds on Swedish Twitter, so this might keep happening. /
Julle (
talk)
16:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection:Arbitration enforcement – I think this is a contentious topic (Ukraine war, BLP). Noting uncited allegations or arrest (since reverted) I think only EC users should edit this page anyway, so can we make that a minimum?.
CT55555(
talk)
17:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Since February, IPs have been trying to update the date of birth without citing any source(s). Activity has ramped up in April with at least 4 attempts. Suggest at least 3 months of semi. — Archer1234 (
t·
c)
18:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The article has been protected for 12 years, experimental unprotection/pending changes should be tried. Protecting admin no longer active.
47.227.95.73 (
talk)
01:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd like access to the following 19 pages to address the Tidy Font bug errors found within. I would additionally address the various other
WP:Lint errors while there, as I have with similar (but more focused) past requests
here and
here in recent past weeks. Each of the following pages were either selfprotected by former admin (who are no longer due to inactivity, or were desyop'd), or these pages were protected by admin who are no longer admin, so asking the protecting admin prior to this request is not needed. I have Extended Confirmed access, so that or lower is fine, whatever is appropriate. If I have overlooked anything that would be an issue, happy to discuss or have a page struck from this request. Thank you.
Zinnober9 (
talk)
03:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Incessant POV whitewashing by new editors. Hasn't had a neutral non-revert edit since March 23rd, and has been subject to drive-by "corrections" almost since it was created. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)05:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Recent vandalism from IP users - this time, they're replacing the year of the film's release with "2023". I have no idea why. At least a week to two months protection is warranted, because I'm certain these vandals will just continue unless the page is protected.
TheVHSArtist (
talk)
18:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There have previously been longer protections, but this seems sufficient for now. --Kinut/c20:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – He did well in the match yesterday, which is why multiple IP users are constantly reminding him about his caste, as seen by all the edits to this page today.
DreamRimmer (
talk)
18:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The article was already semiprotected for that duration, but it looks like that wasn't sufficient to quell the most recent vandalism. Kinut/c20:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Brand new (0 or few other edits) or IP editors keep making changes to the article (usually saying that one side in the battle or the other won) that ignore the what the sources used in the article actually say. When reverted they simply do it again.
Ermenrich (
talk)
20:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Edit war with unregistered user. They don't fully understand cats, I possibly don't understand their point.
Fuddle (
talk)
03:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page has controversial things. It appears that the person who generated the page many years ago made it an autobiography. To protect the integrity of wikipedia, I believe the controversial content should be protected and then only removed if the sources are found to be false or inaccurate.
198.102.151.243 (
talk)
20:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: writer used to update wrong information about person well we also have document about his current and previous political parties
Darshilopes (
talk)
19:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated vandalism by some users to add maps when the edits were disputed in the talk page. No attempts by the vandals to engage in the talk page.
Dingers5Days (
talk)
00:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – 2 IP's (possible the same person since the edit summaries are similar) are edit warring over content that they feel should not be in the article.
ArcAngel (talk)02:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Since this driver was recently arrested on assault and strangulation charges, there have been numerous instances of vandalism on this article by multiple IP users.
Areaseven (
talk)
02:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: One ip (180.150.37.213) vandalizing the page and doing the un-constructive edits on the page and it is not in good faith.
XMANClass (
talk)
04:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated politically-motivated vandalism from IP editors and new account editors. The IPs are from at least two parts of India, which suggests that several people are doing this.
Could be referenced with A001146 (till 2^8,192). If you trim the table at the section 'Powers of two whose exponents are powers of two' to just 14 entries (2^1 to 2^8,192), request unprotection of the page 'Powers of two'.
Numbers-Mathworld (
talk)
10:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Same as Bradford/Bolton. Protected over a decade ago, experimental unprotection may need to be tried, recommend pending changes since this article is more notable than Bradford or Bolton.
47.227.95.73 (
talk)
00:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
This is a core article, so I would decline it. I will leave open, but semi isn't stopping anyone from suggesting edits, and since accounts are free, it isn't stopping anyone serious from editing it. Core articles are routinely kept semi, for good reason, as the risk outweighs the reward on an article that is stable and still reasonably accessible.
Dennis Brown -
2¢02:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I downgraded
Bolton to pending-changes protection after a request here (and the article hasn't got any edits since, except for a thanks :) by the OP, so we're fine there), but Liverpool gets much more views than Bolton, and so would probably see much more disruption (more school pupils who have too much free time on their hands during breaks, e.g.). I also would leave the semi-protection in place.
Lectonar (
talk)
10:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, we do also have
Birmingham, which is likely more well known than Liverpool but isn't protected, despite being the 2nd largest city in the UK. But if the consensus is to not unprotect, I accept that.
47.227.95.73 (
talk)
11:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I am not from the UK, but to me at least Liverpool is much better known than Birmingham. I would also guess that, globally, Liverpool is much more known than Birmingham, probably due to Football.
Lectonar (
talk)
11:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. I am not a huge fan of football, and from what I can remember, I learned them both at around the same time, but I get that.
47.227.95.73 (
talk)
11:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Serious IP vandalism persists. While this vandalism isn't especially frequent, it is often grossly inappropriate (most recently:
[17]). Vandalism / blatant POV edits by IPs make up a very high percentage of all edits to this page since January. Last semi was 6 months.
Generalrelative (
talk)
14:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Nearly all IP edits over the past year are crude vandalism, and the linked edit is not the worst of it. Indefinite protection would be in line with other similar topics that I will not name.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
14:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page has false and misleading information which can damage reputation of 50 year old institution and distort the facts. When we tried to edit , it blocked the school IP.
103.158.120.113 (
talk)
07:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – This page isn't currently protected.. I think this is a misunderstanding, you probably mean the article at
Ramjas School, Pusa Road. Try searching for the page solely by its name, without the website markup --
Euryalus (
talk)
08:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Disruptive editing done by IPs. Apparently one of their talk pages say they were "cast" in the film and were blocked for that, and I'm a bit sure that they'll do it again once unblocked.
Edwordo13 (
talk)
16:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Frequent unsourced edits made by a very determined sock master using brand new accounts to reinstate edits when they are reverted.--
Ermenrich (
talk)
17:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary or indefinite semi-protection: IPs continue to add the commissioning of the TCG Anadolu despite repeated explanations on precedence that ship commissionings are not newsworthy events.
The Kip (
talk)
02:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: meh...as long as we are not sure if the event is worthy of inclusion or not (and there's disagreement over that by established editors too). Better use a talk-page and hash it out. I wouldn't protect, but will break no sweat if someone does.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I am the owner of the W.R. Bunckley house. I do not Generally use Wiki, but have noticed that the listing of my old home has the incorrect picture of the house. The photo listed is NOT the Bunckley house! The house shown is two houses down from its location. Please correct - If you will go to the National Register of Historic listings, type in W.R. Bunckley house, you will see that the incorrect house is shown on wiki. I would send you the correct photo, but don’t know how to on here. Just hate to see incorrect info. out there.
Yaya1870 (
talk)
19:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I have hidden the inaccurate image and tagged it at Wikimedia Commons. That image should be replaced with an accurate one if possible. The page isn't protected.
67.180.143.89 (
talk)
14:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Several reverted edits in the past day or so and a high risk of additional vandalism. Cat page is receiving higher than normal use after being linked in news articles & on twitter, as it is believed to be what
twitter is using to determine what broadcasters are publicly funded.
Tantomile (
talk)
16:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not done. We almost never protect article talk pages, since they are important for communication between editors—see
WP:ATPROT. At the current rate, I'm afraid "watchlist and revert" might have to be the solution, although it is weird that this is the one being targeted, out of all talk pages.
Mz7 (
talk)
01:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – Don't get me wrong, what Mike Moon said is revolting, but it's not reliably sourced yet. Asking for ECP because there seems to be editing related to that from autoconfirned accounts.
LilianaUwU(
talk /
contributions)23:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP user(s?) keep editing in "this really happened babies were kidnapped" citation: Trust me bro. Happy to expand the historicity debate section but citation needed etc.
jengod (
talk)
00:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. With only one instance this month, I don't think we need to protect the article at this time. Please feel free to re-report if the vandalism becomes more frequent.
Mz7 (
talk)
02:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: There is an edit war on the page for NPR over a designation of NPR as "state-run media" While I personally strongly disagree with the statement on a factual basis and think it violates both WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM, if there is further disagreement I think it will require moderation or admin attention. For now I believe the issue is preventing the current edit war from proceeding. I've reverted the page to the state before the edit war but the page needs added protection. The edit war has been going on since the 5th for anyone interested in the history.
Bayou Tapestry (
talk)
23:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not done. The article is already
semi-protected. I took a look, and I don't believe increasing the protection level is necessary at this time. I recommend participating in any relevant discussions on
the article's talk page. If there are any specific editors that are violating the edit warring policy, they may be reported to
WP:ANEW as appropriate (for now, I didn't immediately see anything requiring admin attention when I looked at the history).
Mz7 (
talk)
01:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I appreciate the response Mz7. I don't see the semi-protected lock on the article though. Agreed it probably doesn't need anything more than semi-protection.
Bayou Tapestry (
talk)
03:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. This page has been protected for how many times now. But after the protection expires, IP users tend to come back and vandal the article again and again. I'm requesting for a higher protection for this page since it appears to be a target of IP users to vandal everytime it's protection expires. Good day.
Mr. Kenshin (
talk)
05:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Hello respected sir, can you increase the protection for nearly 3-4 weeks as the subject who got arrested is a very high profile case and the page would be constantly vandalised even if the protection is removed after 3 days.
Ilikeyoutoo yay (
talk)
15:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: it's been years since this was last vandalised. And also the dabpage needs to be moved to the base title. And the protecting admin hasn't been an admin for years either. Thank you.
Dr. Vogel (
talk)
19:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Same user repeatedly enters the following information on history: "Oak Hall was founded in 1970, the same year that Gainesville finished desegregation of their high schools." This is incorrect and defamatory. Is there any way to block this user, who keeps posting this?
70.169.187.70 (
talk)
19:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Good idea to place this page on semi-protection as vandals could edit this vandal counter itself which is transcluded onto my userpage and talk page. I would rather have it semi-protected as most of the users who would revert any vandalism on
my talk page use something like Twinkle, which requires autoconfirmed+ to use. Wesoree (
Talk)
01:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: There was a protracted sequence of page vandalism in 2010, which lead to page protection. The vandalism was not due to a dispute, or to anything subtle; it was childish name-calling about some unknown 3rd person. It's now 13 years later. The article is on an obscure physics topic. It's a stub that has not grown in the intervening years. I think it can be safely unprotected; the chances of renewed vandalism is ... infinitessimal. No greater than that for any other physics or math stub article.
107.204.27.161 (
talk)
23:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
These pages are long ago blocked sock account pages (2006 and before). I'd like protection reduced so I can address the Tidy Font bugs and other lint errors on each page. Group 1 is the same person. Group 2 has the same blocking admin's signature, but no connections to each other otherwise. If any in Group 2 are problematic for a decrease, those can be moved to a change X to Y request instead since it's a simple correction.
(note) I plan on blanking
Sugarpine's Sandbox page, since it's just tests of their signature and has no other significance. It could also be blanked on my behalf without changing protections if you prefer. But, if you object to it being blanked, I will honor that objection and correct the syntax instead. Just specify.
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. From the looks of it, it's probably necessary to protect this until the playoffs end. --Kinut/c04:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – There have been a significant number of reversions in the past 72hours involving the lead and the reception section with many editors just edit-warring rather than gaining consensus on the talk page. Recommending EP as most editors are not SPAs.
Kcmastrpc (
talk)
23:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. This was essentially one occurence in the last weeks; better to deal with single users on a one-by-one base than to completely block off a whole page.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Ever since
User:Dollismd was blocked for edit warring (including in this article, and largely over the POV use of the term "supermodel"), an ever-growing list of IPs and one-and-done accounts has carried on the POV campaign. Each time an experienced editor reverts one of these users, another pops up.
Mbinebri (
talk)
12:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Since at least Nov. 2022, IPs have been attempting to add birth date without sourcing. — Archer1234 (
t·
c)
12:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: this page is prone to vandalism due to recent attack mailbox ads citing wikipedia as an official source for "pro life voting records", causing reverting and editing.
Hansenxyz (
talk)
14:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Every edit to this talk page since December has been reverted. Nearly all of it has come from unregistered editors. Could we reduce the workload for RecentChanges patrollers by semi-protecting the page for a couple of months?.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
16:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Someone has an ip address trying to veneration and claim of his theory, based on a point of view, exaggeration and attributing facts. It would be best to protect the article because I think he will never stop
Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (
talk)
22:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Opposed! Why should an AfD be protected to stop "anon" (presumed meaning "non-logging" participation)? By what argument, based on WP policy and history, does one create second class citizens of non-logging editors, in particular when the site has all the tools it needs to prevent sockpuppeting that might lead to repeat voting by unregistered editors? If one wishes to bias votes, one can as easily create multiple accounts, as hop from IP to IP to repeat vote. Note, I voted there once, and commented repeatedly—but in no case in violation of any WP: policy or guideline. Why should this voice, this scholarly voice, not be heard in that deletion debate? Jimbo certainly would have allowed it back in the day. One's bias, based in personal annoyance with those who choose participatory paths other than the usual, should not rule the day in this regard.
2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 (
talk)
20:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure ECP protection is warranted here, given the explicit Talk namespace exemption? This GS has only been used on an AfD once before.Could some solution involving edit requests on
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jack Teixeira work? The six days remaining of discussion probably aren't going to be AS eventful as the first, but blanket excluding IP users is less than ideal.
casualdejekyll20:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protectedindefinitely.,
WP:GS/RUSUKR is quite clear that non-ECP editors are not welcome in AfD discussions concerning the topic. My understanding is also that the provision for "internal project discussions" in GS/RUSUKR Remedy A1 includes meta-discussions of whether or not to enforce GS/RUSUKR provisions. signed, Rosguilltalk21:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Students from local high school are vandalizing the Wikipedia page. Please undo these edits and block the IPs, and protect the page.
LunaIsNotABoy (
talk)
18:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd like to note that I am a student assisting the teacher in question in cleaning this up. The IP who made the edit yesterday is an IP to our school and should be blocked.
LunaIsNotABoy (
talk)
18:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request to upgrade protection to Extended confirmed protection, to registered users with at least 30 days tenure and at least 500 edits, disruption continues to be done so by random IP's and new users who add false information and/or images. Already a contentious topic as stated on the banners of the talk page in relation to the Syrian Civil War, ISIL, post-1978 Iranian politics.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
15:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: In the XG page description column, XGALX is not a subsidiary of AVEX, but a company in collaboration with AVEX, and in this regard, annotated an interview with Jakops, the CEO of XGALX. However, the other party is constantly undermining the document by using the expression AVEX's subsidiary without any source. Request document protection for this.
秋元1223 (
talk)
16:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: In the XG page description section, XGALX is a company that collaborates with AVEX, not a subsidiary of AVEX, and despite annotating an interview with XGALX CEO Jakops, the other party continues to use the term AVEX's subsidiary without any source to undermine the document. Request document protection for this.
秋元1223 (
talk)
05:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of disruptive editing by a Chile-based dynamic IP who keeps changing citation titles/headlines without explanation, hidden behind partially-accurate edit summaries, and denies that they have done this. They have been warned repeatedly over several months. Too many different IPs for range blocks, and by the time ST47ProxyBot catches them, they've moved on.
I wanted to add more details for Droupathi Murmu, such as, editing the page text to also include that she belongs to the Santhal Tribe. I also wish to add her previous job occupations as a school teacher, a junior assistant for Secretariat of Odisha, and as a ward councillor.
RandomPenguin24 (
talk)
13:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
In the XG page description section, XGALX is a company that collaborates with AVEX, not a subsidiary of AVEX, and despite annotating an interview with XGALX CEO Jakops, the other party continues to use the term AVEX's subsidiary without any source to undermine the document. Request document protection for this.
秋元1223 (
talk)
16:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Multiple IP editors are eager to assign this NFL draft prospect to a team before the draft happens. Could it be protected until April 27, when the draft begins? (He's expected to be the first picked.).
Schazjmd(talk)14:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting semi-protection. Subject is a famous footballer going through a divorce as well as having a sexual misconduct allegation against him. IPs are using the opportunity of the unprotected page to post alleged porn and other gross BLP violations and vandalism.
Trillfendi (
talk)
14:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Nothing but block evasion/drive-by vandalism in the past week. Also to note a user is bypassing the blue lock so it appears to not be working.
174.83.6.129 (
talk)
11:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Temporary semi protection:
Roxy (
talk·contribs) edit warring by placing a cn tag to the article name in bold, which is obvious a commonname, and appears on bibliography of th article several times, which falls under
WP:SKYISBLUE.
Beshogur (
talk)
11:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The sentence to which I placed a cn tag specifically states that Yūsuf Balasaguni is the most common name, but any citation to prove that has yet to be seen in the article. You have stated that it appears on bibliography several times but appearing several times may not be enough to say it is the most common one as it can easily be seen that he goes by the name Yusuf Khass Hajib in many other wikis, which makes it not
Wikipedia:SKYISBLUE.
Roxy (
talk)
12:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Maybe you should open a requested move if you don't think it's the most common name. I myself didn't move to (or create) Yūsuf Balasaguni. You should provide evidence that's it's not most common. If it is, then there shouldn't be cn tag.
Beshogur (
talk)
12:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Dear Administrator,
I have created a page about the Georgian Architect Simon Kintsurashvili.
I also created a Georgian version of it ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/სიმონ_კინწურაშვილი in Georgian Wikipedia, where a user called გიო_ოქრო, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:გიო_ოქრო
was re-editing the page with a political connotation and was reporting me as a vandal when I was trying to edit further my page. He also entered this English version and tried to edit it. I want him to be blocked from editing this page as well as if you can help me to remove the Georgian version of the article:
ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/სიმონ_კინწურაშვილი
O,r at least to block him from editing the page. As administrators in Georgia Wikipedia were not helpful.
Declined – Sorry, but administrators on the English-language Wikipedia have no authority on the other Wikipediae, and the editor to whom you are referring does not appear to have edited disruptively here.
Favonian (
talk)
16:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Semi-protection will have no effect, as the editor in question is auto-confirmed. Take the article to
WP:AFD to get a decision on the notability of the subject.
Favonian (
talk)
17:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This seems excessive and needlessly escalatory. I helped to diffuse the impending edit war days back, and the issue has been being discussed, calmly, at the relevant talk page ever since. There has been no dispute raised on the substance of the move, only based on a misunderstanding of what process is needed for the move. Ratpie has perhaps moved a bit quickly, but nothing outside of the bounds of
Being Bold, and Ratpie has referred to which instructions they were operating under while the other editor kept referring to instructions that were explicitly not applicable. It's now marked as protected "for vandalism", while no-one has claimed vandalism, which can give a detrimental impression of what has transpired. While I believe the one editor is mistaken and the other overeager, I have not seen any indication that either side has acted inappropriately here.
Gecko G (
talk)
22:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Requesting immediate archiving... Be that as it may. There's nothing more can be done at this notice board. In a week, the discussion will presumably have yielded a result.
Favonian (
talk)
22:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – IPs are consistently removing LaTocha Scott as an active member of the group without sources. I have yet to find a single source saying she is not a current member of the group, with some
supporting her still being in the group, and the most I've seen is her being distanced. I have gone over this in edit summaries, and asked a question about it on the talk page, with no answers. I am not opposed to removing her as a member if there are sources, but there aren't any that I have seen, and IPs keep trying to remove her without providing any. Skarmory(talk •contribs)21:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The incident regarding this ship happened around 3 years ago. With COVID no longer as bad as it was in 2020, as well as the fact that this ship is no longer under quarantine, this article does not need protection.
173.167.177.193 (
talk)
00:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah... I'll pass on filing an ArbCom report. Aside from the fact I would get turned down instantly, i'm not going to bring myself to that cesspool. Thanks anyway,
173.167.177.193 (
talk)
00:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The main reason I didn't post on his talk page was because I noticed he hasn't edited in over a week, but I posted at his talk page now anyways.
173.167.177.193 (
talk)
00:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Can we get a three day protection here? I see a two-way dispute many times over here. I took a glance and since I would probably split the difference on the disputed wording, it might be best just to let the article rest three days while I start a topic on the talk page for these two editors.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
06:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Both articles were protected indefinitely three years ago after having been attacked by an LTA. What is unusual is that both articles were protected indefinitely (rather than temporarily) after having been attacked by only one or two accounts, both with previously clean protection logs. As a result, I think experimental unprotection should be tried to see if the troll is gone.
173.167.177.193 (
talk)
21:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – The article's edit history has been calm for two days, while ANI and SPI have been abuzz with spoilers. This AGFing admin wants to believe. Do you know what happened in last week's episode of Succession?
Favonian (
talk)
11:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP and new user vandalism (most commonly by adding various K-pop groups to the lede of the article without consensus, but also just instances of unexplained content removal) :3
F4U (
they/it)
08:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Understood. I am sorry, but I totally lost my nerves that day. It's just not understandable how people can not read edit summaries (or simply ignore them?) and then keep on vandalizing airport destination content. At some point they must be figuring out that almost any of their edits is being reverted, but they just keep going. There is (or was) an API investigation about this airport dest. case already. Der HON (
talk)
11:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
No worries. A better way to reach the editor may be starting a short article talk page discussion and sending {{Please see}} to their user talk page as quickly after such edits as possible, to trigger a notification they'd otherwise not receive. This assumes that they're not actively ignoring you, though, and I have to admit that this assumption is quite a stretch. Still, as this is technically a content dispute, you may need to try this to stay compliant with the policy against edit warring as far as possible.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
12:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Chaudhry Bostan Khan Zaildar was appointed as a Zaildar of
Punjab, Pakistan based on 84 villages of Rawalpindi & Islamabad Zail. He was the only landlord of that District. His best quality was that he used to listen to the problems of the public in a Diwan on regular basis in his village
Kotha Kalan. Later his son Chaudhary Lal Khan contested in local body elections & became Chairman four times non-stop & Got the title of “Baba-e-Baldiyat” By the
Government of Pakistan. He was also elected as a member of the district council of
Rawalpindi, Pakistan.Mindthegap7 (
talk)
04:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Persistent disruption by IP editors removing the subjects title of nobility. At least one of these editors at one point claimed to be the subject of the article, hence the violation of BLP. Apart from one ip editor making the same change, all of the others only made that change to this article and hence I fear they could be sockpuppets, extending the BLP violation.
Estar8806 (
talk)
16:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Edit warring over summary of critics' reception of this film. Edit warriors include an account with ~100 edits, so am requesting ECP. — Archer1234 (
t·
c)
14:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. No, you won't get to add your non-notable micronation. Acroterion(talk)15:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: To avoid vandalism issues, despite there being none. (I recently fixed my page, to make it look neat, so the better something is, the more vulnerable it can be to be a vandalism target)
🄼🄾🄳 🄲🅁🄴🄰🅃🄾🅁 (
talk)
21:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Looks like
MusikBot II [presumably] malfunctioned and semi-protected this sandbox a while ago, claiming it had 2206 transclusions. Even if it did actually have that many transclusions once, it currently has only 23. {{Lemondoge|
Talk|
Contributions}}
21:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page was protected in 2012 due to repeated recreation. I am a good-faith editor in good standing and have translated the zh.wiki page as
Draft:Benzinga. Admin who protected the page was administratively de-sysopped on 1 September 2021. ☆ Bri (
talk)
00:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
This page has never been indef-protected (and its last protection has long since expired), and
BBC News is under a long-term (not indefinite - it expires 2027) semi-protection that was issued last August.
BBC News (international TV channel) is
indef CRASHlocked,
BBC News Online hasn't been protected since 2017, and of the three time-slot articles, only BBC News at Six is under any sort of protection at all (CRASHlock). The disambiguation page has never been protected. There's no article here, other than ...at Six, BBC News, and the international TV channel article, that could even be unprotected here, and the CRASHlocked articles, due to how that works, don't prevent anonymous editing. —
Jéské Courianov^_^vSource assessment notes00:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Ah, that I missed. I think part of the reason we overlooked it is because of how soft CRASHlock actually is (it doesn't prevent IP editing) and the fact that there're a few other entries after it in the protection log. —
Jéské Courianov^_^vSource assessment notes02:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism to prevent any discussion of possible dangers of this breed, which is a kind of pit bull. Need to provide a balanced view, both that animals can be kind and loving and also, sometimes, potentially quite dangerous.
Veritas Aeterna (
talk)
01:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Persistent disruption including BLP violations as well as vandalism, chronic issue with the article.
TylerBurden (
talk)
11:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – This just came off a 3 day protection for a series of copyright violations from sock puppets. As soon as protection ended copyright violations immediately resumed.
MrOllie (
talk)
15:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated vandalism to change the script image file. New editing by
User:हम भोजपुरी could be related to abuse by
User:लोहार and other blocked accounts which are prolific on Commons in overwriting image files all over the place.
Ricky81682 (
talk)
20:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Multiple unregistered users are changing population information based on one BBC article. These articles use a different population definition. To change the standard definition consensus is required on Talk page.
Aemilius Adolphin (
talk)
07:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd like access to these 16 pages to address the lint errors as I've done for other pages recently.
This is the final set of pages in User namespace with full protection that have Tidy Font errors (I'm ignoring the 24 current admin pages).
If any of these 16 pages should be temporary decreases, I can focus on those first and contact you when I'm done with those.
Contacting the protecting admin not needed for these (protectors no longer admin for the various reasons stated). Thank you,
Zinnober9 (
talk)
22:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting EC protection for AfD discussion regarding recent article on History of Israel (1948–present) according to active arbitration remedies for topics related to Arab–Israeli conflict
Ppt91talk16:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated addition of promotional content, non-neutral POV content, and removal of reliably-sourced sexual assault allegation section
Rift (
talk)
02:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – One or two vandal edits seem to be being made daily, so I don't think PC is sufficient. An admin protected the page for a week a year ago, and the vandals have just come right back. Either indefinite or for an extended period (1-12 months maybe) should do the trick. interstatefive23:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. The frequency of vandalism is inconsistent: there are small spurts, followed by days of silence (in March and April, there have been such periods of over a week). Pending-changes is well-equipped enough to deal with this, in my opinion.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
01:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism – I request the the article for China is moved to extended indefinitely due to the recent turmoil of US/Chinese relationships, as well as the war in Ukraine.
BillClinternet (
talk)
01:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – Subject of the BLP seems to deny owning a mine. Reliable sources say he does. IP accounts keep removing content despite content being well sourced.
CT55555(
talk)
03:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated efforts by random IPs and user Strawberrymochix59 to change and remove already sourced information in the past few days.
Nyeeye (
talk)
23:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Move protection: I request move permission to admins only. As the official name is changed and now IP's will come to change its name. Tousif❯❯❯Talk03:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection.. Thanks for the request but this is a single image change and revert which is insufficient for page protection. The content dispute over which image to use in infobox can be resolved in talkpage discussion. --
Euryalus (
talk)
05:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent high levels of vandalism, with the majority of edits going back over a year being vandalism or removal of vandalism. The page has received temporary protection in the past, but high levels of vandalism returned within weeks of page protection being removed.
Ornithopsis (
talk)
00:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
What is the threshold for considering vandalism levels high enough to justify some kind of protection? Nearly half (~40%) of all edits to the page over the last two months have been nonconstructive, with most of the other half being reverting those nonconstructive edits. On average, the page is vandalized several times a month, and this pattern has not changed since
the first time I requested page protection nearly a year ago. It might not be vandalized daily, but it's vandalized often enough to overwhelm the page history with junk.
Ornithopsis (
talk)
03:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Good question. That might have been had it been more than one editor, Blocking the one should fix the problem w/o potentially inconveniencing literally millions of Wikipedia users,
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk)
08:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I took the liberty of setting pending-changes protection. The disruption isn't heavy enough to warrant semi-protection, but pending-changes seems just right to handle this situation. If any admin disagrees, feel free to lift the protection without asking :).
Lectonar (
talk)
09:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – In the news this week, the Bercon Beacons park authority is henceforth only using its Welsh Name. As we saw with Snowdonia, there are a spate of IP editors wanting to change the page to the Welsh name, despite the fact that this is not the
WP:COMMONNAME and despite ongoing talk discussion. Requesting 1 week semi protection until the initial spate generated by the publicity wears off.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
09:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Multiple editors are trying to add information based on whatever little they got online or on basis of somebody feeding that information. Some of the matters mentioned in newspapers are subjudice and it is against law to influence public opinion and make it a media trial. The Wikipedia link with this material is getting circulated on WhatsApp.
117.236.106.195 (
talk)
06:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Consistent vandalism to Nkrumah's titles. Despite the fact that Kwame Nkrumah was the President of Ghana, vandals keep making edits to change his honorifics to colonial-era titles, like "the Right Honorable" and "Privy Council". Nkrumah was the Head of State of Ghana, and was appropriately referred to as "Your Excellency". The vandalism is persistent and the page needs protection.
198.167.196.157 (
talk)
08:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The article is indefinitely semi-protected, which means that having the article pending protected makes implicitly no sense. Reset pending changes?
197.26.153.57 (
talk)
09:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: An offensive edit-war is taking place that is entirely inappropriate. For example, the term "enslaved people" was reverted by a user, RL0919, to "slaves". Conventionally, the former term is the preferred way to refer to enslaved people. An article of such historical importance like that of Harriet Tubman's deserves a sophisticated approach, not an ignorant one. The article should be protected at a higher level, so users like RL0919 cannot simply revert improvements without accountability.
Private Person (
talk)
05:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. Aside from other issues with your request, your opponent has higher seniority than you, so any level of protection short of "full" would favor them.
Favonian (
talk)
08:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: IPs getting reverted constantly (mainly for removing the AfD template). As the article is at AfD, please use the lowest level of protection, to enable accounts to improve the article.
Fram (
talk)
11:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: This page has a vast number of monthly views and may benefit from semi-protection to combat vandalism.
Jaben1777 (
talk)
14:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Page does not get too many edits (~25 in the previous year), but all of them except one by Citation bot have needed reverting; this is the kind of situation in which PC would work well. ☿
Apaugasma (
talk☉)15:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Users who used to commit vandalism on WP, including this page, are no longer active for about 5 years. Furthermore, most edits which were tagged as "
Reverted" on
windows 11 version history, which is not protected BTW, were not necessarily vandalism, especially by anonymous users.
Temporary semi-protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. This park's name is allegedly going to go by its Welsh name, which would require a future article move. Not a huge deal, but there has been some edit warring for a few days over this name change, along with a still-active talk page discussion over it. Requesting protection for maybe a few weeks?
— ThatCopticGuy (
let's talk?) (
contribs)
16:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting temporary semi-protection. The cause is pesistent disruptive editing of the lead over the course of past 24 hours; information not present in the article and not supported by the sources cited is added. The matter has been addressed on the talk page already. All of the edits have been made by a single IP, so the problem is unlikely to be long term.
HaniwaEnthusiast (
talk)
15:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Ongoing edit War over largest city involving "multiple" editors. Let's lock this up for a day or 2 get all to talk page. Moxy-20:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: I know that thas site is protected because it is a very much used module. Can you see if you can unprotect it. I know only administrators can edit it.
88.89.228.126 (
talk)
13:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Addition of unsourced and unverified information by IP users and new users. Also some IP and new users make unexplained changes and deletions to the article. I would recommend having the protection last until after the coronation.
DDMS123 (
talk)
19:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Already blocked IP seems to pretty much be the only disruptive account this month, certainly for the last few weeks.
El_C03:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The second the protection was removed, IPs started doing their schtick again and vandalizing the page. I think we might need much MUCH longer protection.
Zingo156 (
talk)
06:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: BLP violations/edit war, could also fall under
WP:GS/RUSUKR. Discussion open
here, no uninvolved editors in discussion so extra eyes would also be appreciated.
Tollens (
talk)
06:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: There is no vandalism as reported, simply unflattering legitimate information about a company revealed to be data farming for the NSA, illegally spying on American Citizens, and now has attempted to move free mail accounts behind a paywall, charging decades old free email users to access their emails without consent.
2600:6C46:4000:FCA1:DCB:BA6C:784C:A56C (
talk)
22:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Several incidents of vandalism over the last 24 hours resulting from a incident which has been mentioned in the article and referenced.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – He just passed away with confirmation from the police and supported by
Yonhap News sourcing that's already included in the article. However, multiple IPs (read fans) unable to accept reality and kept disruptive editing. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝)17:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Only disruptive editing comes from LouisAragon's side, who claims a national flag represents the "authoritarian regime" which is an extreme POV. All other country templates have national flags so I simply restored old stable version. And yes, virtually all dancers from Qajar court were slaves, often foreign, as well as sexual workers. To illustrate a national culture with a prostitute is truly an insult to our country.
5.115.147.120 (
talk)
17:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
"Only disruptive editing comes from LouisAragon's side"
That's the good thing about Wikipedia, you can't delete any diff ;-) It was you who (re)added that flag as image,
[25] reverting an edit that had been in place for six months.
[26]
"who claims a national flag represents the "authoritarian regime" which is an extreme POV"
Nope. What you did was initiating an edit war and ignoring
WP:WAR and
WP:BRD.
"And yes, virtually all dancers from Qajar court were slaves, often foreign, as well as sexual workers. To illustrate a national culture with a prostitute is truly an insult to our country"
The title and description at Commons reads "Qajar princess paiting".
[28] Not a single word on the page about "slave" or "prostitute". Nice misogynic comment tho, claiming a woman to be a slave and prostitute without any sort evidence. Even if its about a historical figure (or imaginary figure, doesn't matter), such evidence only adds to the obvious fact that you are
WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. -
LouisAragon (
talk)
20:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm, the IP uses some unrelated ranges it seems, which makes reporting them a bit more problematic. They have violated 3RR, and are still at it. Imo a protection is more helpful in this case. --
HistoryofIran (
talk)
20:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism and disruptive editing by IP accounts, including several instances in the last few weeks, on a page that has been put under temporary semi protection three times. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(
talk,
contribs)
20:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Anonymous user is waging edit warring against established
Billboard charts guidelines (replacing established charts with lesser component charts). Multiple users have stepped in to salvage the page from reverts, but the user immediately ignores explanations and makes the changes again anyways. At least one other editor has already suggested adding protections to the page in response to this individual waging their daily editing war. Since they are editing anonymously I would suggest protecting the page for established editors for a period of time please.
Happyomen (
talk)
17:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Disruptive IP's and a new account doing whitewashing of pro-confederacy edits violating NPOV. Such users are subject of an SPI investigation.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
21:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is unjustified as the articles contains accusations on one of the rightest companions of holy prophet , and it is done to just creat hatred among muslims ummah and to justify their hatred towards the noble personality, it is man made story and hurt the sentiment of a common man....... .
Imuser20055 (
talk)
21:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – We are averaging 5 to 10 reverts a day for the past week. Multiple new editors edit waring over multiple points. Let's lock this up for a few days..... let's make the point that this is not acceptable and edit warning during discussion is not productive. Moxy-01:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page is giving the public misinformation about a medicine that's been effective for thousands of years. The page calls it "quackery" which is completely false and extremely misleading. It is a disgrace that you would allow a page like this on a site claiming to give unbiased information.
2600:1702:3860:15C0:8115:6608:1D15:DADA (
talk)
21:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not done Feel free to take your concerns to the article's talk page, and review the "Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience" section of that page. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Requesting long-term semi-protection: there seems to be an issue with a certain IP editor making disruptive edits bit-by-bit, which has been going on for at least three months now. Disruptive edits came from various IPv4 and IPv6 addresses over those last few months. —
AP 499D25(talk)02:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Mostly disruptive edits by IPs ever since the article was automatically unlocked back in late February.
Nythar (
💬-🍀)
06:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: please allow me to clean the article its worth doing rather deleting. i can see the impact how many people are visiting this page after it was published. it will be a great addition to this related domain scope of topic. Please remove the protection as well otherwise how will i edit :)
Tuqwy19 (
talk)
06:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: I wrote the biography on this topic in draft but could not submit it due to protection. please allow me to submit
Tuqwy19 (
talk)
06:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I for one would expect disruption to slowly pick up after lifting the protection, so would probably go for trying pending-changes protection at first, and add the article to my watchlist to evaluate.
Lectonar (
talk)
06:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: hello, I don 't have an updated Wikipedia article about Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Writes that this article is expanded and protected . What should I do? How to remove the protection ?
Kiriuxa2002 (
talk)
06:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Since a lot of fake penalty and goal contribution stats, memes and related conspiracy theories are circulating on the internet regarding e.g. how many of Messi’s goals or goal contributions were penalty goals during the 2021 Copa America and the 2022 FIFA World Cup, I suggest adding e.g. something like this (to make it easy for anyone who visits Messi’s wikipedia page to quickly see at least some basic facts about Messi’s performances during the two tournaments in question):
With his country, he won the 2021 Copa América, where he scored four goals (one penalty) and five assists, finishing as the tournament’s top scorer while also receiving the Best Player Award for his performances, and the 2022 FIFA World Cup, where he scored seven goals (four penalties) and made three assists and received the FIFA World Cup Golden Ball for best player of the tournament (becoming the only player in history to win the FIFA World Cup Golden Ball twice). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
94.234.97.237 (
talk)
10:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
If the context given by the IP above is correct (which I have no reason to assume it's not, but I don't follow association football), why does this violate point #3 there? It's not particularly excessive (this is one paragraph), and it's not impossible to give context behind why it's included if needed. Again, I'm not actually aware if this is a major enough issue where adding this would significantly aid readers, but I don't think it's necessarily too much to put in prose. Skarmory(talk •contribs)21:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not done – No one has been willing to make the requested change. More importantly, as of 19:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC),
Talk:Lionel Messi is no longer protected and further discussion may take place there.
Favonian (
talk)
10:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: There isn't currently a page for the Philadelphia Surge, as one of the founding members of the team, I would like to create our Wiki page.
Etsoiles8 (
talk)
16:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Despite its success in imitating human language, ChatGPT has faced significant criticism for its dangers and ethical concerns.[1][2][3] On March 31, Italian data regulator temporarily banned ChatGPT for leaking user data that contained credit card information and launched an investigation to the security breach.[4] Please add this text to the lead section of the article.95.12.127.137 (
talk)
18:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
"On March 31" should be "On March 31, 2023," and you want to name the specific regulatory agency rather than a generic "Italian data regulator." —
Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.)
20:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The second sentence should just start as "On March 31, 2023, an Italian data regulator temporarily banned ChatGPT", or replace "an Italian data regulator" with the specific one. (The source is paywalled, but I think it's "Italian Garante"? So it would be "On March 31, 2023, Italian Garante temporarily banned ChatGPT", but I have no idea if anyone would know what that means and there's no article on it to link to.) Skarmory(talk •contribs)21:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
It is not mentioned in the lead. Per
WP:LEADAll but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more.95.12.127.137 (
talk)
08:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Remove the claim that "[Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA] is the first video game series to utilize audio created in the Vocaloid software." on the top section of the article.
The top section contains a factual error: regarding Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA, there's a claim that "It is the first video game series to utilize audio created in the Vocaloid software." The first series is actually Katamari Damacy:
The ending song of Korogashi Puzzle Katamari Damacy features the voice of Hatsune Miku, it's even explicitly explained in the article of that Katamari Damacy game. Korogashi Puzzle Katamari Damacy was released on March 25, 2009; while Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA was released on July 2, 2009.
I do realize it's an extreme nitpick, but still it's something factually wrong on an encyclopedia. I wanted to change the article myself, but it's semi-protected.
Santi531 (
talk)
07:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not done – No one has been willing to make the requested change, and the OP (who has only made this single edit) has not provided references.
Favonian (
talk)
17:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semiprotection: Article seems to be a magnet for trolling, vandalism and other low quality edits by IPs. Request permanent semi-protection (auto confirmed users only), like the
AC/DC article.
MaxBrowne2 (
talk)
23:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: We are updating Roberts page to reflect a new direction in our business. Protection prohibits our making these changes. Please remove to allow Robert to edit his info.
Wiki Mod Level 99 (
talk)
01:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Drive-by IP editors will not leave this page alone since the previous PPs were terminated. Please review the edit history. Please consider blocking until May 31, at which time the attraction will close and IPs can have it.
—JlACEer (
talk)
03:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: This article was protected a while back when Bachmann was running for president. Not only was that a long time ago, but she has also long since retired from politics, making it far less likely that this article will receive as much vandalism as it did pre-protection, unless there is something else I am not aware of.
47.227.95.73 (
talk)
21:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent posting of unverified libelous claims (in fact, I see no evidence even referring to anything near these claims) by IP editor hopping around different addresses.
Wes sideman (
talk)
12:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I am not sure yet that indef protection is necessary, but six months is longer than any previous such protection. We'll see how it goes. I have also added a CTOPS notice to the talk page.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Yes, this article comes under CTOPS, but it really isn't getting more disruption than the editors seem to be able to handle.
Daniel Case (
talk)
17:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Hi. I'd like to ask you for help with Iron Maiden band WIKI page to be protected from frequent acts of vandalism. Some unregistered persons (so called IPers) use to delete data or write the nonsenses just for fun. There's a necessity to apply some semi - protection proper tool (Semi - Protected Silverlock) to avoid the highly uncomfortable situations like that. Thx a lot! ~~ RALFFPL (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
RALFFPL (
talk)
19:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason:Long term semi protection was recently semi protected due to edit warring by anon IPs, this can continued since the protection was lifted.
LibStar (
talk)
16:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP address 92.9.7.129 is still trying to vandalize the page, which I'm assuming is the same blocked person who had duplicate accounts and was blocked a few days ago (TheCurrencyGuy and I can't remember the other user name they used), though I might be wrong, but I'm assuming it is the same person. Please protect this page from any more vandalism, preferably long term. Thanks.
MatthewS. (
talk)
18:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Recent activity adding death information. A "verified" twitter account has said he has died, but so far no reliable sources support this.
Grayfell (
talk)
01:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Originally move protected back in 2010 because it was a featured article. It's no longer a featured article (and hasn't been since 2015) and otherwise no history of move warring. There's currently an uncontested (at the time this request was submitted) move request over at
WP:RM/TR that cannot be acted upon due to this obsolete move protection, fwiw.
SkyWarrior14:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Sudden spike in schoolkids goofing off, and also promotional/advocacy for the school itself that has recently announced it is closing. Probably needs "something" through the end of June, and "semi for now"; not sure if a few days' SEMI and few months' PC, or just few months' SEMI (given the news, I don't expect the situation to change until then).
DMacks (
talk)
02:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Repeated addition of unsourced content regarding a supposed role in a film called "Fat Guy's Paradise" - which appears to be a hoax.
Dorsetonian (
talk)
05:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism ,His Majesty's page was on semi-protection until yesterday and there is already users trying to erase some informations from his Wikipediapage.
196.75.82.215 (
talk)
07:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Various IPs keep changing the word "and" to "plus" in the first sentence in an attempt to insert an inside joke/reference related to the subject's work and don't seem to be persuaded to stop by the existing hidden note. This has been an issue for a long time, as these edits constitute almost every change made to this page in recent years. Given the persistence of the issue, I would opt for a rather long protection time, but that's obviously not my decision to make.
Felida97 (
talk)
15:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Repeated addition of deliberate factual errors (same edit) by three different IP editors in less than a week. Hopefully a few days of semi-protection will see them get bored and go back to their Top Trumps cards.
10mmsocket (
talk)
11:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – As soon as the semi-protection automatically expired on April 12, a wave of vandalism and disruptive editing from IPs and new users began. I therefore believe this article should be semi-protected indefinitely, or at least for a long time.
Guycn2 (
talk)
21:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I have also declined the report at ANEW since the reported user's reverts are spread out over several days and thus do not violate 3RR.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. People are understandable upset that teenager a horrorific death over course of days. there has been other incidents of controversy such facial paralysis
1keyhole (
talk)
17:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Disruptive editing by multiple IPs started again immediately after the last protection expired. Subject recently died hence was previously protected due to the same reason. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝)04:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – There is an issue regarding harassment of a voice actor who appeared in the video game Resident Evil 4. Two IP users (one of which at least used two different addresses) and a brand new registered account have failed to understand what they are trying to do is incorrect and inappropriate. See talk page for a lengthy discussion. Despite the long talks, they do not understand (
WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT pretty much). A temporary edit protection might make it clear their attitude here is not right.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK13:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Disruptive editing from multiple accounts, including registered accounts and IP addresses, which could very likely all be the same person.
JeffSpaceman (
talk)
14:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Keeps being re-created by COI user, then deleted... could do with salting. -
RichT|
C|
E-Mail12:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Asking for page protection due to disruptive editing by IP users. The page was already protected in the past, but the situation is the same.
Sricsi (
talk)
13:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Please note that it is a POV dispute which is being falsely labelled as sockpuppetry without any proof to remove well-sourced contents. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:4040:4753:9500:3893:b5e:ac9:80ad (
talk •
contribs)
Reason: Persistent vandalism – Repetitive vandalism conducted by one specific user (
FlameCelestial) started from last week making virturally identical edits, which were against NPOV policy and the existing consensus, and no relevant reason for the changes were given with frequent attempts to implant personal political ideology into a pure geographical topic. Request for extending page protection or increasing the level of protection. List of IP revision history:
Reason: Edit warring – User LVTW2 has consistently reverted edits on this page without providing any explanations. Terminologies employed in LVTW2's revision suspected to push a political agenda as it differs from the official name Taiwan (as a political entity) is referred under, that is "Republic of China".
The lonstanding version did imput "Taiwan" within locator per
WP:COMMON NAME,
User:FlameCelestial has been attempting to alter the content in favour of his political ideology when the topic is pure geographical-related, unconstructive edits initiated from him despite the user falsely accusation towards me as the one producing the controversy.
LVTW2 (
talk)
17:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Link provided (
WP:COMMON NAME) does not state justifications to add the suffix "(Taiwan)" behind "Republic of China".
User:LVTW2 has conflated a political entity with a geographical location, which one cannot fully discount that there's an external vendetta to it.
FlameCelestial (
talk)
17:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent vandalism – Repetitive vandalism and unconstructive edits conducted by one specific user (FlameCelestial) within a week making virturally identical edits, which were against NPOV policy and the existing consensus, and no relevant reason for the changes were given, with frequent attempts to implant personal political ideology into a pure geographical topic. Request for extending page protection or increasing the level of protection. List of IP revision history:
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – The article is a constant target of editors who wish to change "mytholgy" to "history'" with a large fraction of the article history being taken up by this change and its reversion. A semi-protection or, at least, a pending change protection would help keep the disruption somewhat in check and and help the article editors and readers. I would recommend against a time-limited protection, since the cause of this disruption is not going to go away in a few months or years. Pinging @
Joshua Jonathan,
Chronikhiles, and
DaxServer: (all of whom have reverted the change recently), in case they wish to add anything to this request.
Abecedare (
talk)
19:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi
Abecedare, as long-term semi-protection has not been tried on that article before, I have set it to a year for now. I see that the disruption has a longer history than that, but before I indefinitely semi-protect, I'd like to have tried this before. Please let me know (or re-request) if this resumes afterwards.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
20:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Persistent additions violating BLP and
MOS:ROLEBIO are making it into the article despite pending changes having been applied. Editors continue to refuse to engage on the talk page and the one who has agrees that
MOS:ROLEBIO should be followed. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)06:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – For some reason, new accounts and IPs are repeatedly vandalising this page, introducing ridiculously large population figures. RolandR (
talk)19:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: It was discovered on the following section,
Wikipedia_talk:Deceased_Wikipedians#BlazerKnight, plus earlier edits years ago on the talk page plus one on the actual user page that this user is deceased and therefore I think the standard procedure is to fully protect the user page to preserve in their memory.
Iggy (
Swan) (
Contribs)
18:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Note that this page was
previously protected beginning on April 1 for ten days due to this same pattern disruptive editing on the cast listing. This film is not due to be released until January 2024 at the earliest, so I expect continued disruption between now and even beyond its eventual release date. — Archer1234 (
t·
c)
20:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Template protection: Newly created TemplateStyles subpage has a lower level of protection than the main template page itself (
Template:Marriage is currently set to require template editor access) –
Pedantical (
talk)
03:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: After removing the protection template on March 22, the page was edited by unknown IP users three times, repeatedly removing vital information about the group and its members and writing unverified facts.
Heymikky (
talk)
07:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: high levels of back and forth edit wars on the infobox despite debate on the topic still being discussed on the talk page of the 2024 republican primary which is where a larger discussion is happening
Matthew McMullin (
talk)
00:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection.
Yinavery, an IP has never edited that redirect. A redirect which has 3 edits in total (last one in March), anyway, so I'm at a loss at what you think the problem is. Feel free to add
WP:DIFFs if it's something else.
El_C07:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – Some user wants to change page name to Bhagyanagar. Needs move permission to extended confirmed users only. Tousif❯❯❯Talk07:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
As the actual name which was proposed by opposition party during election was Bhagyanagar but they can't move it there as there is already a draft so they moved it to
Bhagyanagaram see this , there are many possibilities to be renamed as Bhagnagar, Bhagnagaram, etc. Tousif❯❯❯Talk07:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Information is outdated and we are trying to update it with current information, specifically pertaining to the recruiting section of the page.
Liljony420 (
talk)
14:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for this action. I agree. After updating this page with reliable sources, including local newspapers and UK Companies House links, a user (or users) with the sole intention of reverting those edits without explanation, has stated that they wish to take legal action against me and to retrieve my IP address from Wiki. My edits contain no opinions, only facts gathered from reliable sources, which are cited. Evidence of sockpuppetry on the page can likely be detected from the edit history.
RichiSups (
talk)
11:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite Semi Protection: There's a lot of hostility between Ethiopians sometimes, quite frankly because of idiots - and a root of some hostility is religion. There's been a bunch of edits made by Ethiopian IP users and new users changing the religion statistic on infoboxes and sections, usually changing the statistic to an overwhelming muslim majority and christian minority. It isn't true, and is just propaganda - but this is not an outlier case, I believe it will keep happening with other IP users and hence why this page needs to be (in my opinion) protected to help fight this kind of vandalism which can easily get unnoticed at some point as there isn't a great amount of editor activity on this page.
balladsone09:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: An IP hopper has been trying to keep Vallyon's legal troubles off the page over the past couple of weeks. Blocking IP's range would stop them from editing but they haven't been the only disruption over the past year. –
Skywatcher68 (
talk)
15:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Folks are ignoring the
Template:Wikipedia talk navigation notice, which states: "The purpose of this page is to discuss Wikipedia:Uploading images. If your post is about a specific problem you have with uploading an image, please ask for help at the Wikipedia:Help desk". Protecting the talk page will prevent the existing stale questions that never get an answer.
fgnievinski (
talk)
13:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. A page that hasn't been edited in six months needs a better reason for any protection, much less indef ECP, than this.
Daniel Case (
talk)
17:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended semi-protection: Please administrators semi-protect this article to "Indefinite extended semi-protection" level as few IPs are doing fan edits and writing the page in fan language which was written after several talk page consensus like plot being tabulised and cast being maintained according to original flow. Kindly look in the language used in titles which is totally fan language and semi-protect this page.
Pri2000 (
talk)
08:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page was full protected back in 2010 when Andonic changed usernames and became an admin. They are not currently an admin (since 2019) due to less activity.
I
asked the protecting admin Xeno back on April 16th if they had any objections to a lowering/removal, but have not gotten a reply.
I don't see protection being necessary at this point, and I'd like to address the Tidy Font errors and other Lint on the page. Thank you,
Zinnober9 (
talk)
20:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Ah, so he did. My mistake. It had looked like Xeno had protected the page upon initial glance. Thank you for the assistance and the clarification.
Zinnober9 (
talk)
22:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Bunch on people disagree on what the status of the Starship test was.
McSly (
talk)
01:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Question:Number 57, how does it make sense for you to say that the IP is refusing to discuss on talk when you haven't done so, either? The last comment added to that talk page was in 2016!
El_C11:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
My understanding of BRD has always been that the onus is on the party attempting to make a change to start a discussion and justify their proposal. However, I've started one.
Number5711:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
No, that is not how it works, and at any event, BRD is optional. You are the experienced editor and admin, so you are expected to say something, anything, on the relevant talk page rather than steadfast limiting yourself to edit summaries like the IP has been doing. You seem to be using
WP:BRD (and
WP:ONUS?) as a blunt instrument, which as a result may serve as a barrier for entry (i.e.
WP:BITE). I've cautioned you against this before.
All you had do is give a brief explanation of your position on the talk page, then link to it in the next edit summary, like so: IP, I've explained my position about the image on the talk page (link), please reply there. That IP may not know that the article talk page even exists as such to begin with, as some mobile versions do not display talk pages, which is why I link to these often in edit summaries, protection summaries, block summaries, and so on.
El_C12:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I mostly do start talk page discussions when there are disputes (e.g.
here recently), but my long experience with IPs is that they don't engage and just continue to edit war until they are blocked, pages are protected or the other party gives up.
Number5712:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
So long as IPs are allowed to edit, then you need to
WP:AGF (within reason). If they don't respond, at least you tried, and then you can safely report that absence of
WP:COMMUNICATION. But it first has to exist. And you'll likely save time and energy and cluttered revision histories, to boot.
El_C12:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Hello, we are seeing various IPs that geolocate to Korea that are edit warring to reintroduce their preferred version of some data in the infobox. The IPs are very likely the editor 망고소녀 editing while logged out. Blocking the user would likely not stop the disruption/edit warring, so page protection might be the best alternative. I don't know. I am heavily involved in maintenance of this article and can't take admin action myself, hence posting here for assistance. —
Diannaa (
talk)
13:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Page please add a new section or just under career section:
Dylan has cultivated endorsements and sponsorships as her stardom rises, set to make $1m with the following brands :
Ulta Beauty
MAC
CeraVe
Kate Spade
Instalation
Bud Light (editor to decide if included, 😬)
Nike
Love Beauty and planet
Milk makeup
Urban Decay
Urlazh
Haus Labs
Neutrogena
Native
Svedka Vodka
Crest
OK Cupid
SodaStream
Tampax
Aritzia
K18 Hair
KIND Snacks
KitchenAid
Ole Henriksen
Rent the Runway
Maybelline
Plaza Hotel
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fifoh (
talk •
contribs)
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continued disruptive IP editing - the most recent edit to this page is one the user has continued to insert despite being blocked for once already.
Loafiewa (
talk)
14:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
User believes peace agreements signed and an unforced, willingful withdrawal = defeat. I only made the edit after seeing the sources someone else posted, not just from my own opinion. He should explain why the sources are wrong and not the revert me.
2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:6576:2DAC:C57A:471D (
talk)
17:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: The article is still seeing cases of disruptive editing and vandalism almost every other day. Requesting further extended confirmed protection.
HackerKnownAs (
talk)
21:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Remove Indefinite Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing — The protection is not longer necessary because it didn't disruptive editing anymore by IP address is been a while for Semi protection since November 15, 2017 it has no expired set decreased protection needs to be done.
63.143.202.112 (
talk)
19:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
This request
verges on the incomprehensible. The argument seems to be that the protection is unnecessary because IP editors are no longer disrupting the page? Those IP editors wouldn't be able to edit the page; that's how semi-protection works. Not to say I'm against lowering the protection - I'm neutral - but this request isn't doing itself any favours. —
Jéské Courianov^_^vSource assessment notes19:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – Several accounts have taken to removing sourced information and replacing it with promotional material; these are probably all the same account, but ECP should resolve the issue.
Lindsey40186 (
talk)
20:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page has continued to be subjected to disruptive/unsourced edits since the last protection upgrade on 15 April 2023. Thank you.
Ram1751 (
talk)
01:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism – Users have been re-adding sections that were removed months ago, due to usage of
unreliable sources. Despite my best efforts to revert the vandalism, it keeps getting undone. I think it's for the best if this gets page protected until further notice.
BrickMaster02 (
talk)
22:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: This protection is unnecessary. A number of details on the page are incorrect and there has been no evidence of recent vandalism on any I'm A Celebrity-related Wikipedia page, which can be freely edited.
Danny Balderdash (
talk)
09:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
One week extended confirmed protection Major in the news article rapidly being changed in terms of POV. Heavy edit warring between confirmed accounts. Heavy influx of fresh accounts making copy edits. Possibly sock puppetery ongoing.
Ecrusized (
talk)
08:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason:Long term semi protection I previously asked the protection to be removed in February. Unfortunately the anon IPs have come back again to vandalise the page.
LibStar (
talk)
03:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Consistent vandalism. Stopped for a while but just started up again. Needs protection. Editors cannot keep reverting these disruptive edits.
Maineartists (
talk)
15:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Can an admin please semi-protect this page so the frequent edit-warring by IPs doesn't get added whilst the article may be at ITN.
Ollieisanerd (
talk)
15:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism and disruptive edits by IPs ongoing for months (more than 30 times since January 2023). Since the page is just a list of capitals, no regular edits are foreseen here. Requesting long term semi protection against such IP edits.
Dhruv edits (
talk)
16:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Markus Buchheit is a german polititian, his main wikipedia article (de.wikipedia) has been constantly vandalised
Sorry that i ´m refereing to an article that is in german, i ´m using the google translate extension
the article has been constantly vandalised
The proof of the politically uninteresting personal relationship with Ms. Nagle contains numerous insults and defamation
The proof is available in [2]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Not yet at the point of persistent, but they are currently the targets of an online TERF brigade (search them in the news, they're front page in Ireland and on the BBC) after JKR tweeted about them and I expect disruption will only increase at this point. Could we get semi protection for at least a week please?.
Blue Edits (
talk)
12:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Just a temporary semi-protect? IP jumper vandalizing the page by purposely re-introducing bad grammar and punctuation after multiple reverts... -
Adolphus79 (
talk)
19:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The Wikipedia.de page of Markus Buchheit has been constantly vandalised, i already put a request there but i will like to ask you if you can protect this one because it has risk of vandalism.
Kd-Ron (
talk)
19:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – @
Kd-Ron: You have been told twice that we have no jurisdiction over the German Wikipedia, and that the article on this Wiki won't be protected preemptively!
Favonian (
talk)
19:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: New user and IP keeps adding incorrect birth name of "Bradford Bradford" citing an interview with his mother as the source, despite that interview specifically stating that he did not have the surname Bradford until he was 7 (adopting it upon his mother's separation from his father)
RedPatch (
talk)
21:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Whew... Five PPs in the space of two years, and every—single—time it gets IP vandalised the very same day the PP expires. Clearly the IP(s) have a damn alarm clock set to go off. I've been editing 16 years and have never seen anything like it. How about a year this time? Two years? Indefinite...? Pretty please?
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
19:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended protection: The article is currently not protected at all following a dispute lock; please restore the earlier level of protection.
Nythar (
💬-🍀)
04:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP, then new-user, axe-grinding that disagrees with a forced amalgamation at the start of this year. Four levels of warning have been issues, with the fourth on the new user's Talk page. This is the type that argues that we're not Russia so something can't legally happen.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. Given current events, and the edits that have been made on this article, best to protect for the time being until this blows over. Yoshi24517 (
Chat) (Online)01:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. But also,
JjamieMarsh, generally you should not be editing an article about yourself since that is a
conflict of interest. Which is to say, it is not your page, you do not
WP:OWN it. Adding comments, concerns, citations (like for an unsourced Ancestry DNA thingy), and so on to the article talk page (
Talk:Jamie Marsh) is fine and is in fact encouraged. I'll add the pertinent documentation about that to your user talk page.
El_C09:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent IP vandalism, and disruptive edits in the past few weeks. There's going on a dispute between India and Pakistan, Pakistan will host 2023 Asia Cup but India doesn't want to go there. Following this, unregistered Indian and Pakistani editors are continuously changing the host name, and making persistent vandalism. See
the page history for evidence.
RoboCric Let's chat06:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hey, this request concerning a Cup article wasn't that hard to parse — what gives!?
El_C09:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Periodic IP vandalism. It's on front page at the moment, which is likely why it's attracting more vandals than usual.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
10:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP users (other than myself) are putting a PR spin on recent controversy to tone down the facts and implications of Pinkerton/WotC actions reported by news media, it seems likely that one or more corporate PR firms are "handling" the public reaction to events. There are sufficient citable credible sources to justify including the reported facts in the page.
2A00:1110:117:A5B7:1858:3B79:AFBE:1557 (
talk)
15:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Edit warring over cast listing by at least nine different IPs in the last 12 hours (it actually goes back through weeks of disruption). A
talk page discussion has been started to seek consensus for the cast listing. Need protection to drive new/anonymous editors to discuss on the talk page. — Archer1234 (
t·
c)
13:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. Already included in edit notices, but repeatedly ignored by many users.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
16:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Early stages of IP vandalism. Subject is a political candidate whose election will be held on June 6, 2023. Requesting semi-protection (or whichever level is deemed appropriate) until that date.
Woko Sapien (
talk)
15:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Editor requesting this has an agenda to make them able to edit the page by themselves only and they're reverting against 3 editors.
RCB88 (
talk)
13:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Note that IP activity began on 21-22 March with an attempt to hijack the
Netherfield dab page for
an unsourced article on this village. I created a sourced stub at the appropriate title, but I'm getting weary of reverting IP editor(s) who seem determined to add a spurious population figure, claiming the 1870s figure as being a 2011 one.
PamD14:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Last edits from those accounts was April 23, so nothing too recent. Feel free to relist if that changes.
El_C16:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Question:Pelmeen10, articles about Leagues and Cups tend to be the most challenging requests to parse on this board. The problem is due to poor edit summaries combined with the insularity of the subject matter. So, for example, your
latest edit (April 26) that has an edit summary that reads top3 — what is happening there? Were edits by IPs immediately prior reverted? Were those edits disruptive? It isn't easy to tell what's what is the point.
El_C09:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Pelmeen10, the definitions might overlap and be somewhat fluid, but generally, reverting disruption is not considered edit warring. Even if it might not necessarily fall under the edit warring
exemption in a strict sense (i.e. for our purposes, it being limiting it to "obvious vandalism," mostly so that it cannot be
WP:GAMEd).
What I'm getting at, however, is two things: 1. I can't tell when disruption has been reverted, because for whatever reason veteran editors of League and Cup articles generally tend to provide poor or unclear edit summaries, especially when reverting unsourced or disruptive edits, thus making it rather opaque for uninvolved reviewers to parse absent direct pointers/diffs. And 2. I can't tell when disruption has been reverted recently, because generally (though not exclusively), what is actionable on this board is for disruption to have happened in hours and days rather than in weeks and months. Otherwise, it starts to become Stale.
Anyway, Requesting immediate archiving... but feel free to relist if new problems arise — though, again, if edit summaries are unclear, maybe add some pertinent diffs. HTH.
El_C01:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Event takes place tonight, 8 pm ET (12 am UTC). There already has been vandalism over the past couple of days, and things will get worse later this evening. Please semi-protect for 12 hours.
bender235 (
talk)
19:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Regular, persistent IP vandalism against the same targeted passage. Request permanent semi-protection. Pertains to arbitration on Indian articles. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
02:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
That one revision occured while the page was semi-protected. Looking at the reason as to why the page was protected, I see no good reason to unprotect.
47.227.95.73 (
talk)
01:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not done for now. Holding off, because your
warning might have worked, seeing as they have not vandalized or otherwise edited the page since.
El_C01:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Petewarrior: I take your point but this is the first protection for that article and things have to be escalated on a demonstrated-need basis.
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
We generally leave protecting templates for a bot which applies a uniform procedure. The template has
196 transclusions which is, as I recall, not enough for "high risk". OTOH, perhaps leaving the door open for easy vandalism amplification is not desirable. Thoughts from others? If anyone wants to protect at any level, please do so without a need for consultation. This comment is just me being unsure.
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Whew... Five PPs in the space of two years, and every—single—time it gets IP vandalised the very same day the PP expires. Clearly the IP(s) have a damn alarm clock set to go off. I've been editing 16 years and have never seen anything like it. How about a year this time? One thousand years? Indefinite...? Pretty please?
2A00:23C7:E493:E701:4560:7FA1:6475:E467 (
talk)
07:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
SCHWETTMANN TECHNOLOGIES IS A GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PROVIDER, AND WE ARE DEVOTED IN PUTTING GREAT IDEAS INTO ACTION, WHETHER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN MICROSOFT CLOUD SOLUTIONS OR WISH TO TRANSFORM INTO A DIGITAL LEADER.
Umarakhtar2224 (
talk)
09:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I have significant concerns about the vast amount of material you have deleted from the Theatre and Disability article. Much of the deleted material was of great value to the community of performers with disabilities, and many of the contributions were made by members of the disability community, including those with intellectual disabilities. They absolutely deserve the opportunity to advocate for themselves, and holding this page to the standards you imposed through deletions rather than edits takes away their voice. Yes, this article is need of significant improvement, but better to tag it as such or make edits that improve the existing material rather than mass deletion of content. I invite you to revert your edits. Thanks very much!
2606:8180:5001:A2:F80C:6601:3E5E:DA53 (
talk)
17:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Subtle vandalism over months, many a times protected but the issue continues. Requestion permanent semi protection. zoglophie17:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent multiple IP editors changing the name of Snowdonia to Eryri. Per the discussion on the talk page, this is not being done per
WP:COMMONNAME. None of the IPs will engage on the talk page.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
19:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: I had reviewed the article's
draft and I accept the draft in AFC review but the page is protected so requesting unprotection.
NP83 (
talk)
14:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Question:Loafiewa, could you please explain the connection, using
diffs containing the same or similar edits in this article? I'm not immediately seeing it. Thanks.
El_C20:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: this page was set to pending changes indefinite long ago for some reason, not clear why that remains necessary (editor who placed it left Wikipedia in 2020).
soibangla (
talk)
19:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected I just suppressed the last IP edit there, and the two anon edits before that were made by an IP blocked as a sock. I don't see any reason to remove the pending changes from this BLP.
Ponyobons mots20:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: There's a vandalism problem with this page, in particular anonymous ips and hate speech additions.
I think it's needs either pending changes or semi-protection. As less seasoned editors watch this page, once evidence around the case stops. There are going to be less people to reverse such highly disruptive edits or to check them.
LoomCreek (
talk)
22:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Question:Peacemaker67, you already
protected the page a week ago, so why do you need to post a request for it now? Also, we don't usually protect just on account of one (or even two) user(s), so that protection and this request are a bit confusing to me.
El_C23:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I just felt that me as an admin and also the primary editor on the article, I might be seen as having a conflict of interest if I just kept protecting it when the matter could appear to a layperson to be a matter of opinion rather than straight out vandalism (or probably right-wing POV editing). However, it was also obvious IP edit-warring without any intention of discussing. I deal with a lot of vandalism of articles in the WWII Yugoslavia space and generally try to avoid sending them all here. What do you think?
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
00:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, as mentioned, the general practice when it's just one (or even 2) user/s is to block rather than protect. As for that IP, specifically, on closer look, I
amended the 36 hours EW block to a month DE one with TPA disabled due to racist provocations. Anyway, hope that helps for next time and sorry you had to deal with that nonsense.
El_C00:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: IP vandalism has started again after protection expired. What do these people have against Sri Lankan broadcasters, anyway? This isn't the only article on the topic that keeps having chunks taken out of it. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)04:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Whew... Five PPs in the space of ten years, and every—single—time it gets IP vandalised the very same day the PP expires. Clearly the IP(s) have a damn alarm clock set to go off. I've been editing 16 years and have never seen anything like it. How about a year this time? Ten years? Indefinite...? Pretty please?
2A00:23C7:E493:E701:60A1:4184:F631:4F15 (
talk)
06:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I can't find that
92.53.16.94 edited the Windows 10 article, since the Windows 10 article was protected previous year. The IP Address, 92.53.16.94 made its
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Article is constantly targeted by brand new users / IPs who wants to change the result to "Hotaki victory" without bothering to cite even one a source, nor read the article or the actual discussions about it.
HistoryofIran (
talk)
10:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Disruptive editing by unregistered users where they constantly revert a well-established consensus and the belonging comment without any explanation.
FrB.TG (
talk)
21:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Question:Starkex, can you explain what's happening wrt the sources and numbers, it's unclear and edit summaries provide limited info. Thanks.
El_C20:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Apparently there are two IP users modifying population sources to their claims citing that the population of Urdu speakers in Pakistan is 30 million whereas according to 2017 census of Pakistan the population is 15 million.
Starkex (
talk)
10:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I get that. What confuses me is that the
MQM-P does not come across as that fringe, at least not to the extent that it would claim there being double the population of the census. Something seems off there, so I was wondering if you knew what the basis for their 30m claim was.
Almost certainly, though, the census data ought to reflect the population figures. I was just curious. But I forgot to ask the main question I intended to: did the IP only add that information those two times? Thanks.
El_C10:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
A non-answer? Okay... Anyway, as for the IP/s, they're not exactly separate as they're both from the same range. But since the last edit was about two days ago, I'm gonna hold off and close the request as Declined for now. Feel free to relist if there are further issues. And also free to yes-answer when you do so (or at least acknowledge a non-answer if you opt for that). Either way, good luck. Hope it works out.
El_C21:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent pov pushing this past week or two. Brand new users/IPs try to change the (sourced) result in the infobox, either removing it or adding "Afghan victory".
HistoryofIran (
talk)
22:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined as it is a
level-2 vital article, and is an ongoing target for vandalism. As the article isn't a topic that requires constant updating, the talk page of the article should be sufficient for any IP to request changes.
Dennis Brown -
2¢21:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: BLP that seems to have been attracting a high level of vandalism or otherwise disruptive editing from IP users and new accounts, particularly over the past day but also relatively frequently for at least a couple of weeks now.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (
talk)
23:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: The admin who protected this template page has retired and I'm yet to see any vandalism or disruption on it since then. If it still needs the protection lock because of "preying socks and vandals", well....
Intrisit (
talk)
10:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Protected for 10 years, less likely that this article will receive vandalism since Romney is no longer involved in politics and was not a significant political individual.
162.219.198.189 (
talk)
20:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I will leave open, but I would decline as her husband is considering a run for President, and that will draw more attention to her article. If he doesn't run (planned to announce early summer), then there would be a stronger reason to remove semi, although there is also a good case for leaving it even then.
Dennis Brown -
2¢20:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Indefinite Semi-protection:: High level of vendalism, as one of the most popular TV reality shows (Malayalam language adaptation of
Big Brother, people frequently enter incorrect/favored edits and comments in the page. A look at this page's
edit history.
Mims Mentor (
talk)
17:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I can see that more will be needed after a week but this is the first protection and we have to escalate.
Johnuniq (
talk)
05:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page was upgraded from a long-term pending changes protection to a shorter term semi-protect earlier. The semi-protect has expired, so I request reinstatement of the original long-term pending changes protection, or an extension of the semi-protection that recently expired given the propensity for certain LTAs to go after the page about me and add RD2/RD3/doxxing content (see also:
Brianna Wu,
Turning Red, etc)
Lizthegrey (
talk)
18:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
There needs to be disruption to justify protection. See
WP:PREEMPTIVE. Unless there is disruption, it will be unprotected per policy. I would report it again if someone tries to do something as you described. From the edit history, I don't see how pending changes would help if the person responsible for the vandalism has autoconfirmed sockpuppets, but the Kiwi Farms hate raid died down a while ago, so it should be fine.
93.109.111.66 (
talk)
20:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason:Temporary semi-protection – Persistent harassment from block evading IP editor. This is the second request on this, but this time I am making the request myself. Also, blocking this latest IP would be advisable. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
04:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Semi-prot for just under one decade. Maybe time to give unprotecting a trial?
Peanut may be worth considering too, though that's been semied for "merely" 3 years. Up to admin discretion I guess.
47.155.41.201 (
talk)
21:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Another that I will leave open for more opinions, but being a vital article, I would decline unprotection. Same for Peanut. There aren't any rapidfire changes needed for these articles, the talk page works just fine for minor changes by IPs.
Dennis Brown -
2¢21:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: The question one should ask in these cases is not "why is this protected" but "what reason would a random new editor have to edit it that couldn't be handled via edit request?"
Temporary semi-protection: While this is not being vandalized repeatedly, it IS the featured article on the front page, and therefore should have some form of page protection.
HeartCat1💬📝02:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Previous BLP-infringing editor is back adding the same content. Full protection (or pending changes perhaps) while any discussions take place would be very useful.
10mmsocket (
talk)
10:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Didn't see it was previously protected long-term, but we likely won't be making that mistake again. Thanks for the quick action and oversighting. Nate•(
chatter)15:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Editors are having a dispute over the name of the railway station, as the station signage and network maps depict "Wattle Glen" while the government gazetted "Wattleglen" as one word.
Purin128AL (
talk)
09:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: One new section has a noteworthy piece on this public figure, but various anon IP addresses either revert it or have added what is, essentially, dross. I suggest it be semi-protected, if possible. Thanks :)
NoPolymath (
talk)
14:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent name change, and down grading of the fully fledged city of Pimpri-Chinchwad to a mere suburb or neighborhood of the City of
Pune by IP accounts.
Jonathansammy (
talk)
19:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Reason: Months long disruption by Chile-based dynamic IP (deceptive edit summaries; changing films' billing block credits; changing reference titles/headlines). Warned many times; some page protections; some blocks by proxy bot; etc. Recent edit warring, too.