Reason: Despite being reverted repeatedly, a non-logged in user keeps making the same edit that violates WP:SPS for the last few months
EliotWL (
talk)
15:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of
WP:SPA edit-warring. This is part of a long trend dating back more than a year, on top of multiple previous protection increases that have had to be imposed before.
GuardianH (
talk)
19:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed protection: Continuous spamming and disruption of edits after the end of temporary protection, similar also hapfpened to
2022 Indian Premier League. Protection of this page in any sort is really needed as spammers are doing this especially for spreading hate towards the league.
Wowlastic10 (
talk)
15:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. We're reticent to protect Talk pages generally, particularly over comments that -- while nonsensical -- amount to perhaps just a minor annoyance. Two days is the best I can do.
Chetsford (
talk)
07:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Ip's continues to add false event to Fall Brawl who does not provide an reliable source and ignores the talk page and every time it is removed the ip adds it back. Please look at the history of the page and you will see that it is User:Telvin21 who uses ip's to continue to add false fall Brawl events and after it is removed the ip adds it back.
Untamed1910 (
talk)
03:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Most IP/new user edits in the last few months have been reverted as vandalism or unsourced additions to this BLP. Also a target of an LTA.
Air on White (
talk)
04:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended protection: Arbitration Enforcement. The "Opinions on Israeli invasion of Gaza" section has seen repeated IP edits regarding the characterization of his views as controversial.
Chaotic Enby (
talk ·
contribs)
00:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Persistent Violations of the Biographies of Living Persons and Vandalism at the same time: The same I.P. as last time (who is likely a sockpuppet) vandalized the page and changed the national of Walmsley to Greek, and in the Infobox. They keep doing this. They have done this at least 5 or times, I think it's best to indef-semi-protect or pending changes protect. And please, PLEASE, I beseech you to block the person who is changing the nationality.
70.50.199.125 (
talk)
01:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Prior semi-protections failed to stop vandalism after protection ends. Seems like there are still useful edits from anon editors.
– robertsky (
talk)
11:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Also, wrong target page, but judging from the reqeuster's contribution history,
Jogi (caste) looks like the article they are requesting for. which also has not enough disruptive activities yet.
– robertsky (
talk)
10:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Will try warning but given the history of 'vandalism' tags on their contributions page, I'm not very hopeful that it will work.
– F3ew11:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP editor & another editor have been edit-warring for eleven days. I encouraged them to discuss on Talk. IP editor is not happy with input of other editors & has returned to edit warring.
Pathawi (
talk)
01:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. "Editing is being made on predictions"? Where does policy say that predicted election results cannot be edited? What if the sources making those predictions change those predictions? Are editors not allowed to change them then?
Reason: IP keeps adding "first day of Pride Month" to the lead, which while yes it was the first day of Pride Month, is hardly relevant to the article. Would like to see it semiprotected for the next 72 hours.
Springeragh (
talk)
13:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. From an LTA. This may not deter them who vandalize other pages and edit on their user page anyway, but I think some form of protection will help slightly.
Aaron Liu (
talk)
13:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent disruptive editing by new users in the past 2 days. No room for improvement in a redirect, so please just protect and stop the vandalism for good.
Air on White (
talk)
18:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP vandals are targeting this page as the tournament is about to begin. Should be protected for month till the World Cup ends. Vestrian24Bio (
TALK)
18:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Nearly all IP/new user edits have been reverted as vandalism or unsourced. Pending changes protection is not effective enough.
Air on White (
talk)
18:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Maybe four edits since the page was semi-protected, and none of them appear problematic.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Continuously subjected to vandalism and disruptive editing by IPs and new users, who massively remove verified sources and information
Sira Aspera (
talk)
22:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Protected for a week for vandalism, disruptive editing and sockpuppet, as soon as the protection expired it was again targeted by one of the previously reported new users.
Sira Aspera (
talk)
22:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Very badly botched pagemove with IP entanglement based on no sources (a discussion about reverting it is ongoing), but not only that, most of the edits the last month have been pointless IP-low editor vandalism regarding the first show aired on the channel (itself unsourced but unable to be removed because of said issue with it being restored). Nate•(
chatter)23:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: I know article's talk page are generally not protected but this one needs protection cause from the last year some IPs are treating this talk page as a
forum.
M S Hassan (
talk)
04:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There's a high bar for protection of Talk pages and I'd normally decline this as not enough recent disruptive activity. However, noting that it was previously protected after significant disruption of the type described above, the modest continuation of disruption that has occurred since the end of protection is probably enough to justify further protection. That said, I don't think we can do more than three days yet and I'm not entirely convinced that will solve the issue, but it's nonetheless important to try before attempting more draconian protection. Regrettably, that means you'll probably be back here in the near future,
M S Hassan. Thanks for your diligence.
Chetsford (
talk)
04:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Talk pages are rarely protected, but the Instagram talk page is mostly used by IP addresses to mention an instagram, my guess it's theirs to attract followers. This has been going on for months, with reverts on a nearly daily basis.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 12 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The last protection period was for three months and didn't do anything, so I'm inclined to believe you're correct that this is headed to indefinite protection. However, given our reticence to protect Talk pages, I think we have to try escalating intermediate steps, as unlikely as those may be to succeed. Thanks for your diligence,
soetermans.
Chetsford (
talk)
04:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
n March 2024, he was added to the FIA's Provincial National Identification List (PNIL) to prevent him from leaving the country after he was made part of an investigation related to the assassination of Chaudhry Muhammad Adnan, an independent candidate, ran from constituency NA-57 Rawalpindi-VI in the 2024 Pakistani general election.[3] According to media reports, Adnan had political differences with Chaudhary and he had repeatedly expressed concerns about his safety, indicating that he perceived Chaudhary as a threat. Adnan made it explicit that if any harm came to him, he would hold Chaudhary accountable.[4]
World No 1 strategist (
talk)
23:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done. Failure to read the instructions. This is not an edit request, it does not suggest any change and fails to cite any sources. A proper edit request needs to be posted on
Talk:Daniyal Chaudhary instead of here. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
23:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The article needs to mention he is a felon the Wikipedia article is biased for not mentioning that he is a convicted felon under New York law as of yesterday
71.241.132.109 (
talk)
18:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Already done Have you read the article lately? Here's the final paragraph of the lead: In May 2024, a jury in New York found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels in an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election, making Trump the first former U.S. president to be convicted of a crime. He faces 54 other felony counts in three other indictments: a federal prosecution in Florida related to his mishandling of classified documents; a federal prosecution in Washington, D.C., on charges of conspiracy and obstruction for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election; and a state prosecution in Georgia on racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results. In separate civil proceedings in New York state court, Trump was found liable for financial fraud in 2024 and liable for sexual abuse and defamation in 2023. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
18:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Arbitration enforcement for American politics. Also, page was previously indefinitely semi-protected and was briefly extended confirmed protected but the indefinite semi-protection was never put back in like it should have. See the page's protection history. Also, page has received heavy and persistent egregious vandalism while unprotected. Please make the semi-protection indefinite once again.
Tabbliss (
talk)
00:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It probably will need to be extended, but I did just protect it for two years, so I don't see the harm in letting it run and revisiting it then. Unfortunately this does not fall under
WP:ARBAP2 since the cutoff was moved to 1992, nor does it fall under
WP:ARBBLP. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
00:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The problem is the page should never have been unprotected to begin with. It was indefinitely semi-protected, then briefly extended confirmed protected and when the ECP protection expired the indefinite semi-protection should have been reinstated. See the page's protection history.
MuboshguDaniel QuinlanTabbliss (
talk)
00:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – People are adding that MrBeast became the most-subscribed YouTube channel when there is no reliable source to back this up. YouTube subscriber counts are abbreviated, so at this current point in time, it is impossible to know who is truly the most-subscribed channel. ―Panamitsu(talk)00:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely. No reason to go to EC on this, since the most likely vandals/disruptors are non-autoconfirmed, and I don't know how that would affect Twinkle's ability to log these.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. And the content is really just in passing, among a list of all the other recent international conflicts it has condemned.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinate Extended-Confirmed Protection: Persistent disruptive editing by auto-confirmed accounts. The revision history shows disruption from auto-confirmed accounts.
70.50.199.125 (
talk)
07:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Indefinite full protection. User keeps using Wikipedia user pages as an advertisement.
48JCLTALK12:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined Most of the recent reverted edits were additions of his death before it was confirmed. Since it has been, that's no longer an issue.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually it is quantifiable. The measurement would be tourist visits. In that respect, based on sources I found, New York City does indeed come out number one when considering only US cities, in terms of both foreign tourism as well as domestic tourism. For US states, on the other hand New York isn't even in the top three. But changing "populous" to "popular" is just wrong and vague, and doesn't reflect the sources already cited. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
20:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes:BLP policy violations – Eternal magnet for BLP violations. Everyone's been scammed by someone. Not a huge rate of disruption, so I think PC should be sufficient.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk)
00:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. @
Stephen"Zap": Please try talking to the editor to explain why it's wrong. Timely user talk page messages tend to work best for IP editors.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
00:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Probably requires a solid amount of time for protection given how Sheinbaum will most likely be elected Mexico's female president.
TDKR Chicago 101 (
talk)
05:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: I asked for protection a while back but was told no due to an admin or page protection rights user saying they would watchlist the page. A few days ago an astronomically bad BLP violation took place and I feel protection is needed. He is a very controversial person with a lot of online enemies. His Wikipedia will be vandalized more and more unless this is done. I think and admin will need to
WP:SELDEL the certain difs. Thank you.
Kiwiz1338 (
talk)
06:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Kiwiz1338: This is the first protection and three months is about the most available. The diffs you mention have been removed.
Johnuniq (
talk)
06:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. @
ImTheAvidPheasant: There is apparently some excitement regarding a new documentary, but more turmoil would be required to justify protection. Please try to explain the sourcing requirement, or at least post a new section at article talk explaining the requirement.
Johnuniq (
talk)
05:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: my user talk is being disruptively edited by a editor that I have specifically told not to edit on my user talk.
WP:AE recently filled against them. Need temporary protection until such time that the AE case is finished. TarnishedPathtalk12:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Can I request temp RPP again please, an IP from a constantly jumping IP range keeps making edits against consensus and they were doing the same thing months ago, they're doing it across this as well as Star Wars and Return of the Jedi, they've previously ignored any attempts at discussion or edit notes and just keep remaking the same edit over and over.
Darkwarriorblake (
talk)
10:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The recent IP are subtly disruptive with no value added to the page. These edits seem to be made solely to remove or alter existing content without valid reasoning or improvement to the page's quality.
ManaliJain (
talk)
12:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Daniel Quinlan: I'm so sorry; I think I forgot to update here or ran across this on AIV or something. I blocked the sock + did the semi first due to
there being no prior protection history. That said, I have no objections whatsoever to someone else changing/modifying/upgrading the protection to ECP; I just haven't been as active overall and thus took action super-conservatively. :P Cheers =) --
slakr\
talk /23:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Slakr: Nah, you're fine. Semi-protection is not unreasonable given the sock block, but I think ECP is probably a slightly better option given the persistence of the sockmaster so I went ahead and increased it. Thanks!
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
23:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Nswix: You'll need to try talking to the autoconfirmed editors making unsourced changes, the level of disruption isn't sufficient to justify ECP at this time.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
23:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – A sock keeps trying to close this discussion. Not sure if there's an appropriate protection for this, given AFDs are supposed to be open.
Soni (
talk)
18:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: It was protected for several days to counter vandalism and unhelpful edits. After the protection period ip edits started again.
Mehedi Abedin10:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page was recently given semi-protection for a month due to persistent disruptive edits and vandalism. Page protection was removed not long ago, and there has been large scale disruptive editing by anonymous and newly made accounts. About two months ago, the page was given semi-protection for a month, but since the page has had an increase in disruptive editing from anonymous IPs and new accounts since the protection was removed, I would like to request extended confirmed or at least semi-protection for 6 months.
Kalariwarrior (
talk)
11:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm not making this a CTOPS protection since it's just that one aspect, (and anyway
Israel-Maldives relations, more on this point, has already been ECP'ed indefinitely. If
Visa policy of the Maldives is created in response to this, it too should be ECP'ed). We'll see how this goes after a month.
Daniel Case (
talk)
01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism with no chance of subsiding – the subject was a leader of a breakaway sect in Islam considered heretic by mainstream Islam. Hate speech and derogatory comments are added by IP editors every couple of weeks since its 3-year protection period ended in December. Needs renewed protection now – I strongly recommend indefinite protection (which of course doesn't mean infinite), much like with
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. —
kashmīrīTALK17:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Pattern of disruptive editing due to recent off-wiki "controversy" leading to repeated addition of policy-breaking content (WP:RS, WP:SYNTH) by newly created accounts. Needs temporary protection.
Rambling Rambler (
talk)
23:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary move protection: Page-move vandalism – We need a move protection utill an ongoing discussion is closed as useres have started moving the page without consensus. Vestrian24Bio (
TALK)
01:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This is my first time requesting a decrease in protection and I used UltraViolet to make this request. I hadn't seen Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply. Protecting admin has not performed any actions since 2 April 2024 and their summary protecting the page indicated they were not opposed to protection being lowered after several months. Please let me know if this is still necessary when the admin is currently inactive.
AdamBlacktalk •
contribs00:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
add "Beginning with the radical left to George Soros-backed prosecutor Alvin Bragg of New York, who campaigned on the fact that he would "get" President Trump, "Critics claim he intentionally targeted Trump not because of the crimes committed but because he disagreed with his politics and wanted to prevent him from seeking a second term.
Josephanthony1183 (
talk)
18:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This request was never intended to be taken seriously. The text is so patently polemic it's
intentional to try and paint Wikipedia as dominated by liberalists. Honestly, the user should be given an
AP2 warning, because I do not genuinely think they're dispassionate enough to edit in the topic area, assuming they're even interested in editing in good faith at all.
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring – various IPs add information that was removed based on consensus in the discussion and Edit summaries, without trying to engage in the discussion.
FromCzech (
talk)
16:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There's a slow-motion vandalism in this article. It gets reverted, then someone days later brings back the vandalized version (probably the same person under variable IP). As this is is slow-motion vandalism, slapping templated notices to talk pages are of no use.
Howard the Duck (
talk)
07:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Same issue as before, different IPs adding some variant of the peacock phrase "widely regarded as one of the most promising talents in world football" to the lead. I guess this is some offsite fan thing.
Belbury (
talk)
08:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. For example, since May 21, there have been 10 distinct IP addresses making unconstructive edits to the article.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)13:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The page keeps being targeted by Kurdish Nationalists imposing and enforcing a false identity on a famous Upper Egyptian figure, even though his own son denied that foreign rumor repeatedly in TV interviews, yet new accounts keep ruining his biography and enforcing something the family has never stated.
Fragrant Peony (
talk)
07:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Already protected by administrator El C. Over a year and a half ago; it will remain protected for almost as long. There have been minimal edits since; I will, however, put a CTOPS tag on the talk page.
Daniel Case (
talk)
21:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of politically biased IP disruptive edits, by the same socks with dynamic IPs starting by "79." and "84." IP ranges, the first one being always from the same ISP named
Digi Communications (Spanish branch of the company) one does pro-
Catalanism edits and the other one makes pro-
Valencianism edits, albeit the latter has been silent for about 2 weeks ago, the one IP range with tons of sockpuppets starting with "79." is even active up to today.
Just as a note: The user that made this edit back to January 2024 claims to be a Catalan Independence supporter (nothing against that) and this user himself made good
WP:NEUTRAL edits and didn't delete nor change anything from the page, unlike these sockpuppets coming from these 2 IP ranges started disrupting the page over the past 2 months.
I would like to request a semi-protection so it can be edited only by registered users that have confirmed their email address. The page has been disrupted for 2 months and many users (including myself) have to watch it to revert the newer sock edits.
LucenseLugo (
talk)
09:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is still not exemplary editing. Not when dynamic IPs are constantly used to restore disputed material without going to the talk page.
Daniel Case (
talk)
21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP vandalism due to the ongoing tournament; should be protected for a month till the tournament cocludes. Vestrian24Bio (
TALK)
18:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Consistent vandalism due to dog breed being from Israel as well as being mentioned as being found in Palestine. Not sure if the whole Israel/Palestine restrictions extend to stuff like this but there should at least be autoconfirmed protection.
[9][10][11][12] Since February there has been one edit that hasn't been vandalism/reverting vandalism.
Traumnovelle (
talk)
08:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring and one of the protagnists notes on their Talk page they will continue to revert.
Karst (
talk)
10:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: A candidate from sensitive constituency of India has been leading as a candidate there from the opposition party than the current ruling government. The page has high risk of vandalism for next one week to one month.
Noobiemaster299 (
talk)
14:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Article hasn't been edited at all since last September, surely an accomplishment for any article with "Israel" in its title at the moment ...
Daniel Case (
talk)
22:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: A IP is doing vandalism and unhelpful edits in these three articles, we are reverting them for three long days but they are continuously doing it. I reported them
see here but looks like they are using more than one ips to vandalize these articles. In this situation it is important to protect these three articles for longer period because the person is persistent enough. No other action will not work as they are using many ips.
Mehedi Abedin (
talk)
08:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. all articles, although for now I have made that a regular admin action. The last one is in Bangladesh, not covered by IPA, and I could not see a sufficient nexus to justify adding the CTOPS tag to that page.
Daniel Case (
talk)
02:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Dsiruption not heavy enough to warrant protection, too.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – This is the talkpage of a mobile games company. While there are occasional normal contributions, the vast vast majority (see the recent revision history) is just spam related to various accounts and requests for free currency or account help etc. Some of these contain what I think is game profile info, I don't know to what extent this is a privacy concern, but it doesn't feel great. At any rate, due to the excessive and continuous disruption I am proposing it for one of the rare talkpage indefinite semis.
CMD (
talk)
03:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
See
WP:SEMI: Administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on... Article discussion pages, if they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents unregistered and newly registered users from participating in discussions. All in all. the threshold for protecting talk-pages is higher than for articles. And as you said: occasionally there are normal contributions. I have watchlisted, so will revert
WP:FORUM-like edits when I see them.
Lectonar (
talk)
09:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Some sort of meme is going around about Scar and Adolf Hitler being the same character (or something 🤷) is leading to IPs and SPA accounts adding that 'fact' to this article. It's getting wearing.
81.187.192.168 (
talk)
12:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Same vandal edit being made by the same committed vandal across multiple IPs, as soon as the previous protection expired. Recommend a lengthier temporary semi-protection period.
Yue🌙18:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Please restrict creation to autoconfirmed. LTA is known for disrupting his own LTA page, which has already been semi-protected, and various other LTA-related pages. He just created this page as pure vandalism. Very few non-autoconfirmed are aware of LTA pages in wikispace, let alone have a reason to edit the talk page.
Air on White (
talk)
03:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent edit warring (spanning at least 2 years) pertaining to his caste. Constant addition of a caste contradictory to what sources state.
Southasianhistorian8 (
talk)
05:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Persistent vandalism and unsourced additions to BLP since 22:57, 23 May 2024.
Panian51318:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent disruptive editing and sockpuppetry; all edits since 9 February have either been this single editor or others reverting them.
Aoidh (
talk)
20:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Page has been subject to numerous attempts by various IP users in particular to add large amounts of WP:OR violating content, namely by declaring any change to do with diversity at any point in time after George Floyd's death to be down to his death without any evidence to support this (i.e. assigning causation).
This has been going on for some time and shows no sign of stopping. Request permanent semi-protection to reduce the need of constant monitoring and better ensure it's retention as an encyclopaedic entry.
Rambling Rambler (
talk)
21:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Two anonymous users changed the release date to June 18, 2027 when all sources so far say the film would be released on June 19, 2026.
The Media Expert (
talk)
21:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite template protection: Requesting indefinte template protection for my user page because it was vandalized before, so I copied all the contents of the user page onto a ".css" subpage, but an extended confirmed user added the wrong COI template recently. Thanks!
Waqar💬16:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I understand this is a unique request, but I'm hoping you can help. I would be incredibly grateful if you could consider fully protecting my user page to prevent any further vandalism once and for all.
Waqar💬05:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Template-protection or full protection would make the userpage inaccessible for almost everyone, and also for the OP. I see the incident of adding a COI template as a one-time off which doesn't amount to enough disruption to warrant protection; I would not grant this request.
Lectonar (
talk)
06:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
While template protection can limit editing access, it doesn't necessarily render the user page inaccessible. Editors with appropriate permissions, like administrators or template editors, can still make edits if necessary. In the case of a COI template, a one-time incident can still be disruptive, especially if it affects the accuracy of the userpage.
Waqar💬07:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's why I wrote ' for almost everyone. But imagine you want a change made, and if the page was protected like you requested (so you can't edit it it yourself), you would then need an admin or template editor to implement the changes you want to make. I just gave my 2 cents here, and will let another admin decide.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The content of my user page is still uneditable by most users, even without template protection, because it's been transcluding from a ".css" subpage on my user page, and whoever wants to make changes to my user page can leave a message on my talk page. That's a much better approach!
Waqar💬07:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, if I wanted to edit my user page, I would just make changes to my ".css" subpage conveniently without needing any admin intervention ever.
Waqar💬07:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it would be consistent with
WP:UPROT to deny this request because the genuine and realistic need requirement has not been met. The level of disruption on the page is very low.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
17:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: It was protected one time because there was high level IP vandalism. After the protection period ended another ip vandalism started and I requested for page protection second time, but it wasn't protected. Now again a ip is trying to edit it with original research. I reverted it, but it is clear that they will not be stale because they tried the same thing with different ips before that. So please I request you not to deny its protection this time and request you to protect it for at least two months because it is gonna be released on
Eid-ul-Adha which is near and during that time there will be high level editing and adding unsourced box-office like what happened to
Priyotoma and
Rajkumar (2024 film).
Mehedi Abedin (
talk)
09:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Tag team SPAs add links to download site ... over and over ... can we have a break please? Or is there admin magic that could prevent that site (lrapkp.com) getting linked to ... ?? Thanks.
DBaK (
talk)
16:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page has been protected in 2008, after several attempts at COI biographies. In other words, very much justified at that time. 16 years have passed and by now she passes the GNG. I wish to undo what is by now an injustice.
gidonb (
talk)
22:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I have something on my machine I plan to use once unprotected. It's not very organized. I will add plenty of references and tie to the many pages where she is currently mentioned.
[13] It's a similar effort really to the
Brian Balmages article that I recreated. Was also understandably removed for peacock, yet notable.
gidonb (
talk)
22:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Downgrade to semi-protection to match
Template:RFX report, which is the only template that invokes this module. They are both transcluded on 389 other pages. (For a period of three months in 2022 the module was transcluded on >5000 pages because of
this edit, later reverted, so the bot template-protected it.) If semi is too low, please increase
Template:RFX report to match the module.
SilverLocust💬06:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page has been protected in 2008, after several attempts at COI biographies. In other words, very much justified at that time. 16 years have passed and by now she passes the GNG. I wish to undo what is by now an injustice.
gidonb (
talk)
22:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I have something on my machine I plan to use once unprotected. It's not very organized. I will add plenty of references and tie to the many pages where she is currently mentioned.
[14] It's a similar effort really to the
Brian Balmages article that I recreated. Was also understandably removed for peacock, yet notable.
gidonb (
talk)
22:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Downgrade to semi-protection to match
Template:RFX report, which is the only template that invokes this module. They are both transcluded on 389 other pages. (For a period of three months in 2022 the module was transcluded on >5000 pages because of
this edit, later reverted, so the bot template-protected it.) If semi is too low, please increase
Template:RFX report to match the module.
SilverLocust💬06:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The sources used are either one-sided or of poor quality. Thus, there is no critical debate about the person Bob Lazar. The article itself reads more like a denunciation than information.
Htrdrware (
talk)
23:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: I think it can have the PC removed at this point, I don't see persistent vandalism or disruptive editing in the past couple years of edits. the only IP vandalism has been minor and infrequent. it's certainly not at the level it was when the page was protected. I also see constructive edits by unregistered and unconfirmed editors. --
Aunva6talk -
contribs15:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
not really. the protection was for persistent disruptive editing. i'd hardly call one in a year persistent. at the time it was protected, the volume was a fair bit higher. --
Aunva6talk -
contribs03:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Unprotected But I have put that on my watchlist; Airport articles have a tendency to be fiddled with regarding destinations and such.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
As one of the good-faith IP users, I request that the article should be protected indefinite. The mentioned disruptive user seems like isn't willing to abide by
Wikipedia's Policies. This has not only occur in
Indonesian National Revolution but also in other war-related Indonesia content articles. I would like to add if the article is protected, then the edits from the recent IP socks should be reverted beforehand. If for instance the user makes another account to continue the same disruptive behavior without adhering to
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE policy or continuing any other disruptive behavior, then the edits will also have to be reverted aswell.
149.108.62.245 (
talk)
13:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Sockpuppetry, COI editing, and disruptive editing.
Currently, the page over at
FairVote is in an unfortunate state, as a result of having been primarily written by, well, their CEO.
After the addition of information mentioning FV's past opposition to voting reforms other than instant-runoff voting, two (probably identical, let's be honest) IP editors have decided to revert any attempt at providing information about FairVote's past campaigns against voting reforms they feel might compete with IRV, calling the information "pure trolling" and "vandalism" of a "respected nonprofit". (Wow, *respected*! That's not something you see every day.)
Given past history of the article, I would not be surprised if the IP is an employee of FV. Regardless of whether it's
WP:COI editing or just some simple everyday
WP:Advocacy, the removal of sourced information is disruptive, to say the least. Requesting semiprotection to prevent the editor from removing relevant information again. –Sincerely,
A Lime01:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – A whole collection of IPs and IP-ranges, according to Geolocate all from the province of Umbria where the airport is located, constantly doing unsourced additions, removing source requests and removing sources. The Bannertalk16:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ordinarily I'd consider this just worth a few days, but given the nature of the vandalism and the extensive RevDel'ing I had to do I decided it was better to protect past the actual election date.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated addition of unsourced claims by an IP address. Requesting semi-protection for at least 1 month on behalf of another IP editor which brought this to my attention on my talk page. The recent disruptive editing is following 3 months of semi-protection for this article which lasted from February to May.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
17:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated vandalism by IP and single edit accounts deleting the following text, often with false edit summaries (such as saying they just made grammatical changes)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Please warn any editors using deceptive edit summaries and report them to
WP:ANI if they continue after being warned.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
17:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
^McArdle, Andrea (2001). Zero tolerance : quality of life and the new police brutality in New York City. New York University Press.
ISBN0-8147-5631-X.
OCLC45094047.
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism (white-washing of sexual abuse allegations section) over the last few years by anonymous IPs.
Godtres (
talk)
14:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Malinaccier: Thanks. I went ahead and reduced it to a week. Let's see if that's sufficient. I was on the fence for the same reason you declined and have definitely declined for the same reason, but ended up on the other side of the fence because she is still actively in the news cycle (see news reports from major media today).
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
21:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. While the article is getting heavily edited (surprise: it's a new show in the Star Wars franchise), I don't see disruption overwhelming the editors currently.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: News broke that he's likely retiring, but Pavelski himself stated that
it's not official yet, meaning that we don't note him as retired. A multitude of non-EC editors, however, seem to disagree.
TheKip(
contribs)20:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Aoidh: I may be missing something too, but it looks more like edit warring including a 3RR violation. In addition, there are
bitey warnings and edit summaries that completely fail to explain anything. Even if something is wrong with the edits,
WP:3RRNO has not been followed because it's not obvious vandalism and no exemption has been claimed.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
20:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Daniel Quinlan: That's basically where I'm at, if there's vandalism there's no explanation of how it is vandalism anywhere I can find. This looks like a content dispute where 3RR has been violated on both sides, and while the IP hasn't received any sort of edit warring notice, Nardog has participated at ANEW enough to be aware of the edit warring policy. I'm leaning towards blocking Nardog for 24 hours and semi-protecting the page for that same time period absent a reason why that's not ideal. -
Aoidh (
talk)
21:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Done. Since the IP currently has no reason to revert I'll hold off on semi-protecting the page until there's a reason to do so, but I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks. -
Aoidh (
talk)
22:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Looks like a content dispute to me, but perhaps I do not understand what is wrong with the anonymous user's suggested IPA pronunciation. Malinaccier (
talk)20:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. This is the 3rd time request for protection have been made. 10 days protection for the 1st time (in January) and 3 months protection for the 2nd time (in February). After the page protection ended, the vandal instantly change the aircraft number. This mean that the vandal keep waiting for the page to be free from protection to add his/her desired number of aircraft. From my previous protection request, I suggested for the indefinite protection or at least for a long time looking to this type of vandal that very persist. Thanks in advance. (check history of the page for detail)
Kistara (
talk)
01:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This person has recently been declared missing in Greece. He is a British television presenter and the page keeps getting vandalised. It is an active missing persons case which is attracting media attention in the UK. Would it meet the eligibility to be protected?
Svampesky (
talk)
19:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. IP users adding unsourced or poorly-sourced info on a breaking news event is not, IMO, the same thing as vandalism (Of course, other admins may differ).
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay. Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye on the page because it is facing a little bit of vandalism, per
Special:Diff/1227607970. What's the threshold of vandalism on a page for protection to be re-requested?
Svampesky (
talk)
19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: It may be classed as the insertion of unsourced content (or disruptive editing) rather than specifically vandalism, but in the last 24 hours there have been many of these unsourced edits in the article by IPs, which in my view violate
WP:BLP guidelines. Perhaps, therefore, admins such as
Daniel Case may be able to reconsider if temporary pending changes (or another form of temporary protection) would be beneficial to deal with these ongoing unsourced edits and BLP violations. Regards,
Kind Tennis Fan (
talk)
22:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If the level of disruption due to unsourced edits and vandalism increases, someone can submit a new request and we'll reconsider at that time. Things seem to have calmed down a bit on the article although that may just be due to the time of day.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
23:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It'll be UK time, which is currently BST. Personally, I didn't know who this man was until I saw it on the news. I've checked, and international news sources (except for Greece, where he disappeared) are not reporting on it. I'm keeping an eye on it and will submit a new request if there's more vandalism. I believe other editors are also monitoring it because poorly sourced edits and vandalism are being quickly reverted.
Svampesky (
talk)
01:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. While it clearly falls under that topic area, for an article I'd expect to be very timely right now it has not been edited much since last October.
Daniel Case (
talk)
02:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: He is the son of Beant Singh, who assassinated Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. This page in future can be vandalised.
Andrewjenner75 (
talk)
04:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because the page needs more information which local editors know more. This page does not have any sensitive information which can be vandalised.
Dr Hachi (
talk)
03:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Benzion Mileikowsky (later Netanyahu) was born in Warsaw in partitioned Poland, which was under Russian control, to Sarah (Lurie) and the writer and Zionist activist Nathan Mileikowsky.
Reason: Persistent sock puppetry by
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srimonbanik2007. This master who has been targeting this article for several months is now using an IP range which was reported many times in the SPI to restore edits of their socks. Requesting protection for some months till the trends of the recent 2024 Indian general elections calms down. Thanks -
SUN EYE 108:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: There has been numerous edits made to edit his ranking from different IP addresses despite there being instructions (if users are in source editor mode) to not edit the ranking until it has been officially posted. Edits has been reverted numerous times.
Soafy234 (
talk)
12:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The summary of the article has been mentioned bellow you can check it wisely
[21] if you guys need any query regarding this issue you can approach me on my talk page
Khalsajudicary (
talk)
11:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: I request protection due to repeated vandalism on the stadium capacity data by unregistered users with hidden IP addresses. When the data has been corrected, it has been requested that any modifications should first be justified in the Talk section enabled for capacity discussions. In this section, it has been clarified where the different data regarding the stadium's capacity after the renovation comes from, and it has been stated that the club's president himself has confirmed that the stadium's capacity is 80,000 spectators. In fact, this is also how it appears in the Spanish version. Despite this, there is a user with a hidden IP who constantly changes it. Please, before protecting the article, check that it has not been modified again and that the capacity shows 80,000 spectators.
Zoser (
talk)
14:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Declined DRV has just run its course. The full protection should have done earlier, not end the discussion is ending or has ended. Rather than dragging the discussion out, I have it closed given that there is a consensus in the direction of draftification.
– robertsky (
talk)
15:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Individual adding promotional information to a political individual. Looks like the edit edit warred under a registered user name and then started using IP addresses.
VVikingTalkEdits14:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected – Please use an
edit request to request specific changes to be made to the protected page. The article's protection history clearly shows that unprotection isn't feasible. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
19:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Add the fact the song was recorded right after the major mass sniper shooting at Austin, Texas August 1, 1966 that killed over 14 persons, may have had an affect on Jim Morrison's mindset and songs' haunting tone. UT student Charles Whitman, an Florida Native (as was Jim Morrison) pillow-smothered his mother at her lodging,, then stabbed his wife in her sleep at their home. Dressed as janitor, Whitman drove to, proceeded to the Tower, where he eventually killed 14 persons and injured dozens.
Stevewonder7138 (
talk)
20:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The song WAS recorded after the shooting--thats a fact! I was near Austin then and those people WERE indeed KILLED! No one had ever shot so mnay in USA at one time until that day
Stevewonder7138 (
talk)
20:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hear are SEVEN (7) SOURCES from the exact Wikipedia page "University of Texas tower shooting" (the Aug. 1, 1966 shooting):
References[edit source]
1. Hight, Bruce (September 3, 2016). "UT Tower Shooting Claims One More Life". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on November 10, 2022. Retrieved January 5, 2023.
3. Mass Murderers. Time-Life. 1993. ISBN 978-0-78350-004-1.
4. Hamilton, Reeve (August 1, 2014). "After 48 Years, Unborn Victim of UT Tower Massacre Gets Headstone". The Texas Tribune. Archived from the original on June 27, 2017. Retrieved November 6, 2017.
5. Brothers, Dr. Joyce (August 3, 1966). "Psychologist Believes Sniper Hid Feelings". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on February 5, 2023. Retrieved February 5, 2023.
6. "Sniper Leaves Fourteen Killed and Thirty-One Wounded". St-Louis Post-Dispatch. United Press International. August 2, 1966. Archived from the original on January 31, 2023. Retrieved January 31, 2023.
7. Andrey, Taylor; Pasley, James; Abadi, Mark (May 26, 2022). "The 30 Deadliest Mass Shootings in Modern US History Include Buffalo and Uvalde". Business Insider. Archived from the original on January 7, 2023. Retrieved January 7, 2023.
Stevewonder7138 (
talk)
20:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent unconstructive edits from Ip users (persistent usage of wrong grammar, unreferenced edits, not following Manual of Style).
Hotwiki (
talk)
12:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Indefinite Extended confirmed protection. Persistent
vandalism. New Users constinously adding ideology or changing political positions without providing adequate source. None of the sources states those idelogy or political positions. This page has been heavily edited particularly the idelogy section in the infobox.
Tcspower (
talk)
13:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – They've been at this for a few weeks let's see if we can get them to the talk page. Moxy🍁
00:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – A collection of individuals with connections to the subject are regularly altering this page; they are also sock puppets. Please look over this:
Sockpuppet Investigation. They attempted to roll back alterations from IP: 223.190.83.63 after blocking these socks by
Girth Summit.
Bakhtar40 (
talk)
03:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Possible sockpuppetry (Key word possible) where uncited information regarding
The Illinois, which according to sources in line with WP:RS was a never built vision and as stated by user Anasnajib, "there aren't any plans to build the illinois." Despite this it keeps getting listed as Under construction or On-hold by possible sock-puppets. And I am now concerned that someone is constantly putting in potentially misleading information.
BTW, I should mention that on the article about the Illinois, the status stating the Illinois being on-hold and that construction potentially starting on 2030 is not cited at all. Just wanted to share this information before a decision is made.
Bearnard55 (
talk)
05:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of vandalism by accounts which have only ever edited her page, all seeming to paint her to look better. (Xwv9009, EasyEditorNAD, Fortheunion, Fiftyjust12, Edqxb4wz01 all in 2024 alone, after others last year)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. IPs and newly created accounts keep disrupting the page, adding the same content/information without providing sources dxneo (
talk)
13:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I'm really not seeing anything the editors on the page aren't already dealing with effectively.
Daniel Case (
talk)
03:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Back-and-forth edit war by SPAs on whether weakly sourced negative material should be included.
User:Daniel Case already placed semiprotection for three days earlier which has since expired; we may need a longer semiprotect period (1 month?).
SnowFire (
talk)
05:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Only edit since last protection ended was adding the template back, and the bot removing it.
Daniel Case (
talk)
04:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: semi-protected for a brief time because some people keep putting random numbers for the population without any reference or link if you have a reference put it
Hamdan Turji (
talk)
07:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Spike in vandalism from unregistered (IP) users, particularly due to the ongoing
2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Requesting temporary semi-protection, preferably for a period of three weeks until the end of the tournament on 29 June 2024.
Yue🌙08:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Dear RFPP, in accordance with
WP:GALLERIES I have removed the huge collection of pretty aircraft pictures from this page. Such a gallery belongs on Commons, with most specific details either at this page or at
List of active Russian military aircraft. I am being continually reverted, without explanation or talkpage discussion, repeatedly by anon IPs originating from Taiwan.
Because there is no policy-based argument being raised to contest this deletion, counter to
WP:GALLERIES, I would request page protection for this page.
Buckshot06(talk)11:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. no prior protection applied. hopefully this gets the IP to partake in the talk page. Re-request if the issue persists after the protection lapses.
– robertsky (
talk)
12:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Many thanks!! I am not entirely sure these IPs have any ability to speak English, given the total lack of even edit summaries. We'll see what happens.
Buckshot06(talk)12:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Nearly all the edits to this article for months (since around January) have been block evading socks followed by reverts. Looking at the edit history, these users are socks (mostly of
PaullyMatthews but also others): Ishan87, Ashraful Islam Munna, Likeoflaine, Makeplace, سيرة سويال وإكيرما, Timelineoflines, Makefoplcir, فضائل الصحابة, Battleofforerunners.
R Prazeres (
talk)
15:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: I have noticed that there has been an edit war going on in that article regarding an alleged incident about Wookieepedia's removal of interwiki links to a wiki that consistently hosted anti-LGBT rhetoric. An IP address has kept readding a section to cover the so-called backlash to this event with strongly biased writing and without any reliable source even to justify its notability on Wikipedia. Multiple users have voiced their opinion toward that section's removal due to the reasons mentioned above on the article's talk page, but the IP addresses continue to target that page, which calls for a semi-protection in my opinion.
Bidbey (
talk)
19:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended Confirmed Protection: High level of vandalism. The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. ZenDragoX(
User) | (
Contact)12:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Since 6 June 2024, there have been at least 12 instances of unsourced content being inserted into the article. Mostly unsourced content rather than deliberate vandalism, but nevertheless
WP:BLP violations. If temporary Pending Changes protection is able to be granted, this would still allow IPs to make changes to the article, as long as the content is appropriately sourced.
Kind Tennis Fan (
talk)
22:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Contentious page, with several edit-war like SPAs editing the page, including removal of sourced material and suspected POV pushing. Requesting ECP before this escalates.
Mdann52 (
talk)
17:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Which at least protects it through the election. Will leave CTOPS notice on talk page.
Daniel Case (
talk)
02:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Multiple IPs basically changing nationality of subject. This has been on-going for a while and there are previous protects. There are hidden notes about the issue that are deliberately being ignored. This is a possible
WP:CTOP.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
00:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: A vandal is consistently removing an image from the article, without a valid reason and often with no reason at all. After several warnings, the user has begun creating multiple accounts to make the edit.
NJZombie (
talk)
04:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The previous temporary semi-protection just expired and an IP and two accounts have now vandalized the page; indefinite semi-protection is necessary to prevent further vandalism in the future.
That Tired TarantulaBurrow23:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The Unity Runtime Fee controversiy is over no body is editing it anymore and vandalizing it any more please unprotectied okay.
46.37.116.125 (
talk)
05:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page has been protected since 2008, there doesn't appear to have been much disruption for a while. It may be time to unprotect the article
70.50.199.125 (
talk)
07:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP vandals have returned again for the same purpose since the previous protection expired yesterday. Vestrian24Bio (
TALK)
10:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent edit warring over subject's DOB. About a week ago I requested this page to be protected for the aforementioned reason. And editors didn't waste any time making the same edits once that protection expired.
Kcj5062 (
talk)
11:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't make it semi protected. I looked at the Revision history and it looks like there were also Auto-Confirmed accounts changing the DOB as well. For that, I think it's best if it is Extended-Confirmed Protected, so Auto-confirmed users can't edit it either.
70.50.199.125 (
talk)
15:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of reverts/vandalism relating to ukraine destroying a su57 today. there is multiple reliable sources Reuters, ABC News, Forbes, Telegraph, Moscow Times etc.
PAWPERSO (
talk)
17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent addition of unsourced birth place as an attack, by various IPs and SPAs over the past few days. A bit of a break for them would be useful.
90.251.20.238 (
talk)
19:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request downgrade from Fully protected to Extended confirmed protection. The current events in the
Sukhoi Su-57#Russo-Ukrainian War section need a clean up as there's a 10x source spam with none of the references actually being functional.
Alin2808 (
talk)
19:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done. That isn't how this works. It was full-protected today due to a content dispute. If you cannot edit the article, then make an edit request on the talk page after achieving consensus for the change you want to make. Or you can appeal to the protecting administrator
Amortias. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
20:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The talk page
Talk:Israel-Hamas War is protected, therefore edit requests by non-extended-confirmed users land here. That is acceptable, and this request made above is reasonable. The people who actually do participate on that talk page should be reviewing requests here that remain open and haven't been declined for days. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
20:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
So basically, I shouldn’t request an edit here but I should request an edit at the talk page (and the same goes for future edit requests)?
LordOfWalruses (
talk)
12:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
LordOfWalruses:, it is unusual for talk pages within scope of the
WP:PIA remedies to be extendedconfirmed protected (). That normally only happens after a high level of disruption. You can normally submit edit requests to talk pages. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per
WP:EDITXY. You can also submit them here if you prefer, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think there are arguments in favor of centralizing all edit requests for
WP:PIA to a single location as long as active editors add it to their watchlists (which is probably not the case right now to a large extent). Submitting edit requests to an article talk page obviously means that only a subset of the community who happen to have watch listed that particular page are likely to see it.
Sean.hoyland (
talk)
12:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would like to request that... The casualties in Gaza for the Hamas/Gaza side be separated into civilian casualties and militant casualties . Not only would this give a better understanding of the civilian/militant death ratio, but it would also bring the Gazan side in line with the Israeli side (which has civilian and military casualties of the October 7th attack in two different groups). .
LordOfWalruses (
talk)
19:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I am not completely sure for which page protection was requested, but both haven't been disruptively edited for weeks to months.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting autoconfirmed (semi) protection. There's been a high level of IP vandalism. Even IP non-vandalism edits have changed content without any (change in) sourcing. This appears to be a consistent, ongoing BLP issue. I'm referring this here from
WP:BLPN because OP is unlikely to do so. Cheers!
JFHJr (
㊟)
01:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. If we are missing something, feel free to request again with a more thorough explanation/justification. Malinaccier (
talk)14:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Change the Result 'Won' to 'Lost' in Bihar No. 11 'Katihar' as 'Dulal Chandra Goswami' of JD(U) lost to 'Tariq Anwar' of 'INC'. For proof verify from Voter Helpline App
MohammedUsman147 (
talk)
18:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fyi everyone has access to that app, but if you insist you can search from election commission official website: results.eci.gov.in and search for Bihar's Katihar. Please change it asap!
MohammedUsman147 (
talk)
17:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Let's lock this up for a month and block both editors for a month or two. It's clear they're not going to come to terms...... First thing back from being block for a month both edit warn again.Moxy🍁
01:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd suggest Extended confirmed protection as both accounts seem to be single purpose accounts
[24][25] and there's suspicion of both editors being involved on sockpuppetry (see
[26] &
[27][28]) there's been some IP vandalism too
[29].
Pob3qu3 (
talk)
22:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Subject has recently lost elections, IPs are observed to be editing in an abusive language in native language (telugu). Temporary protection for atleast 1 month is advised as the post election heat may get to normal levels.
Thewikizoomer (
talk)
13:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Revision history shows vandalism. I have noticed, it had occurred multiple times within this month. A Pending-Changes Protection may work, if not, then upgrade to Semi. And please block the vandals, by not blocking them they will continue to vandalize the page.
70.50.199.125 (
talk)
20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – User has no chance of having their block lifted due to
WP:SOCK and a
blatant disregard for Wikipedia policies. There is also clearly an issue of
WP:COMPETENCY here; they have filed their third unblock request in two days, along with a handful of messages addressing the void. GSK (
talk •
edits)
22:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined this isn't the right remedy; talkpage access can be pulled if their use is problematic (not sure it's quite to that point yet).
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
22:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Requesting longer-term temporary page protection due to continued vandalism and/or unsourced edits, mostly from IP users, that just continue after previous page protection ends. Also consider indefinite. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)17:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry I’m pretty new to this I would like the page to be fully protected for a short period of time to ensure the edit warring doesn’t continue
ElMexicanotres (
talk)
05:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protectedindefinitely. Since both of you guys are not EC yet, this would work better to force you to talk it out. If I change to full with a three-day term, the article loses all protection when it expires, the way things presently work tech-wise. When you're ready to agree, we can go back to semi.
Daniel Case (
talk)
05:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason:Pending changes protection: This article about a contentious political concept has a low-frequency stream of non-autoconfirmed users like
this one removing sourced content. Not often enough to need semi-protection, but the article would benefit from these edits needing to go through pending changes review.
Egsan Bacon (
talk)
23:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism in the past. Pages with code installation instructions should be protected to prevent non-autoconfirmed from changing the instructions to install malware.
Air on White (
talk)
04:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Last disruption was in April 2023. If you desire protection for all script documentation pages, you should start a discussion at
one of the village pumps. The real risk are the actual code pages, which are protected against editing from non-interface administrators and authors.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
03:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Already under pending-changes protection; disruption is at an insufficient frequency for semi-protection.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
03:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined As noted in the ANEW report, the IP responsible for about 90% of the recent disruption stopped editing after being warned.
Daniel Case (
talk)
04:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. If this is something we can address with a rangeblock, it's probably better to get the IPs together and take it to AN/I.
Daniel Case (
talk)
04:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page is vandalized by IPs by changing the total gross of the film without any source. After change was reverted, a new IP made same change again. Please increase the protection level on this page.
RangersRus (
talk)
15:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. It looks like it was really bad at the beginning of the month, but since then it seems to have calmed down.
Daniel Case (
talk)
04:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: For whatever reason, there are several unregistered editors who continually add incorrect and uncited information on this page (specifically that the new trilogy is a "prequel" though there are various sources that state otherwise. If this is protected it will help deter the constant reversions of these edits.
DisneyMetalhead (
talk)
05:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Distributive edits from IPs. Likely the same person who has been removing content. Since the Florida version of the ride opens later this month, the page will likely receive a lot of attention in the coming weeks.
Contributor19 (
talk)
07:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: 1. Misleading title. 2. Falsification of history. 3. Hiding the reality. 4. Ignoring hundreds of bloods shed for a "rescue" that ended up as "massacare". 5. Throwing the opinion of millions of people and only considering a minority of tyrants.
105.38.228.16 (
talk)
08:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is a content dispute of sorts, and I'd expect a talk page discussion as to why the blanker(s) feel these negatives deserve blanking (which is totally allowed under BLP policies). This subject is a living person, so an argument can and has been made (in edit summary) these assertions are disparaging. Make your case on talk. These two days will help.
BusterD (
talk)
13:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Seems like some COI warnings and perhaps a visit to at least one noticeboard may be necessary eventually.
BusterD (
talk)
14:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP addresses constantly delete sourced information and add unrelated content. After this many reversions, there is no consensus. Therefore, I request semi-protection of the page to avoid edit wars.
Göycen (
talk)
13:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This seems to be a content dispute and the blanking editor is trying to talk about this. Please create a talk page thread where this discussion may take place.
BusterD (
talk)
14:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Looking at disruption since the last protection regime expired, this is a remarkably stable page for such a reliably controversial topic. I can't myself justify indef semi, but if another admin wants to go there, that's fine with me too.
BusterD (
talk)
14:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism from at least two IP addresses over the past week. Appear to be focused on whitewashing the article on behalf of the article subject.
Geoff | Who, me?12:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Large frequency of unsourced BLP changes from various IPs (and a joke-username account: DODJIHEZONJA, meaning "HEZONJA, COME [implied: to our club]"), pertaining to recently emerged rumors of his club change, which appeared in tabloids; see
example —
Alalch E.14:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting protection yet again for persistent unsourced changes by IP editors. This page has had temporary protection applied three times in 2024. Can we please get permanent protection this time? –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
15:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Palestinian keffiyeh page has edit protection already, and it appears that vandalism-like and low quality edits are being made to the normal keffiyeh page as well.
Reference critiquer (
talk)
17:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Many of the editors who engaged in the recent edit warring were EC ... upgrading to that level of protection would have no effect on them. If that's what prompted this report, the CTOPS designation allows to impose 1RR instead. Would you prefer that?
Daniel Case (
talk)
21:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If the edit warrimg accounts were Extended-Confirmed, then shouldn't the article be Fully Protected so Extended-Confirmed Users can't edit it?
70.50.199.125 (
talk)
20:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
We only full-protect pages during severe edit wars, and only for a short period of time (like, IME, never longer than a week). 1RR is better when we get to persistent edit warring involving editors at that level.
Daniel Case (
talk)
03:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would like to request that
Nuseirat refugee camp massacre be linked under the 'See also' category in the same way this article is linked in the 'See also' category in the aforementioned article. This will give continuity between the two articles in avoid bias.
matt. (
talk)
06:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Should get extended protection, as all similar meaningful resolutions on this contentious topic do (e.g. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2720). Risk of vandalism and biased edits is high.
CrazyPredictor (
talk)
12:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. ECP will probably be needed for some period of time, but this request is premature. There have only been a handful of disruptive edits in the last day and the level of disruption in those edits is relatively minor compared to what I expected reading this request. Semi-protection has been on the article for a long time leading up to now. Let's see if this edit helps while continuing to monitor the article.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
20:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There has been a steady pattern of vandalism (three separate instances by three distinct IP users in the past 24 hours) on this page.
Johnnie Bob (
talk)
02:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose That page has been subjected to tendentious axe-grinding by IP editors, which wastes the time of productive editors.
Cullen328 (
talk)
01:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined. Articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict may only be edited by users with
extended-confirmed status, that is to say, by users whose accounts have existed for at least 30 days and who have made at least 500 edits.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
10:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
{{rfc|Should the sentence "He is the first and only President to have been impeached twice and to be convicted of a felony." be added after the first sentence?}}
66.69.214.204 (
talk)
02:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined This is a noticeboard for simple edits and corrections, not yet another venue to demand that a new RfC be opened minutes after the last one was closed with no consensus after thousands of bytes were spent, still less for attempts at bludgeoning discussions by proxy Acroterion(talk)03:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Trolls intentionally confusing her with her character, Scarlet Witch, and falsely claiming she died.
CRBoyer16:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection:Arbitration enforcement – CTOPS for post-1992 US politics. This same request was denied yesterday, but more disruptive editing has occurred with the contentious addition of "convicted felon" to the opening sentence, despite ongoing talk page and BLPN discussions, and I see in the edit history someone added a copyright violating image as well. ECP should be required to edit this article. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
18:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: I'm asking for this page to be semi-protected after posting on
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard yesterday. Several anonymous IPs continue to add original research onto the article despite being reverted by several editors who have the same concern. It is the same edit each time which started happening in February/March but has recently continued again recently
Michaeldble (
talk)
12:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The article has been getting
a lot of views recently, and coinciding with the spikes in readership on 1 June and 10-11 June (and I'm guessing today) have been two IP editors and a
single-purpose account changing the use of pronouns in the article. Though there have been helpful edits from IPs in the past, this increased attention is leading to non-constructive edits and temporary semi-protection may be helpful.
Richard Nevell (
talk)
18:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Edit war underway over reverting an unsourced and unencyclopaedic fleet list inserted by an IP editor, sockpuppet accounts may be in use.
WP:3RR certainly violated by the instigating IP at this point.
Hullian111 (
talk)
19:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request one month semi-protection. Various IP vandalism. Status of this channel is unknown at this time. No source can be found that this channel has ended. IPs are adding channel has ended with no reference to confirm.
Msw1002 (
talk)
22:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This article is spammed with misinformation from random IP addresses that engage in nationalistic edits (removing mentions of Chechens and resorting to misinformation).
Goddard2000 (
talk)
21:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Repeatedly recreated by this vandal. Please fully protect. There are venues for discussion of this LTA outside this talk page.
Air on White (
talk)
23:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Requesting for a long term or indefinite duration. This subject is dead for years with the content remain stable since. The article now has just a couple of edits very month but recent edits are vandalism mostly by anon editors.
– robertsky (
talk)
00:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: There is a risk of edit war. The person deletes sourced content.(Which i reverted with sourced information) We had same issue in Azerbaijani Culture and Meykhana pages.
Göycen (
talk)
12:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. Page has been the subject of repeated BLP related vandalism since January due to the individual's national origin (Israeli) and the ongoing conflict.
Garsh (
talk)
03:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Will log at CTOPS; under BLP since she hasn't made any statements regarding the conflict, but PIA is certainly in mind as well.
Daniel Case (
talk)
03:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There is very little reason for non-autoconfirmed to edit this page. Multiple IPs and the socks of at least two different LTAs have already vandalized it.
Air on White (
talk)
06:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: A user is constantly vandalizing this page by removing negative parts about the subject and replacing them with blatant promotion. The fact that a screenshot of a personal letter has been uploaded suggests that it is the subject of the article himself or someone he knows who has been editting this page.
Coriovallum (
talk)
09:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. Recently, the page has been subjected to an edit war primarily driven by contestant fans. This has resulted in frequent vandalism and the removal of verified information, compromising the quality and reliability of the article. As the show has reached its finale stage, the intensity of these disruptive edits has increased. Despite attempts to maintain the page’s integrity through regular monitoring and reversion of harmful edits, the situation has not improved. The edit war is ongoing and continuous, making it difficult to ensure the article remains accurate and well-sourced. In light of these issues, I believe that page protection is necessary to preserve the article’s quality and prevent further disruption. I recommend implementing either semi-protection or extended confirmed protection, at least until the conclusion of the show's finale and the subsequent cooling-off period. -
Joxin09:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism since the last protection expired. I'm
WP:INVOLVED (pay no attention to my accidentally protecting the page while trying to file this request 2 minutes ago). signed, Rosguilltalk13:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: I want to edit the name of the Pollster . There is a mistake in the name TV9 Bharatvarsh - People's Insight - Polstrat. kindly remove the protection for me to edit. Validation links are already there in which name of the People's Insight is there
INidhiArora (
talk)
10:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It might surprise you, but I was aware of that; 6 disruptive edits in as many months is not enough disruption by far to warrant semi-protection. Be so kind and read our
protection policy if you haven't done so already.
Lectonar (
talk)
14:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Many users keep changing the player's height without providing a reliable source. Official sources say the player's height is 1.75m:
[30],
[31]. In additon, the article has been protected many times before for this reason.
Annh07 (
talk)
17:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I endorse this request, for whatever that's worth. The edit-warring IP is throwing around accusations of sock/meat-puppetry and self-promotion (see the edit summaries in the history). Frankly, I think we're in "every accusation is a confession" territory here. Oh, and grouping together the IPv4 and the IPv6 (because they use the same language in their summaries), they've crossed the 3RR line.
XOR'easter (
talk)
19:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page is of significant importance to both Azerbaijani and Iranian Azerbaijanis. Over the last year, the page has been altered, with substantial amounts of information gradually removed. Several IP addresses, whose knowledge of linguistics, standards, and disputes in the field is unclear, have made the most significant changes. These IP addresses are not constant and change daily. Given the tone and nature of the extracted information, it is suspected that the changes are being made by the same or related individuals.
Questions have arisen regarding why a person making such substantial changes does not have a user account. Even if these actions trigger filters, Wikipedia currently lacks measures to address these individuals. Therefore, I would like to request permanent protection of this page, as well as the, from at least IP address edits.
Göycen (
talk)
19:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I've protected this due to all of the unsourced changes. @
ShelfSkewed: You might try explaining your reversions in your edit summaries more consistently and in greater detail. It might also help to explain these kinds of reverts further in your user talk page notices. Default edit summaries and default warning templates do not seem to be doing the job. Thank you.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
03:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Full-protection: There is a high incidence of vandalism by anonymous users and the dissemination of false information, which are exceedingly detrimental.
2RDD (
talk)
19:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The level of disruption from unsourced or poorly sourced content isn't quite at the level where page protection is necessary.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
04:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page is riddled by pro-Greek editors who have used only pro-Greek and Greek government sources for the page.
Thus i request a protection in case of another wave of these unreliable sources used by the Greeks.
Ao192 (
talk)
21:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Many IPs from different geographical locations have been re-ordering links without any proper justification. Many cite the
philosophy effect, even though that the effect is not a rule of any sort on Wikipedia.
Closetside (
talk)
03:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Do you think we should because it best if we do extend projected (blue lock with e) since now conservative media like New York Post are calling him far left which he is not necessarily what his views are or attacking him harshly just for simple or not that smart mistakes. So, to prevent vandalism and bias, it is best that we protect the article.
174.135.36.220 (
talk)
04:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – We've had a couple of days now where the name of the artist has been altered by anon IPs without reaching consensus on the talk page.
Karst (
talk)
12:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continued vandalism in the same form as led to the page being protected recently: adding family members that are not family members as a reference to an ongoing meme.
Cerebral726(talk)18:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Potentially unorthodox request here: I am requesting that this page be fully-protected. Here's the explanation: This page was originally moved to be a subpage of its proper page back in 2019-ish; however, the bot that maintains this page,
Community Tech bot, rather than following the redirect to update the live page, overwrote the redirect (the page I'm asking to be fully protected) with the most recent results ... so I recently had to move the pages again (see the edit histories for this page and its target for further information.) For this reason, and in the event the bot operator may not be able to fix this error with its bot in a timely manner, I'm requesting this page be fully protected so the problem ... which occurred 5 years ago and apparently had continued to occur after that until now ... does not occur again. (For the record, I did confirm that
Community Tech bot is not flagged as an administrator.)
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Recent surge of IP editing related to social media posts by Smosh staff asking for edits to be made to page, seems to have devolved into minor vandalism. Request temp. protection until it blows over (2 weeks or so).
Rambling Rambler (
talk)
19:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – The article was created by an undisclosed paid editor and was draftified but it was recently moved to the main namespace by a spa after gaining the autoconfirmed status. Since it include paid edits and was created in a violation of
WP:PAID this must go through the AfC process.
GSS💬04:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: Technically it has only been recreated once, if at all, as I can find no deletions....it's more a moving back and forth from main to draftspace. PAID also doesn't forbid users to create pages or modify them, they just need to declare themselves.
Lectonar (
talk)
06:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page's protection was recently removed. Since then, the vandalism has resumed. It is unclear why this scholarly man is the target of childish trolling, but that is the case. The resumption after a lengthy period of protection indicates that the attacks will continue so protection does need to be indefinite now.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
09:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Protected since 2011. Unlikely target for repeated vandalism. I do not believe protection is warranted given the similar
Labrador Retriever lacks protection and only gets proper vandalism about once a month.
Traumnovelle (
talk)
23:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Requesting immediate archiving... Yeah, it's still move protected. That's probably fine, as I see no earthly reason why it should be moved without prior discussion.
Favonian (
talk)
09:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Request indef semi for
WP:GENSEX CTOPS article that was vandalized immediately as soon as the prior protection expired.
Raladic (
talk)
14:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This is marginal on so very many levels, so please be nice when you turn me down.
A new account and their
WP:LOUTSOCK are adding... well, politely "unsourced" and impolitely "weird"... stuff to this boyband article. I assume it's an internet thing. Anyway, with the two of them (account and IP), I'll go over 3RR before they do. And it's not clear-cut vandalism, it's weirdness and/or a meme, possibly. I dunno, this is not my area of expertise! So a bit of protection, perhaps just for a day or two, might halt this in its tracks?
81.187.192.168 (
talk)
18:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IPs repeat the same every time protection expires; indefinite protection needed. Vestrian24Bio (
TALK)
07:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I suggest changing it to include a longer, semantically-complete, quotation, to read: "On 24 May, the
International Court of Justice ruled that Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.[2]"
As the Guardian article points out, and reports judges as arguing, the last comma is critical to the meaning of the ruling.
Hunc (
talk)
10:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually changed to a version which does not give the same meaning as the full text. I hope that you can change:
On 24 May, the
International Court of Justice ruled that Israel's military offensive and anything "which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" must be halted."
to
On 24 May, the
International Court of Justice ruled that "Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."
The precise grammar, in particular the last comma, is critical to the meaning.
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Can it be a bit longer this time? The last time the admin protected it for only two days which is absurd given the article's protection history and the vandalism it is subjected to.
FrB.TG (
talk)
06:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – It seems like there is some kind of campaign to add comments from PubPeer from several accounts although they warned in their talk.
FuzzyMagma (
talk)
06:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Will also add CTOPS notice to talk page; doesn't look this is going away anytime soon. (When I read "PubPeer", I thought, what does who a scientist drinks with have to do with his professional reputation??
)
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism – Long term abuse by multiple LTA accounts. Requesting upgrade to ECP to ward off the sockpuppets (which are editing immediately after being made). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs)
16:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The LTA socks were not auto-confirmed, but the previous protection proved too short.
Favonian (
talk)
17:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP-hopper repeatedly adding false information to the lede etc. There is an active talk page discussion going on, and the article may need editing, but these edits - entirely at odds with the WP:RS cited - need to be stopped.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
17:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent vandalism; repeated addition of a kanji transliteration of the non-Japanese town name from unregistered users with virtually no other past edits.
Allamaraine (
talk)
14:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – Rumors of death have been circulating online but nothing confirmed. IP's are constantly changing this without proof.
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
14:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Continuation of hoax spreading upon expiry of last protection template on 01:10, 13 June 2024. Various IP addresses claim the subject is dead without sources, whereas all news outlets report that the subject is ill.
Panian51320:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism on both pages. User
Vellutis added two images into the articles and they've been repeatedly restored by IPs (diffs of the first article:
[39][40]; diffs of the second one:
[41][42][43]).
SuperΨDro17:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Simion, and CTOPS notice left on talk page.
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Șoșoacă, since it recently came off a six-month CTOPS protection I imposed; logging at CTOPS.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandal account just edited my user page, deleting content. No one else should be editing *my* user page.
Temporary semi-protection: Following a video about him by a popular YouTuber, there are repeated attempts from IPs to add material that violates
WP:BLP. Preventing this for, say, a week should be enough.
Renerpho (
talk)
09:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined If the material was truly violative of BLP, we wouldn't have it in
his son's article, either. Since the article is up for deletion, we should probably let that process play out, as protection in this case might prevent editors from making any improvements that might result in a keep.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Can we require registered users here? The same person has done the same disruptive edit five times, including IP hopping. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk)19:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. IP range partially blocked for one month. @
Smuckola: Throwing a link for
WP:3RR at a new editor with little or additional explanation about the edit warring policy is not ideal. I'd suggest using {{
uw-ewsoft}} in the future for an initial warning.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
20:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I didn't have any way of knowing that. And the reverted edit wasn't in any way disruptive. KR24 is a pretty obvious topic SPA, to boot. -
Desine (
talk)
02:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You most certainly knew about it after I reverted your first edit, and after
User:ScottishFinnishRadish posted the contentious topic notice on your talk page. It does not matter if the edits are disruptive or not - non extended confirmed editors are not allowed to edit these articles, period.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk)
02:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It is an abuse of the IP arbcom decision for obvious SPAs on the disputed topic to try to exert ownership over articles. -
Desine (
talk)
02:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It is an abuse of the IP arbcom decision for obvious SPAs on the disputed topic to try to exert ownership over articles. -
Desine (
talk)
02:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Edits made to enforce the arbcom ruling are not subject to revert rules but edits to enforce a rule the user clearly doesn't care about are an
WP:OWN issue. -
Desine (
talk)
02:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. One of the newer editor disputants has submitted a talk page comment, so please reply to it sooner rather than later,
The Banner, as this protection period is brief.
El_C13:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – LTA Orchomen sock that was editing the page has been recently banned. Now they are editing from their IP ranges (they have several, all geolocating to the same place). Request temporary protection until they lose interest as this LTA will hop from IP to IP.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
17:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Please note that although there is only one IP edit by the sock on this page today, the same sock has today been trolling my edits today from all of these IP addresses:
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Consistent attacks from active sockmasters/meatpuppetry. Once a sock attempted to delete the article by tagging for AFD, and attacks on the article have become active recently.
Imperial[AFCND]16:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent IP vandalism and addition of content that could possibly fall under copyright violation as the film has been leaked, but not officially released.
Zingo156 (
talk)
20:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – The page is a perennial target of
this particular sockmaster, and in the past 2 days has been the target of 1 IP sock and 2 registered socks (1 of whom is
now CU-blocked). Note that the article's title was moved in January, but the page protection was not moved along with the page. The
relevant protection log can be seen here; the article was most recently semi-protected for a 6-month period in December 2023. I am requesting that the reviewing administrator consider another long-term period of semi-protection. Thank you.
Aoi (青い) (
talk)
19:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The user in question has already been blocked, and it was just one instance of vandalism by that one user. However, if the issue reoccurs from a different user or IP, let me know right away and I'll protect the page. —
Ganesha811 (
talk)
02:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Question:Vandalism how,
ComparingQuantities? Please review
WP:NOTVANDALISM before answering. I'm not sure how anyone is expected to follow what's happening here, in these three and various other pages. You mostly remove their contributions using automated edit summaries that explain little. Perhaps this is a matter better suited for
WP:SPI. That said, if you exceed
WP:3RR, you will need to note in the relevant edit summary the reasoning for why such an
exemption applies, including a link or links to, well, anything. Thank you.
El_C12:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason:Temporary semi-protection: This article about a living person has seen a bunch of unsourced claims of her death coming from IPs in the past few hours.
Egsan Bacon (
talk)
05:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: 4 different IPs intervene on the page, claiming to add content but instead mainly removing the 'far right' from the intro. Same vandalisms on the French:WP led to a semi-protection there too.
AgisdeSparte (
talk)
07:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – An IP-hopping LTA has been changing the total population figure perennially, and it's relatively hard to catch each time.
Remsense诉12:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – This article, which had contributions by multiple socks of the same guy, was redirected after discussion. The sockpuppeteer is back trying to usurp it by recreating the article. There is very little room for improvement in a redirect, so please extended protect for good.
Air on White (
talk)
18:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
+1Temporary extended confirmation protection: Reports of his death have been confirmed to be false. Page needs extended protection to prevent further disruptive edits.
TDK1881 (
talk)
20:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Temporary Semi-protection: High level of sock puppetry again and again even after being blocked, high level of IP vandalism.
Imsaneikigai (
talk)
14:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems to be a huge edit warring mess the last 90+ edits (47 of which have been made after this protection request), seemingly started sometime after
this edit and others by an extended confirmed editor(edit: not EC either, not 30 days old).
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. That was pretty potent for an hour, and maybe some action yet needs to be taken, but the editors seem for now to have moved on.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: an IPsock of MariaJaydHicky keeps repeating the edits made by the countless sockpuppets that have targeted these pages in the past
Blueberry72 (
talk)
07:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Daniel Case Sorry but I warned the user already. I gave him a warning before his last edit warring. After me, the user @
Wiiformii warned the IP regarding the unexplained removals. Is there any possibility that you confused IPs?
OK ... I had been looking at the other one on that /64, the one they used yesterday, where no warnings had been left. Still not sure whether to block them sitewide or just from the article as it seems like their contribs elsewhere have not been reverted.
Daniel Case (
talk)
21:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I understand. I personally believe a short-time IP lock for article would be a good idea. I'll watch the user's favorite articles and future contributions for possible vandalism.
Auzandil (
talk)
21:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I have gone with semi here; can be easily upprotected at need. Never seen a portal page being vandalised like that.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Several IPs belonging to the same range (5 edits) insist on removing the Ottoman Turkish name from the lead.
Alex2006 (
talk)
17:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This redirect to
Balika Vadhu has been recreated into an article three times in the past week by IP editors, making it a near duplicate to the article about the television series.
Aspects (
talk)
16:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Ip keeps changing the infobox image without discussion or consensus. See user talk and tribs'. - FlightTime (
open channel)17:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: There is basically no reason this should be edited, ever, and breaking this redirect is highly disruptive. Although IP vandalism is infrequent, it comprises all edits since January 2021. Requesting semi-protection.
Toadspike[Talk]22:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. @
Namiba: Unsourced edits appear to be an issue, but I only see a single user talk page notice about that issue for any of the IP editors touching this article in 2024. And there are no warnings for vandalism. I've warned the editor who vandalized the article today.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Persistent sockpuppetry by
WP:BE banned user Orchomen (long term abuse). Following bans of accounts, using IP sockpuppetry. This is one of their go-to pages.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
12:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. I went through the edit history and was shocked by the level of vandalism and I couldn't help but once. Maybe, an Administrator here can help further.
Wår (
talk)
00:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Two IPs (3 edits) insist on placing new principal's name before old's resignation takes effect June 30th. Suggest protection until July 1.
Dhtwiki (
talk) 07:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) PS: Two more attempts since this request was made.
Dhtwiki (
talk)
01:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of vandalism, not just from IPs, but the IPs are particularly hateful. This has been going on for two years now.
Elinruby (
talk)
23:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High amount of contentious editing, lots of potential to be brigaded and have inflammatory text considering the unusual topic of the article. Yasuke, a black retainer in medieval Japan was one of the only black men in the country, and him being featured in the new Assassins Creed has led to lots of back and forth, as can be viewed in the page history. I'd request at least a semi-protection, and if some admin deems it necessary, an extended confirmed would be great.
daruda (
talk)
22:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Wiiformii: It does, but
protection of such articles are not required. There are many articles that fall under this area, but it would take a lot of time for people to protect all of them. Requests for articles that receive disruption have a higher chance of being granted, though some administrators may pre-emptively protect them regardless of disruption (please mention me on reply).
Sdrqaz (
talk)
01:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Per
my previous request, the admin who rejected it did not understand it. An autoconfirmed sock just pulled the same bullshit their other socks have been doing. There is very little room for improvement in a redirect, so we should just stop the sockpuppetry now.
Air on White (
talk)
08:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. That's a single instance. And they've not edited since their last warning. If you believe they and the other editors are socks, open an SPI.
Daniel Case (
talk)
02:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined User's talk page access has already been revoked (this does not need to be requested here) and the account has been blocked globally.
Daniel Case (
talk)
03:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. Another admin blocked the IP who was definitely edit warring. There is no discussion on article talk and I don't think a reliable source was mentioned.
Johnuniq (
talk)
06:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP user raised a debate on the areas included under the region. Article has incorporated it with sufficient wording so as to indicate the inclusion of certain regions and sufficiently sourced as per
WP:RS. Infobox has included the same with an appropriate foot note. Persistent revert by IP user trying to push his/her POV and not willing to engage in a discussion despite comments and warnings on the talk page. Request to have temporary semi-protection. Thanks!
Magentic Manifestations (
talk)
05:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. Same issue as at
#Robert Joy above. @
BlueboyLINY: It would be helpful if some advice were given to the IP. Situations like this are awkward because the IP seemed to think they were helping but edit warring like that can't go unanswered.
Johnuniq (
talk)
06:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: I've added the citations to the "Twin towns – sister cities" section of Tehran, which had a "Needs more references" template since September of 2023, and there has been 7-8 reverts recently by inexperienced users with an overall 30-50 edits for no reason. Please increase the protection, or do full protection for a while. I can't revert stuff anymore, the article is getting out of hand and it needs protection ASAP.
Farnaj57 (
talk)
08:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: addition of false or unsubstantiated data from 2024 onwards, as evidenced by the London Diplomatic List June 2024 - the position is vacant.
Sebforbes (
talk)
15:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – String of anon IP's, all originating from UAE (where subject of bio is based), previous additions of promotional content, removing COI tag, and removing other people's comments on talk page. Make a lot of unnecessary work for non-involved editors. cheers.
anastrophe,
an editor he is.19:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page will continually be lowered in quality. I feel as though duration is important, more than account level restriction. Should need Autoconfirmed level access restriction.
RevolutionaryPatriot (
talk)
18:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – If you look at the history of the article. Every IP edits are all disruptive and vandalism. There's no valuable contributions that are made by IPs for years. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔)
14:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Edit warring. Numerous anon IP reverts to implement a controversial change, without comment or talk page discussion. Changes include removal of references.
Dual Freq (
talk)
10:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Let's see if we can get all these editors that are blocked coming back to the talk page. Moxy🍁
19:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. I have blocked both
Instantwatym and
TheWikiholic from editing the page for a week. As the article is already one of the few outside of PIA to be on both ECP and 1RR, I am loathe to put full protection on it again just because two of many editors working on it can't agree on how many millions. Since both editors are aware of the applicable CTOPS restrictions, and it's evident that this tiff is the last iteration of an ongoing dispute that has been to other fora, they have no excuse. No, they didn't violate 1RR, otherwise I would have blocked them sitewide. And this is not a CTOPS block. Not yet.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: I have been continuously reverting an IP address who has made significant changes without explaining them on the article
TDI (engine)] and wondering if I could request a protection of the page. The edits are unsourced by the way.
750h+07:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd support this as well - I tried to mediate on both user and article talk pages, but the IP has no intention of discussing their changes and is simply reverting and carrying on regardless.
Chaheel Riens (
talk)
08:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Additional - the edits seem to be coming from multiple IP addresses in Turkey, so protection rather than block would seem to be a better approach.
Chaheel Riens (
talk)
08:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing for the past few years and there are still many wrong spellings added by IP addresses.
MAL MALDIVE (
talk)
08:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Today's flareup is the first in the three months since the last protection ended, and the editor who, not being autoconfirmed, would be affected by protection has taken it to talk.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Note that @
HJ Mitchell: provided one year pending changes protection, but the edit rate appears to be relatively high and most of the changes are reverted, so I am giving temporary semi-protection a try instead. Steven Walling •
talk03:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: There has been a persistent level of vandalism for about a week now. I recommend that the Pending Changes Protection Policy (WP:PCPP) should be implemented.
RevMSWIE500 (
talk)
06:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
RevMSWIE500: Pending changes is a pain because problems still occur and still need to be checked and reverted. There should be more edit summaries saying that
reliable sources are needed.
Johnuniq (
talk)
09:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Seems edit war among two users may break out one of them is IP. A weeks protection may help so they think to join on talk page.
Bookku (
talk)
06:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There's an IP hopping anonymous editor from Egypt who, for the last month, kept removing release dates and added that it is "the final game" (which shouldn't be added, it is the *last* entry, not the *final* entry). Warnings haven't worked, behavior continues. Perhaps a temporary edit protect makes it clear that has to stop.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK09:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: A possible war of edits, a new account, even without hundreds of edits, removes data from sources and ignores the discussion page, continuing to add its own data
Dushnilkin (
talk)
11:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. This is a slow back and forth, with only the FR1917 reintroducing a french victory. Fwiw, the German article about the battle shows the result as "indecisive", whereas the French page says it's a "french victory, russian retreat". You could also ask over at
WP:MILHIST, they're quite active.
Lectonar (
talk)
12:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. The accounts in question have been targeting a large number of pages; protection won't work well in this case. They have already been blocked, though if they come back, please report to AIV. Complex/Rational14:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: BLP Policy Violations. Brazil based LTA is persistently changing the birth date of the topic to what contradicts sources, using multiple IP's. The most simple solution for this chronic issue would be to indefinetely semi-protect the article to prevent further BLP violations.
TylerBurden (
talk)
13:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Return of the IP-hopping editor adding swathes of contested and unsourced material. Due to several IP addresses being used, protection is probably better than blocks.
Chaheel Riens (
talk)
15:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page is being vandalized by an individual who keeps putting that she is married to Billy Burke. Could we please add page protection so this individual can stop posting inaccurate information. Thank you!
172.117.10.5 (
talk)
18:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Content dispute resurfaced from 2016. Previously benefitted from protection preventing non-AC users from splitting into a stand alone article. Subject has attracted IP hopper to subject's talk page with odd reasoning for wanting to create the article.
Rainthe 116:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protectedindefinitely. And will log at CTOPS. I would be remiss, however, if I did not note that there was absolutely nothing anywhere that would indicated that non-ECR editors were to refrain from editing (Not that I think that sort of polite request ever works, especially in this topic area).
Daniel Case (
talk)
21:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Full protection. As soon as the protection expired, edit warring started again (changing the infobox away from the RfC consensus version). Or alternatively please just block the one edit warring editor.
Number5722:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection through 6/25: Lots of editors prematurely adding the Edmonton Oilers/2024 Stanley Cup Finals before the series is even over, and before we know what category to put them under. Would prefer protection through the day after game 7, in order to keep the page/eventual addition stable.
TheKip(
contribs)05:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: An editor who appears to be too close to the subject of the article is reverting relevant contributions and abusing the anti-vandalism system
Userhxj8v0o12a (
talk)
00:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Many people (mostly IP editors) have vandalized the article to add information about BFDI, but have not seen
WP:BFDI. As a result, the page should be protected.
24.115.255.37 (
talk)
03:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
NOTE: That page redirects to an already semi-protected page. The redirect, not the target, is the page in which semi-protection is requested. Yes, I know any admin seeing this is probably competent enough to know, but non-admins seeing this might not be competent enough to know.
24.115.255.37 (
talk)
03:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request Extended Page Protection due to constant addition of unsourced original research (already tagged as "WP:OR" by another editor) and removal of sourced content by unregistered IPs. Many vandalization attempts by newly made IPs is also a problem.
Piyush Chekavar (
talk)
06:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Block: User Semsûrî keeps on reverting edits and claiming that the map and Anthem should be sourced (they're very clear and don't need to be sourced)....... .
Kirkukturk3 (
talk)
15:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: Whitelock was added 7 years ago for disruptive editing, and there no longer is as much disruptive editing. For the article of an important American city, it's probably better not to whitelock.
Josethewikier (
talk)
00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:WHITELOCK, Indefinite PC protection should be used only in cases of severe long-term disruption. Any thoughts,
Maile66, about this? Perhaps it can be ended. Is semiprotection necessary in its place? –
Muboshgu (
talk)
17:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't mind if it's changed, but I'd rather another admim do it for me. Right now things are a little busy on my end. So, if another admin would do the change, I'd be fine with that.
— Maile (
talk)
17:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: I'm not against a goldlock protection and I can understand arbcom's decision, however it would be ideal if the protection is temporary (even if it's 4 years or something like that); if that fails immediately, then should we consider a definitive indefinite goldlock protection.
Josethewikier (
talk)
00:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection? Was there a discussion among ARBCOM that lead to that decision? Otherwise I wonder if indefinite ECP is the way to go. Pinging protecting admins
Courcelles and
AmandaNP. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
17:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Muboshgu: There was not as far as I remember a discussion with all of ArbCom about this. Potentially individual members, I can't remember. That said, there is a very good reason behind it. This article is a target of accounts that are evading ECP, and already caused the
WP:SELDEL of 427 edits. There are also 17 suppressions by oversighters done on this page. I also know the outside of wikipedia source of these concerning edits, which for multiple reasons including
WP:BEANS, I can't say here. --
Amanda (she/her)17:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined "Evading ECP" is all that I needed to hear. This person's involvement in GamerGate may be over, but her recent comments about the Gaza War keep her in the spotlight here. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
17:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High levels of IP disruption to
Awareness, reordering links to "save" the
philosophy effect despite consensus (see talk page) for the current link order. I recommend one-month temporary semi-protection to
Awareness until IP editors realize such efforts are futile.
Saving the philosophy effect could disrupt
Mind,
Thought, and
Consciousness, because editing those articles could save the philosophy effect. There already has been one such edit to
Mind, although protecting the chain is not warranted right now. However, if such edits become pervasive, I would suggest one month temporary semi-protection.
Closetside (
talk)
22:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Support: There have been 20+ back-and-forth edits to the first sentence of
Awareness in the last 24 hours. Many of these edits are being made by IP editors and new users whose only contributions are recent edits to the first sentences of articles. Another article with several recent back-and-forth edits to the first sentence is
Declarative knowledge.
正负号 (
talk)
17:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Support The article is currently being fought over by new and IP users due to a recent Youtube video. Semi-protection should stop most of the edit warring thats currently occurring.
CitrusHemlock20:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Major attractor of crypto spam, most edits have either been made by crypto spambots or are people reverting crypto spambots.
108.21.221.8 (
talk)
14:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Eduworldedu. Semi protection is not necessary because your user page is protected by an edit filter so that unregistered and newly registered editors cannot modify it. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. That was two and a half months ago, and there hasn't been much since. I'll leave a CTOPS tag on the talk page, though.
Daniel Case (
talk)
21:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: A recent biographical movie on netflix named Maharaj is about Karsandas resulting into vandalism of the page.
Chirag (
talk)
16:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Unexplained edits by both parties. One thinks it's not very objective; the other thinks otherwise. I'd move to protecting the page to prevent this.
Normanhunter2 (
talk)
21:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Recently protected due to the addition of poorly sourced or just straight-up unsourced content; now that protection has expired, it has re-ensued. Subject is the subject of transfer rumours so could do with some further protection. ser!(
chat to me -
see my edits)23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Robert McClenon and
Daniel Case: I think this request is for the redirect at Super Mario Bros. Z which was protected in 2023 by SouthernNights. However, that protection expired last January and the redirect is not protected at the moment. The last edit at the redirect was in October 2023 and there are no recent deleted versions. So why does it need protection now?
Johnuniq (
talk)
06:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. There were about three such recent edits, all reverted, within the last couple of weeks. The article hasn't been edited that much since last October, and only part of it deals with anything PIA-related. Per the article tag this may be better handled at
WP:COI/N.
Daniel Case (
talk)
03:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
+1Reason: Hi, My name is Urban Stojan Rošp. I manage Ana Roš's companies and am also her husband.
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Launchballer is publishing falls facts about Ana Roš and hurting her as she is sitting next to me as we speak. All the facts that I published are supported by proofs that I can provide if so needed. As I am not a skilled use, I kindly ask for help as Ana feels her identity to be taken hostage and her life work damaged. If there is a true mistake in the data I published, I am more than willing to accept the change, but please restrain from publishing false and misleading information. Just for instance, Ana's full name is Ana Roš Stojan, she manages three projects and not just Hiša Franko, Hiša Frnako has three Michelin stars and a green on, etc.) I have also started a conflict resolution. Please help, as there is no need to hurt Ana and damage her reputation or diminish her achievements.
UrbanStojan (
talk)
11:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let me know if the pending-changes protection is ineffective, but should allow confirmation/sourcing to be found where available. —
Ganesha811 (
talk)
19:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Last full protection applied by
Drmies expired on 19 June, edit war resumes, still no consensus in talk page for removal, RfC still ongoing on
Talk:Yasuke.
Thibaut (
talk)
16:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Consider
the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible
edit-warring by one or two users. Nobody's warned them about this, but they haven't shown any willingness to discuss beyond edit summaries, possibly because no one has extended them that courtesy either. No, they haven't violated 3RR, but they don't need to to have edit warred.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but you are being stubborn. You don't admit that you removed text from this article because you are unfamiliar with sports topics and even removed valid text from the article
Gustavo Oliveira just because I tampered with your precious removed text. You should apologize to me.
2804:F04:90E9:E600:7CE9:42BA:16BD:89AC (
talk)
15:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The page, by its very nature, is a magnet for vandalism and other disruptive edits, as the history shows. Previous protections have been short-lived and the problem returns each time. Crossroads-talk-22:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Ongoing disruptive edit (adding the same incorrect info over and over) by a user with a changing IP address. Has been reverted many times by multiple editors.
Bahooka (
talk)
01:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined The creations and recretions were by admins for housekeeping etc. No disruption which would warrant protection.
Lectonar (
talk)
07:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Consider
the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible
edit-warring by one or two users. This is a new user, so engaging them on their talk and leaving some helpful hints could be an option (or steer them to the
WP:TEAHOUSE. Fwiw, we usually do not protect pages because of one user being disruptive. This is better handled by targeting the one disruptive user directly (I think the IP will also be them).
Lectonar (
talk)
10:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not an edit war. I reverted two IP edits that looked purely disruptive, then this new user account comes in and insists on moving lead content and dropping it in the middle of another section, spoiling the context. I didn't let it become a war. At this point, that editor isn't providing a coherent reason for their change, and nothing I can say on their talk page will turn that around. I'm probably going to have to engage dispute resolution tools.
Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab •
Gruntwerk10:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Good morning,
I would like to change the logo of the Cdiscount wiki page :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdiscount. Cdiscount has change its logo this morning.
I have the new file that Cdiscount want to be displayed on the wiki page.
Could you update it or unlock the page so I can make the change please.
Sincerly.
Cds nlv (
talk)
12:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
To add, the page should be protected until 16 July, when the tournament is over. Content is transcluded to
UEFA Euro 2024, which is protected until the same date. Protecting the page will ensure vandalism/incorrect information is not shown to readers on a highly visible article.
S.A. Julio (
talk)
21:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Continuous additions of the same unsourced information despite prior warnings to the IPs adding the information. One IP has previous block.
CNMall41 (
talk)
04:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Lots of reversions recently, especially from brand new editors. The edit war with several new editors is still ongoing. Can the page please be EC protected? One of the new editors was already blocked for 48-hours due to edit warring. More or less because discussions aren’t occurring and it is just lots of reversions. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)13:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Starting on June 20 there have been repeated reverts by an IP beginning with 188.172.109. The individual usually does not leave an explanation or a citation. The airline stopped flying about five months ago and no longer appears in airports' destination grids. There have been some warring edits for a few months. Please prevent IPs from editing this article. Thank you.
Jellysandwich0 (
talk)
02:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Large amounts of random vandalism by various IPs, even after previous protections have expired. Also a relatively high-profile article.
OzzyOlly (
talk)
02:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Frequent disruption from IP editor who insists on adding unsourced information. Editor's justification for continuing to add such information is that the article is already largely unsourced.
NJZombie (
talk)
07:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is not needed as the disruptive edits by unnecessarily reverting are done by an extended confirmed user. The disruptive edits(reverting) are
[62][63][64]. These constant and complete revertings of contributions done by multiple users prevents the improvements done to the page. That particular user is alerted in the talk page of the article and hasn't yet provided evidence to his claims. Not blanket page protection but page protection from this particular user is the one needed.
അദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
16:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reverting contributions of multiple users citing an unreliability of a citation added by one user is injustice. Already the article lacks Neutral point of View(under the section Pastoral ministry and sub section love and narcotics jihad controversy ) that too on a living person, the reverting has undid my multiple contributions too, all with reliable sources that was to address this issue. That particular user's blanket reverting has done no improvement to the page. And that user who reverted my contributions hasn't yet provided evidence to his claim in the article's talk page when asked
അദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
17:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I presume you are saying about full protection because the user who is blatantly reverting is an extended confirmed+ user, correct?
അദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
So what the solution apart from discussing in the article's talk page. As the particular user hasn't yet replied to substantiate its claims in the talk page.
അദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
17:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – An IP editor (46.221.206.150 / 176.216.18.135) has repeatedly been making POV edits, and has recently started attacking editor Archives908 on both the article's talk page and the user's talk page. He has been reverted by 3 editors, but his only responses on the article's talk page are personal attacks. –
notwally (
talk)
08:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Why do you keep editing, Mr. 2600:8801:2994:4900:2152:83C8:74DE:959D (what a fine account name!), from an IP, then?
Especially from a new and different IP on a new and different network run by a new and different ISP with every edit! (which is precisely not how I'm editing, all of my edits to that article are from the same IP, and every edit I've made to WP in the past 20 months or so is from the same network block)
76.6.213.65 (
talk)
09:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeated additions without first starting a discussion and reaching consensus (porchetta isn't French)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Just one disruptive edit which has been reverted...and yes, porchetta isn't french.
Lectonar (
talk)
06:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Protection was removed on 5 June, and the vandalism has immediately resumed. This is a popular article on a major topic, and it's a conspicuous target that any number of people seem to want to carve their name in.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
19:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm hesitant to indef semi given a lack of protection actions to date (i.e., only once previously), but this can be revisited when the current protection expires. --Kinut/c22:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Perennial sockpuppet target that has not had a constructive IP edit since November 2022. This is not the 18th century, we know full well what this actually was. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)22:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: An unregistered user by a number of IP addresses (42.153.56.187, 42.153.54.167, 42.153.42.21, 2401:3c00:21e:b180:c25:9391:316f:6c12 and so on) keeps on vandalizing the diplomatic relations list by replacing China with Taiwan (which he does not have a source for when the establishment of ties was), one of his edits has the ">:)" face, and also seemingly making the article anti-PRC because most of his edits involve removing mainland China.
Underdwarf58 (
talk)
02:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Underdwarf58 India is in a different league in terms of the volume of editing and the amount of disruption. I based the PC on the low frequency of editing and the sporadic nature of the disruption. If more is needed we can always adjust upwards. But let's try to keep the collateral damage to a minimum. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
02:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Editing is very light and I'm not seeing much in the form of disruption. PIA permits protection but I'm not seeing this as a high-risk article. If that changes, come back.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
02:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP editor is disrupting the formatting of the list and reverting my edits, without leaving an edit summary. Assuming good faith of course and was drafting a talk page discussion on it, but in the middle of that, this IP reverted edits again.
Soulbust (
talk)
01:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Noticed these edits have been made from at least 2 different IPs, but I believe it is the same editor given the edits. Unsure though.
Soulbust (
talk)
01:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Doesn't seem closely related to the war. Very little editing. If this changes, come back.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
03:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Khirurg: Let me know if anything further is required. To block the IP, I would need a brief explanation of the similarity between the IP and Jagged 85.
Johnuniq (
talk)
05:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note, the recent range these pages have been targetted from include 92.40.0.0/16 which already partially banned, it should be increased to a complete block at least for the time being.
Gotitbro (
talk)
13:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.:
Punjabi language, logged at CTOPS.
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection.: The three dialect articles, which aren't edited much and where disruption happens months apart.
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Many IPs editing constructively, no heavy disruption overall.
Lectonar (
talk)
09:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page was semi-protected sometime back. There have been further edits/deletions of the same nature (related to
ethnic violence in Manipur) by users who have <30 edits but >10 edits, mostly on articles related to the same subject, which essentially bypasses the requirement for SP. The page might require extended confirmed protection and a block to restrict such users. Thanks!
Magentic Manifestations (
talk)
10:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There are few editors and IP users adding same information and adding same source since weeks needs appropriate protection not sure if Semi would do. Or pending changes.
EntrepreneurPedia (
talk)
10:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Ongoing
WP:FORUM comments, genocide denial, and personal attacks from an IP who has recently been blocked, but is jumping to new IP addresses. — Czello(
music)13:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Four years is already a ridiculously light sentence for the offence — then, to add insult to injury, released after one year?! So fucked up.
El_C13:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Repeated addition by IP editors of unsourced, non-neutral ("his athletic physique and superb action") content with spelling and grammar issues.
Tacyarg (
talk)
15:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Seconding this one. I'm not sure if it's all vandalism, but there's been a lot of unexplained removal, and no discussion at the talk page. I have it watchlisted, and would happily engage if any of the drive-by editors want to make their case.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
16:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – We have a series of IP editors repeatedly removing cited content in what looks like an attempt to whitewash the article. While it is only happening once a day, it has now carried on for more than a week. It looks like only a couple of editors are watching the article so the edits are persisting for several hours before being reverted.
MarcGarver (
talk)
16:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Appears to have given some sort of car crash of an interview today, leading to IPs and new accounts piling in with their unflattering (and unsourced) opinions on this BLP.
92.6.27.15 (
talk)
19:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would advise the two people who have requested this that edit war "with no end in sight" is almost inevitable when no one uses the talk page, as has been the case for two years. I strongly advise that discussion be opened there ASAP, especially since contrary to the report above this article is not currently under a contentious topic designation.
In this circumstance, granting semi-protection is basically awarding the registered editors the edit war. I am thus going to elevate this to full protection so you will have to work this out on talk.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Highly popular video game series, article with nearly 80k pageviews last month. Continuous vandalism, on a nearly daily basis. If not indef semi, please edit protect for a long while.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK21:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. As of right now, I'm not seeing any significant disruption, but that may change. Come back or ping me if the situation changes.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
22:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Why would you lock my favorite team page on Wikipedia? If you do not make this happen by June 26, 2025. I am making a better version with no locked pages. Thank you for understanding.
189.174.145.87 (
talk)
22:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – We have a user who did some dummy edits to come and vandalise the page and is currently engaged in warring. In
this investigation I flagged almost 6 accounts created in two weeks to target this page and another page.
FuzzyMagma (
talk)
09:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent IP disruptive edits. Please see the list's talk page, as well as message I left on
relevant WikiProject talk page.
Multiple IPs being used (at least 4:
1;
2;
3;
4), and largely ignoring my edit summaries, as well as talk page messages, and
user talk page messages.
@
Ad Orientem: You said "Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection." but please look at the list's edit history, and you'll see there is actually a lot of such activity. IPs have reverted edits from another user (
see here).
Soulbust (
talk)
20:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Soulbust I'm seeing a very large body of IP edits and only a handful have been reverted. That said, I'm also seeing corrective editing. Most of the anonymous edits have been by a couple of IPs. We don't usually protect pages when the problem is just one or two editors. Once adequately warned, if the disruption persists then we issue blocks. The problem with page protection, and the reason we treat it as a last resort, is that it prevents constructive editing by anonymous users. Sometimes that's unavoidable but we try to keep it to a minimum. Is this actual vandalism, or just well-intentioned edits that are not helpful? If it's actual vandalism and warnings have been issued, either ping me with diffs or report it to AIV. Otherwise, as frustrating as it may be, try to communicate with the IPs to let them know they are not helping and why. If all else fails, we can page block them. Let me know if you have any questions or I'm missing something. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
21:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay thank you for the reply. I think it is a bit tricky for sure, as there is some positive to glean from the edits that've been made. But they're just amid a bunch of very (perhaps disruptive is too strong a word here) unconstructive(?) or unhelpful edits. I've tried to communicate through the edit summaries and whatnot, and that has recently seemed to at least garner some sort of actual edit summaries being made by the IP editors. I'll try to navigate the issue, as I am assuming good faith here, and do believe that because a portion of the edits are actually constructive, that all of them are being made with well-meaning intent. Idk, it is incredibly frustrating like you suggested, but I'll try to work with it.
Soulbust (
talk)
00:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Procedural, to reflect the exchange above.
Lectonar (
talk)
11:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The user is staging a war of edits by adding outdated information, ignoring the verdict on the discussion page, and some sources do not even confirm this information
Dushnilkin (
talk)
15:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent IP
vandalism. IP tries to add content without sources, deletes material without explanation, and ignores multiple user warnings. This is the second time this week that this page has been vandalized by an IP user and their socks. Both times, the same user was warned and reported here.
Auzandil (
talk)
18:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The IPs are targeting this page now, as the semi-finals are taking place today; should be protected for a week. Vestrian24Bio (
TALK)
12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended Confirmed Protection: High level of vandalism, users are changing the number of seats of parties, content continues to be modified. Many sock users are also editing page many times. ZenDragoX(
User) | (
Contact)13:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting pending changes level of protection for the page
Carla Denyer. IP's keep trying to brute force changes without any consensus and constantly reverting edits by registered users.
Helper201 (
talk)
20:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP vandalism. The article is in the middle of a
GA Review and improvements are being made. There are repeated disruptions by probably the same user (from multiple IPs, so no point of warning!). Request temporary semi-protection.
Magentic Manifestations (
talk)
16:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The same material was readded by a different IP.... and then undone by the same IP, but I think that indicates that this block has not stopped efforts. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
21:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected – Please use an
edit request to request specific changes to be made to the protected page. There was plenty of vandalism prior to protection, and few valid reasons to edit this. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Immediately following prior protection expiring an RD2 vandalism on a contentious topic per
WP:GENSEX. Requesting indef this time.
Raladic (
talk)
21:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Contentious leader of a disputed Indigenous organization. IPs do not like that the sources indicate that he is of dual heritage and the organisation he heads claims to be Inuit rather than Métis.
CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human),
Uqaqtuq (talk),
Huliva20:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm not putting it under ARBPIA yet because the article doesn't touch on the conflict at all. And semi is just fine where all the disruption is coming from IPs.
Daniel Case (
talk)
05:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Recurring disruptions and possible sockpuppetry with IPs having identical goals and suspiciously similar rationales in edit summaries.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits)
02:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Pending changes protection was added
over 10 years ago due to increased vandalism at the time. I don't believe there's still need for it, with its generally low frequency of both edits and vandalism. —
Dimsar01Talk ⌚→
20:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IP edit warring on subject's nationality
arguing that a black person born in England to Nigerian parents is "obviously not English".
Belbury (
talk) 12:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
:Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. However, if it persists let me know.
CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human),
Uqaqtuq (talk),
Huliva12:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Ongoing additions of unsourced content due to the fact the subject has been linked to a transfer, pretty much every day for the last 10 days. Only needs protection for about 3 days I'd say as hopefully there'll be an actual announcement soon. ser!(
chat to me -
see my edits)13:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request for long term or permanent semi-protection, IP vandals constantly inserting an obscure internet joke into the page.
Mr Fink (
talk)
14:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I still think this is too frequent and has been going on for a long time. The exact same
sockmaster has been targeting this article (and others) consistently every few weeks, and there is no reason to think they won’t continue this pattern in the coming weeks or months.
Skitash (
talk)
14:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you! On further review, I'm wondering if I shouldn't have asked for permanent protection - this vandal has been using a wide range of IPs to do this slow-motion edit war since 2021, and promises in their increasingly-florid edit summaries to keep at it indefinitely. I am wondering if indef or at least extremely long-term protection would be warranted.
AntiDionysius (talk)
15:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Seems the protection was intended to be short term from the
log entry, but the month after protecting the page the admin responsible retired or went on a really long wikibreak, which is also why I am not asking them directly, and probably just forgot to unprotect the page beforehand. Continued protection unnecessarily complicates edit requests during the periods of time when the noticboard itself has to be protected.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:B037:3EB1:5342:E57D (
talk)
15:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Unprotected Reasonable request, prior protections have been temporary in nature to deal with short-term vandalism/targeting. Protecting admin on long-term Wikibreak. Move protection unaffected. —
Ganesha811 (
talk)
17:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Only six edits total since year began. Last mischievous edit was four days ago.
BusterD (
talk)
11:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is not needed as India is not that controversial especially when compared to
Israel,
China or
Donald Trump. I can, however, see why it would need to be protected to a certain extent, so I suggest that to edit
India you need to be an auto confirmed or confirmed user rather than an extended confirmed user. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Zakary2012 (
talk •
contribs)
05:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Only six edits total since year began. Last mischievous edit was four days ago.
BusterD (
talk)
11:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: There's some long-running back and forth between registered users and IPs alike regarding which image should be used in the lede. I believe that many of the IP edits are actually from a banned sockpuppeteer,
Urabura, as the usually reinserted
image was authored by
User:HetmanWL, who I believe is the same person. Increasing protection should calm things down.
NicolausPrime (
talk)
11:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Repeat vandalism by IP 2409:4070:2e9c:ed1c::50a:8300. IP is abusive in description of change edits in local Telugu language. IP repeated after notice on the IP talk page.
RangersRus (
talk)
13:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Cepeda died yesterday. To avoid disruptive editing or misinfo from being added, I request temporary protection of this page.
Omnis Scientia (
talk)
12:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Lotta IP vandalism in past 24hrs. Mostly of the "India won!" variety, where India was the host and Australia won.
Zinnober9 (
talk)
20:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Multiple IPs (presumably one person) keep re-adding incorrect information on the origin. Given the IPs have only edited Wikipedia to add this one piece of misinformation
[70][71][72][73] and have disregarded the article which gives a proper explanation as to the origin I believe it's vandalism from one person using either proxies or just a dynamic IP address.
Traumnovelle (
talk)
20:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism – merely a suggestion: this page has been edit-warred for quite some time, even after repeated goldlocks. proposing indefinite (or lengthy) either bluelock or silverlock.
Josethewikier (
talk)
06:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. A remarkable protection log. A lengthy regime of semi-protection hasn't been tried; let's try that. I'm open to three month EC if required afterwards.
BusterD (
talk)
13:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Continuous editing war between non-logged-in users over the result even though it is a Polish victory, and I ask for a low level of security so that only those logged in can edit
Birczenin (
talk)
08:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It doesn't help the community that this almost fifteen year-old article is completely uncited. At this point the entire page represents the opinions of the various ip contributors, not the analysis of reliable sources.
BusterD (
talk)
13:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – An IP editor seems to be constantly removing reliable sources from the article, in an attempt to whitewash the party's image to make the party looks more moderate.
Vacant0(
talk •
contribs)10:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: A user keeps on adding Israel to the list when there is no source indicating the opening of an Israeli embassy or Indonesia recognizing Israel. Even if he did show a
reference in one of his edits, the word "embassy" is nowhere to be seen.
Underdwarf58 (
talk)
15:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Same reason as before. A user keeps on adding Israel to the list when there is no source indicating the opening of an Israeli embassy or Indonesia recognizing Israel. Even if he did show a
reference in one of his edits, the word "embassy" is nowhere to be seen.
Underdwarf58 (
talk)
15:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page was semi-protected in 2013 for sockpuppetry, but I think the sockpuppet has likely been gone for years and the user who protected it has been inactive for 4 years, so I think removing the protection from the page or at least downgrade it to pending changes is necessary.
2603:6081:893D:13AC:DC19:1DFF:FEB0:A9C2 (
talk)
02:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: As soon as protection expires, anonymous IP edits adding un- or poorly-sourced material is added (probably by the subject) so the page goes back to looking like a resume. This has been going on for many years; please consider permanently protecting it or nominating for deletion (subject is not notable)
Xblkx (
talk)
00:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. They are changing box office backed by reliable sources several times in month. As I can't be available everytime I can't revert them right on time. Needs longer time protection.
Mehedi Abedin02:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent vandalism over several years; repeated temporary protection only stops it temporarily. Some of the edits may be well-intentioned, but they almost all come from new or inexperienced editors seeking to "cleanse" the article of blasphemy against Islam for asserting that a pre-Islamic goddess was worshipped as a wife or daughter of Allah. Similar edits are also regularly made at the companion articles Manat and Al-Uzza. Would suggest indefinite extended confirmed protection of all three, since it is apparent that the same kind of edits will be repeated as long as it is possible to do so.
P Aculeius (
talk)
04:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think it's one person using sockpuppets. It's likely that some of the edits involve sockpuppetry, but while the edits are all aimed at denying that such a goddess existed or was worshipped or was regarded as the wife or daughter of Allah, or asserting that she was "fake" or a "demon", etc. they are carried out in a variety of ways, sometimes adding words, sometimes deleting them, frequently arguing through their edit summaries that what the article said prior to their edits was wrong, sometimes citing the Qur'an, sometimes not using the summary, sometimes pretending to be fixing a typo, etc. The last person was an IP editor who edited all three articles similarly; the one before that was a registered user with no other edits; the three before that were all IP's; while the page was partly protected in December it was the site of edit warring initiated by a registered user with no previous edits to other articles, who was eventually blocked with a total of 12 edits over three weeks' time. The one thing they all have in common is that they all seem to be offended by any version that neutrally describes pre-Islamic beliefs that are inconsistent with Islam, or fails to describe those beliefs as false or heretical or blasphemous.
P Aculeius (
talk)
05:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent addition of copyrighted material by IPs going back to 2022. Some of these are obviously good faith additions, and some of them included material cited to a news article while really being copied from press releases, so I think there's multiple editors involved. History has been mostly revdelled, so I'm sorry I can't be more specific or warn the IPs better.
Reason: Requesting preferably semi-protected status for this page. Persistent (years long) low-quality (even if GF) IP edits which significantly undermined the quality of the article. The grammar in particular was unacceptably awful prior to me embarking on an informal project to fix it last week, far beneath the quality we should expect for a major religion. Finally, it appears to be the norm for articles on major religions to be semi-protected.
JDiala (
talk)
08:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page has been blanked completely and it now an article on Wikipedia and now it is made into a user sandbox now by Fishsicles directly and thus it is longer necessary to keep this, and so, hence i request this article to be given
pending changes instead now itself.
59.93.2.87 (
talk)
14:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Several IPs from the same individual keep vandalizing it, and his edit summaries contain real addresses in the US.
Win8x (
talk)
19:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply