Increase the level of protection of this article. It is actually under ((pp-pc|small=yes)) since March 19th but continues to be vandalized by IP or new vandal users every two days on average. Under this type of protection, someone still has to revert the edition. Experience shows that it is a total waste of time, as not a single edition was not a vandalism, and it should be completely semi-protected instead. Pierre cb (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Following success of recall petition, IPs have started adding highly charged comments to the article. . DuncanHill (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – There is a lot of disruptive editing being done from anon (IP) users. As we are getting closer to a general election i suspect this will only increase. Shemtovca (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Regular and persistent vandalism or unjustified removal of information, often by people who are unwilling to accept that India was at the top of the list of countries where open defecation was ripe. They keep changing the information on India, even though it is factual and as reported by data from WHO, UNICEF and Worldbank. If I am not mistaken, this article had been protected in the past. Perhaps the protection time ran out. EMsmile (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – persistent whitewashing of an American politician's article. Editors have been invited to discuss content but have refused to engage. VelellaVelella Talk 19:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just protected the version I disagree with. If someone uninvolved would like to consider reverting to the "stable" version. It would be unseemly for me to. DlohCierekim20:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – recent gender based vandalism from new accounts and ip's based on the recent news. Agent00x (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: The documentation page keeps getting mistakenly edited by new editors over the past several years (the way documentation displays on template pages include an "edit" link which can be confusing I guess), indefinite semi-protection (the main template is TPP'ed but I'm not sure if that can be extended to its doc page by default) with a helpful message in the protection log (or editnotice) would help avoid newbie misakes and later cleanup. Ben · Salvidrim!✉15:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: A featured article. Previously vandalized by User:Yoboinoah. Just requesting for semi protection as precautionary measure. . Sincerely, Masum Reza☎04:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Masumrezarock100: The article's only been edited thirteen times in the ~11 hours it's so far been on the main page, and only a couple of those were vandalism; that's doing rather well! In any case, please see WP:PREEMPTIVE: Applying page protection in a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed. ——SerialNumber5412909:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - Not yet. It's today's featured article, and we should try and avoid restricting editing if possible per principle. If protection is needed, they should be applied for very short durations (maximum a few hours). Right now, I think we can wait until things get worse first. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)11:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Taking into account prior protection, even though the show is apperantly tomorrow. El_C16:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not needed now. I've boldly redirected this and several other articles on unremarkable college dorms at this school to the school's article. John from Idegon (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Again IPs randomly adding charts and removing any negative information from article. —IB[ Poke ]12:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but with changes. If you look at the code for this page, it is a safe redirect to WP:TWA/Invite, which is currently indefinitely template protected - so no real harm can come from having this page modified. However, since it's highly referenced by new editors and disruption to the template (even if accidental) could cause confusion. To make sure that this potential problem is kept to a low probability, I went ahead and added indefinite semi-protection from editing, and indefinite full protection from page moving. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)11:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – As well as under Shraey khanna and Shraey Khanna (Choreographer) (possibly SPI needed as I notice these are all under different names who recreated the article over the years). Wgolf (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Ideally indefinite but any amount would be fine. The page has received very large amounts of vandalism since it was unprotected, even after it had a couple months of semi-protection. DanielleTH(Say hi!)03:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Faulkner posted to twitter and instagram yesterday implying he is gay, which produced news stories around the world. Faulkner subsequently clarified that he isn't gay and that there was a "misunderstanding." There are now news stories about this, how it was handled by the media, and responses from the LGBT community. Article history shows good faith edits to include his coming out (not realising it wasn't) and homophobic comments by IPs. Talk page discussion on what (if anything) to include is ongoing. Requesting semi-protection to avoid mistaken edits about Faulkner coming out and vandalism while we wait to see how the story develops and whether to include anything in this BLP. EdChem (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – While yes it has only been created under this title twice, it also has under Riyas Ayiroor (which is salted) and Moinuddin Riyas (which I requested to be salted). Wgolf (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I am requesting indefinite semi-protection on this page due to persistent harassment and not factual accusations and 'comment warring' being edited in over the last year.
This page has consistently been edited / vandalized by numerous users with false, overly negative, harassing, or information based on cases that were entirely dismissed or settled in the person's favor.
There have also been edits / comments that were deemed a violation of the the Wiki Guidelines and have been removed previously for the violation. SerenityRising (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page has sporadically been the target of IPs blanking it for he past few years. Since there is really no good reason for an anon to edit this page, it's probably best to indefinitely semi-protect it. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Request 1 month PC - ongoing vandalism from multiple IP addresses. Restarted after last temporary protection. . Nosebagbear (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – The vandalism from IPs and new accounts is back as soon as the previous 1 month protection expired, just as after the previous 1 year protection, and the indefinite protection before that. Please protect it for a long time - this is a BLP. – bradv🍁20:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed protection: short term protection needed for a couple of days. Persistent addition of Jesse Winker as owner of the club after Cincinatti Reds beat the Mets. --Blackmane (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The report submitted by Impru20 requires a degree of scrutiny. On the surface, the edits in question appear to be unconstructive, however taken in context with the subject matter, they act as informative delegations. I would not hesitate to argue that Impru20's own reverts constitute vandalism, given that they are unsubstantiated by the larger editorial collective. I would appreciate if the user brought their concerns to the arbitration committee going forward. Thank you and have a blessed day.
Adding diffs from various vandalism attempts at the article from several IP users (including the one above) just in case further proof is required for protection: [1][2][3][4][5]. Impru20talk18:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Difficult to issue warning or block just one IP address. Page was previously temporarily protected for 30 days, which was effective for the time - but vandal is back. Request for 1 year semi-protection. AmericanHistorian (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since the last protection expired (almost 2 months ago), there has been not enough disruption to warrant semi-protection. I have watchlisted the article for good measure. Lectonar (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Say for a week or so. Has been attracting persistent unwanted attention from what I can only call a cult following. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Left a warning on the users talk-page.....semi-protection wouldn't have worked anyway, as they are autoconfirmed. Lectonar (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite pending changes: I am requesting that Danny's article be added to the pending changes list due the high level of disruptive edits to his article. Govvy (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection Over the past 48 hours there have been reverts (particularly over the lead) from several editors. A talk page discussion needs to happen, and fast. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment – the only editors involved are Ritchie333 who feels that the lead is too long, myself trying to accommodate their concern by shortening the lead as much as possible, JG66 who is expanding the article without dispute, and an IP adding irrelevant, poorly-sourced content that myself and Ritchie333 have reverted numerous times. only a semi-protection seems necessary ilil (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'll go with a full protection here; not being able to edit the article has been known to focus the mind :). Just hash it out on the talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Increased level of IP vandalism/BLP issues relating to the subject's date of birth. Page was previously protected for the same reason for six months starting in Sept18. LugnutsFire Walk with Me13:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
..."Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the conflict...." Lectonar (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Major edit warring going on. Several users close to the topic have been removing content that was backed with sources claiming it was fictitious and defamatory while others have gone overboard to declare the subject as a scamster. . Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Months of history of unregistered users adding unsourced information, vandalizing citations, or removing sourced information without stating a reason. User:Brainy J ✿ (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: continually shifting IP (but presumably the same person) keeps editing his/her prior request for me to translate an article from Portuguese to ask for different articles. Or maybe two IPs are arguing over what article they want me to translate, who knows. I'd semi-protect it myself (I'm an admin) but I gather that is considered "bad form" & would appreciate someone signing off on this. - Jmabel | Talk22:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It's not bad form, as far as I'm concerned, but happy to help. El_C23:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected for a period of 4 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I normally might not have applied protection here, but looking through the history shows that almost all anonymous edits have been vandalism for some time - so I've applied pending changes protection. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)20:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, with vandalism and reversion being the vast majority of the most recent edits dating back at least to February. I did not check the history beyond that. DavidMCEddy (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – I think a 14 day full protection can illicit some actual discussion. I see editors being rude and some rather pushy POV going on. . Dusti*Let's talk!*11:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism – Every year this page (which is about tomorrow, May 4) gets a lot of attention and vandalism, it gets almost no traction the rest of the year, but should be locked for editing for the next 48-60 hours or so. It has already received quite a few spurious unsourced additions from pranksters, and will only get more as its page history attests. JesseRafe (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Full protection is a bit of an overkill. May the Fourth be with you — I like that. El_C17:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let’s see if that assists as the disruption is fairly recent. If not a longer protection may be necessary and or PC1. NJA(t/c)15:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Persistent promotional editing, removal of sourced content by admitted COI accounts. We've already seen presumed block evasion, and current unblock requests suggest that the guidelines aren't appreciated and the issues aren't understood. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request removal of semi-protection: The article was semi-protected years ago. Article protection is no longer needed. New editors are making good suggestions but others are ignoring the request on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated on my talk page header, it is generally not necessary to seek my input or permission to reverse actions I took over a year ago. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 20:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Based on what I see, this should be more than sufficient. Feel free to unpgrade to 30/5000 per ARBPIA. DlohCierekim10:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Change from Pending changes protection to Semi-protection: Constantly vandalised by newly created fan accounts and IPs, there is a huge backlog because there are 15+ edits per day, better to semi protect it. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. The movie is just releasing, and there is a large amount of false information coming from IP accounts. ZootyCutie (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Vandalism, disruptive editing from IPs, who are restoring previously removed information. Ss11201:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Frequent changes by IP believed to be the subject of the article, or someone connected to them, in an attempt to "guild the lily", particularly to hide her age. John B123 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – It's clear from the timing and content that RevSpitz (talk·contribs) is editing this page frequently from numerous static IPV6 addresses in Chesapeake VA to avoid showing the obvious COI. Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. Before your recent edits, there have only been five edits made to the article in March, two in February, and one in January. There just isn't any recent enough activity to justify protecting the article until problems begin to occur and at a high enough rate. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)16:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. There are a lot of anonymous edits being made, but I don't see enough disruption to justify protecting the article and restricting legitimate anonymous users from contributing to it. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)16:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Evidence of repeated IP vandalism in the past, although citations of sources have been added. Examples, honorifics evidence have been cited, yet reverted by disagreeing users. Most recently, a malicious vandalism. Please, we are requesting protection to prevent this from happening again and also to be able to update article’s statistics. Fideliter2014 (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Financial vandalism, not regularly, but persistently occurring at random intervals. Last 100 edits are all vandalism (mostly IPs, and sometimes fresh accounts). No constructive additions has occurred since last 1-and-1/2 years. 137.97.83.133 (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – As per WP:LIVEUPDATES, Snooker articles have had issues with live updates for a long time with live updates, which are against policy. users have logged over 1,000 edits simply updating scores, causing edit conflicts, and accidental revertion of copyedits and prose detail.
Temporary semi-protection: Yesterday I asked for urgent page semi-protection because the article was being repeteadly vandalized by IP users. It was momentarily protected, then unprotected. Now, it is being vandalized again. Please may I ask for it to be protected, this time for a longer time? Thank you. Impru20talk16:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is not nearly enough vandalism to warrant protection for an article on the Main page — which is why I unprotected it after a few hours. Consulting me first would have been the right call — but this was not done. El_C16:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected after discussion with El_C. We will wait till it leaves prominence in main page and see if it gets really bad beforehand. -- Alexf(talk)16:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pending changes protection: List rarely requires updating, as new referees are added to the league about once a year. However, most edits to this page are currently vandalism and vandalism reverts. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. per above comment, which I agree with. NJA(t/c)14:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. per above comment, which I agree with. NJA(t/c)14:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - The article was hit pretty hard on April 16, then stopped until one instance of vandalism today. I don't see the need to apply protection to the article at this time unless things pick back up or occur consistently. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)20:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Requesting protection due to high levels of IP vandalism, particularly to subject's DOB. This request was previously made and handled on April 29 but for some reason the expiration date was set to May 1, perhaps by mistake. Citrivescence (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Hannibal Brooks page needs to be PERMANENTLY semi-protected against anonymous IP edits because this has been going on since 2012 by college professors and students attempting to prove that Wikipedia is unreliable. I think it needs to be permanent because it is clear that the professor is going to continue encouraging his students to vandalize this page every year.
Quora contributor admits that Olga the Elephant is a hoax to troll Wikipedia"Just to be clear the story of Olga the Elephant is fictional, the Tutor has this story in his opening lecture every year when going over how to reference research papers, with glee. Needless to say none of his students reference Wikipedia anymore, and everytime we see someone do so, we start giggling."[1]
It has been discovered that the multiple anonymous IP edits are part of a concentrated attack on Wikipedia itself, to cause disrepute to Wikipedia, which have been organized and encouraged by a tutor at Robert Gordon University in the UK, who has been telling his students for several years that Wiki is an unreliable source and encouraging them to vandalize Wiki to prove it. See:https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Wikipedia-dismissed-as-an-unreliable-source/answer/Cai-Esson?ch=10&share=161cecfd&srid=n1aP3
If you will follow the "contribs" links of these anonymous IPs and their WhoIs info, you will see that they all come from the same little area of the UK, and none of them have ever contributed anything but to vandalize this article by reposting the exact same fake information, over and over again since 2012.
GalantFan (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @MelanieN: yes, but current protection expires in two days, requesting semi-protection be made permanent as this has been an annual problem for years now GalantFan (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The protection log shows that the page has only been protected twice before - once in February 2018 and this time - each time for 3 days. There needs to be a lot stronger history of need for protection before we implement protection indefinitely. The vandalism seems to comes in occasional spurts, as it did in February 2018 and again in April this year, and it can be protected when that happens. We are not going to permanently ban all editing by new or anonymous users when vandalism happens so rarely. It looks as some fake changes were added right after the February protection expired, and were not discovered until you deleted them more than a year later. That suggests that the protection during a “spurt” needs to be longer than three days - maybe a week or two - and I have extended this protection to be for a week. It also suggests we need more eyes on this page. Basically, since this is known to be a problem article, what it needs is for more editors to put it on their watchlists. I have done that and I suggest others do the same. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El_C local politician from 70 years ago. Difficult to find sources other than in his native tongue (those are plentiful). However, all sources are in accordance to WP:RS (like Vice News, for instance). Coltsfan (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what I said in my protection note. But if the IP/s contests what these actually say, the onus is then on you to translate the relevant portions. El_C23:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Content dispute should be resolved on the talk page. El_C23:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Facts that would be relevant next season are being inserted for the current season which is officially still in progress . --palmiped | Talk 20:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Full-protection: Repeated defamation, breach of NPOV, no verifiable evidence and lousy references accusing Mr Bouchamaoui of tax evasion and ties with criminials.
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Has also just been recreated as Mike L Whaley which I put a salt tag on. Wgolf (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism, often anti-woman. The page has been protected around 8 March for several years, but only after vandalism has peaked. Vandalism is now continuing into May.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: An IP user removed a factual occurrence from the the lead and was reverted, then engaged in persistent edit warring and made three reverts in less 24 hours. Tried to talk to IP but they refuse to understand why their edit is disruptive and keep reverting it. They have the same behavior in other articles, even going as far as to say that an article should have been deleted because it wasn't updated. See their history. Zoolver (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If a request contains excessive argument, appears to be intended to resolve a content dispute, includes personal attacks or uncivil comments, or has any other unrelated discussion, it will be removed from this page and no action will be taken. - this is clearly intended to resolve a content dispute. 51.7.34.168 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. Content dispute. Although the source does seem to allude that she achieved her fame with those films. Also, you need four reverts in 24 hours to violate 3RR. Please take it to the talk page and try to gain consensus for your respective versions there. As for the user's broader history, you need diffs — just linking to their contributions is not enough. You gotta do some of the legwork — we're all volunteers here. El_C00:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
""Indefinite creation protection": Two reasons: Unlike Ariana's older half-brother Frankie who is a dancer and Internet personality she isn't TOO TOO notable to have a page of herself to begin with. Although she appeared on a few episodes of Love and Hip/Hop: New York which her elder sister a high-profile rapper named Cardi B an eternal creation protection has to go commando. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.163.178 (talk • contribs)
Temporary semi-protection: An IP user has been persistently reinstating a disputed edit without explanation. The confrontational message on their talk page suggests that they don't intend to seek consensus. Eperoton (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lots of IP and new user vandalism; article subject is involved in a current event (controversial Kentucky Derby winner). Aspening (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Continued additions of unsourced material and factually incorrect material by auto confirmed users. Additionally, there have been a lot of typos and poor grammar in the article as well. This article is a high priority article that has gotten 60,000+ views on May 3. I'm just concerned about the article being correct and a decent quality at this point. NoahTalk21:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. Sorry, I'm just not seeing enough disruptive edits now for me to up my original semiprotection.El_C22:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Dynamic IPv6 and IPv4 adding same fake credits "John Greenhalgh" to this article since at least mid February. Likely self insertion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. I've also blocked the small range 184.188.6.224/28 for a couple of weeks. Bishonen | talk17:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Please give protection for indefinite years,so that only auto confirmed user can edit, that's best for famous articles . Rasi56 (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IPs continually adding the same URL to the article in multiple locations inappropriately. I think it's worth trying temp semi-prot as a first attempt to reduce disruption. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Already protected by administrator El C. re-report when it expires if a continuing issue or raise with the protecting admin. NJA(t/c)11:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Page has long history of having IPs making possibly 'disruptive' edits that seem to largely not comply with Wikipedia referencing standards and write content that does not properly adhere to grammar and structuring conventions. The edits can be seen as being in good faith, but damage from the edits was quite substantial (fixes were applied to the article). Doctorkaufman (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP disruption and edit-warring. IP user reverting to its preferred version, despite suggestions to continue the discussion about the issue on the talk. Jingiby (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Long-term disruption by IPs (unsourced BLP, edit-warring without comment to re-insert content removed with guideline-based edit-summaries, etc). DMacks (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: IP hopping editor repeatedly deleting "notable people" with articles, and replacing them by people without articles - Arjayay (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse my lack of detail, he launched his campaign on April 2nd, there is nothing preemptive about this request. Today a new user 2602:252:D91:E650:1006:1361:4BC3:27F2 has made six disruptive edits within a two hour period. The page has an extensive history of IP vandalism as well. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IP user reverting to their preferred version despite multiple suggestions to discuss on talk page through edit summaries and hidden note on the page. Suggesting semi because of different IP addressees but clear its the same editor through their edit summaries. (Diffs: [8][9][10])TheDoctorWho(talk)01:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Requesting 1 year protection on this redirect as this is WP:TOOSOON and not enough independent coverage on this topic. The name PlayStation 5 is not even the confirmed name at this point for the next generation PlayStation console. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?04:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Permanent extended confirmed create protection: I have not reverted many unconstructive edits in order to avoid being targeted by vandals, but I want to start doing so. Ojo del tigre (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Your userpage already has a degree of protection. Non-autoconfirmed users cannot edit it. You have not even created the page yourself. No cause for protection. Enigmamsg23:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – An anon from Indianapolis, Indiana wants to change the term "open-source" to "open source" and won't stop. Perhaps locking the page to non-autoconfirmed editors will open an actual dialogue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Why do you keep asking for extended confirmed for edits that involve IPs? El_C04:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A user continues to politicize the definition. This user will not post in the Talk section regarding his or her issue, and continues to revert. Greggzuk (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - I think you have the wrong idea of what's going on here. Each edit you reverted or changed was made after a different editor (with the exception of one, which you undid twice). If anything, the article would be protected to stop you, not the others. You've been warned for edit warring by another editor. If you revert the article's content again, you will be blocked for edit warring. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)20:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite Semi-protection: This article attracts occasional vandals who do things like this. It's not that frequent but the vandalism is persistent, spikes whenever Cosby is in the news, and likely to continue forever. Thank you. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Seems to be a whole lot of fun to take out or change Paulson's partner; perhaps semi would stop this for a while. Happy days, LindsayHello08:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: for at least three months. Enough is enough. This article is targeted by a long-term puppet-master (several socks blocked, now using IPs). It's getting repetitive to come here to ask for SP every time. The short protections serve little purpose, as the puppet-master just continues when they expire. An SP of some months needed. Jeppiz (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Seemingly a coordinated effort between IP accounts, who are ignoring warnigs to just disrupt the pages. Likely will subside when School ends. - AH (talk)
Semi-protection: Dynamic IP (or multiple IPs) constantly re-inserting contested material and refusing to discuss on the article talk page. StAnselm (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Current semi-protection seems to be adequate; I'm not seeing significant vandalism by autoconfirmed users. MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism restarted immediately after previous semi-pro expired. Current IP blocked, but historically it's been a range. Will also request indef PP for the article. VQuakr (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There hasn't been a single constructive edit other than reverts in over a month. An overwhelming majority of the edits to the page are either nonconstructive or a revert. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done)02:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism as it is an ongoing event. Perhaps a 1-2 weeks semi-protection will be sufficient. Cloud200 (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Many helpful IP edits too. Lectonar (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – I have added information of Bishnu Rabha's father with citation. But Chaipau Keep on deleting the correct information. . PerfectingNEI (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Koch is aboriginal tribe of India. Rajbongshi is either different origin people
or section of koch people who write Rajvanshi title. These page is using information of Koch tribe and deleted or redirected original Koch tribe page to Rajbongshi people page.
Most of the content have no citation and some are just given dead links or single source. I had deleted the paragraph without source but [User|Fylindfotberserk]] have reverted my edits. Kindly higher authority look into this matter. Aboriginal Koch tribe identity is being destroyed by Rajbongshi people. They have deleted or reverted that page to here.
This type of act to hide some tribe's identity should be taken seriously .
Declined. I'm not sure I'm following you, but there's only been one revert — suggest you give the user a chance to reply on the article talk page. Goodluck. El_C20:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Reverts and undue weight edits from IP hopper - this happened before in the past on here a few months ago. I can provide proof of the same IP range - 85.48.186.106/18 and 90.174.3.123/18 (later one is the same who IP hopped that warranted the protection the first time). – The Grid (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – The article was yet again suffered from slow edit war on the political status of the government in the 1940s era (military dictatorship or Unitary parliamentary constitutional republic). Such matter should be solved at talk page Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949) by stating reliable source and fulfill WP:DUE criteria. . Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months. disruptive edits appear to be vandalism (date changes with no references, etc). previous 1 month semi was insufficient. , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NJA | talk16:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection Was recently protected due to persistent vandalism, and with the expiration of the protection the exact same vandalism (mostly changing the name to "River Gulu") is being added by multiple IPs. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: South African election is being held today 8 May and we are fighting vandalism since this morning. Any chance of some protection. Results to filter out on Saturday 11 May. Hope this is the right request page. Conlinp (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. We can't use extended-confirmed protection without trying semi-protection first, and I feel the activity level on this page isn't high enough for semi-protection at this time. Giving PC a try. Mz7 (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Yes, I know we generally avoid protecting talk pages. However we have three blocked meatpuppets with multiple IPs and new SPA accounts coming in due to canvassing on Reddit specifically requesting that users flood Wikipedia. SummerPhDv2.002:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - Most of the recent activity seems to be socks and IP edits from one person. They were blocked a few hours ago and there hasn't been anything else since. Re-report if it starts up again. -- Scott Burley (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Pinging El C as they were the blocking admin. This article was recently protected on April 20, 2019 and from my experience this usually isn't a good reason to lift protection. If you would like to edit the article you can always submit an edit request on the article's talk page while the block is being reviewed. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?02:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Article just came off semi-protection and an IP vandalized the article and the vandalism stayed on the article for at least 2 hours before being reverted. Article would benefit from pending changes for now so any vandalism can be quickly reverted. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?02:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FOREVER semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. The page is inundated with POV updates, and attempts to advertise a fringe theory from a supposed scientist that claims to have received information from aliens. The subject is someone who is solely known for a theory of the universe that they claim to have received from aliens, so there's every reason to think the vandalism will continue. Most updates come from a sole user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoretical1A9 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – some oversight on the edit summaries are also necessary. Toddst1 (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IP editor keeps edit warring, inserting content that contradicts citations, as well as profanity and death threats. The previous request was declined as not enough activity, but they've been through three different IPs at this point (and on other articles too). Personally, I'm not so invested in the article to constantly edit war with some rando, so if this is declined I'm just gonna remove it from my watchlist and let them have their way. Opencooper (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FOREVER semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. This has already been done on the French language page. The page is inundated with POV updates, and attempts to make this non-notable person sound notable. The subject is someone who is solely known for a theory of the universe that they claim to have received from aliens, so there's every reason to think the vandalism will continue. Most updates come from a sole user. I have been attempting to restore referenced facts to the page, but with minimal success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoretical1A9 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is ongoing on the Talk page. No need to protect the page. Theoretical1A9 failed to prove any of his claims, as he failed to sign his previous comment. This request is nothing less than a try to censor useful content. Theoretical1A9 account was created only for vandalism on Janus-model related pages (see also Bimetric Gravity hereafter). Others accounts are used on the related French language pages to do the same. When he wrote "The subject is someone who is solely known for a theory of the universe that they claim to have received from aliens", this is grossly misleading. See Talk page for details. May I say that the notability of Petit was proven on WP each time someone asked to delete the page? --80.215.230.39 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. On second look the edit warring was out of control. I have full-protected the page. MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FOREVER semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. This page was protected a month ago due to constant vandalism (and has been protected multiple times if I recall correctly due to constant vandalism). Now that the protection is off again, the vandalism has resumed. Would it please be possible to just protect this page forever? The subject is someone who is solely known for spreading false conspiracy theories and disinformation related to the Syrian Civil War, so there's every reason to think the vandalism will continue into the near future. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this goes back further than my involvement. A block may be more appropriate. The offending editor is now making an half-assed attempt at discussion, but not in any sort of a productive fashion, and is still reverting repeatedly. John from Idegon (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I be blocked? I have clearly given you reasoning for my removal of certain individuals from the list: Len Small was aquitted not convicted, Caleb Powers was pardoned by the Governor (The list does not include those who have been pardoned) and Edmund Matricardi III is not an elected politican nor is he a statewide appointed politician and therefore should not be included. HeggyTy (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot why have you also not given a warning to John, when he is edit warring with me? I have shown, numerous times, why my edits are correct, so why am I being ignored? That's not right or fair. HeggyTy (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He stopped edit warring and as he is an experienced user I believe he is already aware of rules about edit warring. As this discussion no longer involves page protection, feel free to discuss it further on the article talk page or one of our talk pages. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. essentially either one disruptive editor (non-IP) or a slow-brew dispute, which in that case full protection and or blocks may be in order. Consider dispute resolution or report the issue for comment in the appropriate forum should disruption continue. Should the page be affected by multiple IP or new editors then you may re-request semi-protection. NJA | talk13:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Not for the first time, apparent COI editing has been followed by repeated section blanking from multiple anonymous IPs. This has also recurred at Matt Mondanile since the recent protection lapsed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clicriffhard (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Since this draft's recent movement to the draftspace and submission, several IPs have arrived from seemingly nowhere to edit the draft. Some of their edits (such as the removal of AfC reviewer comments) are disruptive, and they mimic the edits made by the multiple SPAs and one blocked sock editor that have edited this topic before. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary move protection: While I would hesitate to call this instance a move war, this article (now draft) has been moved to the mainspace by a partially disclosed (see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Rupert_Lee-Browne) paid editor. Given the strange appearance of SPAs and IP editors after the COIN thread began, this draft should be protected from being moved for the time being. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: High level of disruption from IP and newly created editors; blanking sections without discussion. Ignoring warnings. Britishfinance (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Vandalism and dubious unsourced changes by IP editors. This page has needed nearly non-stop protection since its creation due to these type of edits. StaticVapormessage me!13:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Could we have this protection increased to temporary full-protection instead due to an edit-war?? --IanDBeacon (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined i) the page is semi-protected already. ii) I see one editor (the one who requested protection here) is blocked for disruptive editing. iii) it appears to be a dispute involving others as well. As such consider WP:DR or full protection. NJA | talk01:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Extended confirmed protection Persistent Vandalism - vandalism is by user that has over 10 edits I have a feeling that they will continue to vandalize the page if semi protection is used. Pepper Gaming (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High amount of IP activity due to the outcome of the semi-finals. Would only need to be for a week at most. SounderBruce21:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Created the class mask for ((WikiProject Big Brother)) which is a highly visible template currently under semi-protection. Since this is an integral part of the main template requesting the semi-protection be carried over. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?22:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I would never say never as any article could potentially be vandalized. Its also worth noting this article is under active community sanctions as part of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. If you would like to edit the article you can always submit an edit request on the article's talk page while the block is being reviewed. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?02:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The underlying PC protection will continue when the semi-protection expires. MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Semi/Confirmed-Edit protection: An IP user (over three separate IPs), has made persistent changes to the tables in this article concerning the Buzzes made by the judges in the programme. It is not clear if this is being done because it was how it was portrayed in an international broadcast of this programme's series, but the current information is based on the original broadcast. Regardless, they have done this for the third time, so either some semi-protection or confirmed-edit protection should suffice for a while to dissuade them from vandalising the tables to their opinion. GUtt01 (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – A sock puppet currently using the name Uvwxyz1 keeps returning under different names to vandalize Sarah Rose Summers page with his vindictive agenda of harassment. Glenn Francis (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Ongoing disruption by one or more IPs. Failed to respond to talk page discussion and multiple UTP warnings. ―Mandruss☎23:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second this request. The subject is in the news for his critical article, and supporters of the ruling party are first vandalizing the page and then sharing screenshot on twitter --DBigXrayᗙ11:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Some IP kept vandalizing and there could be vandals vandalizing later. FireBlade70817:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – User has made alterations to talk page that remove evidence of disruptive intent. Huntthetroll (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. And he misspells friends! I'd consider re-blocking with talk page access disabled, but it looks like just some silliness. Will keep an eye though. El_C16:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by IPs. Unverified information with no sources is posted. Amikaau (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Over the past month or so, this page has been targeted by various IPs for vandalism and disruptive edits. I am requesting for semi-protection to be implemented for the next month, or at least a few weeks. The Sharks’ position in the Stanley Cup playoffs right now means that the page is a heavier vandalism target than usual. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I do see there are admins that engage in the page and while there is a bit of reverting of IP editors additions the past few weeks it does not yet seem to be the level expected to need protection. Should it continue or indeed increase then do re-request. NJA | talk12:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: a couple of IPs and "Texas Walker7" keep adding unsourced sales information to the article... all three are 99.9% certain to be our old long-term sockpuppet friend TomWatkins1970, who only edits Bros articles by adding poorly sourced information. In this case, he/she has contacted the UK's Official Chart Company and privately obtained sales information, which they have then added without any source, and repeated explanations that the information must have been published publicly, per WP:PUBLISHED, are reverted with the insistence that it is up to other editors to disprove their privately obtained information [11],
[12], [13], [14]. This editor's persistent sockpuppetting has resulted in most of the Bros articles being placed under long-term protection. Richard3120 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: IPs editing the article to say that he has died, but with no sources; there have been similar edits before, on 8 January. Peter James (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a failure to understand consensus. I am trying to explain it at Talk:Bodo people but seem to be struggling. Protection isn't needed but Perfecting NEI could use a word from an admin. In fact, they keep saying there that they want input from an admin. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Someone trying to change his name please protect this page for minimum 2 years . Rasi56 (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent protection has expired, but new vandalism since date of expiration. Requesting extended protection from vandalism (there's still a link to the page on the main page). . Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)08:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Samsara19:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – 1.42.202.247 has been continuously removing more specific figures from the casualties infobox, claiming that they should be removed basically due to lack of neutrality. While I agree that casualty figures are better when backed by a neutral source, the lack of a neutral source does not justify total deletion. DemPon (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is a content dispute where neither party has yet to make use of the article talk page. El_C06:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: A newer user keeps making weird and contentious major changes (albeit in good faith) without any form of discussion. Many of these go against policies such as WP:OR and WP:NFC (such as using two non-free images with separate rationales where only one is necessary). Joker (character) was recently protected because of this (where he was reverted by multiple editors) and the user has been asked to start opening discussions by both myself and an admin. DarkKnight214916:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – For the last few days on a daily basis this article has been popping up on my watchlist with a really weird edit. A dynamic IP removes a table bracket and literally within a minute or two reverts the edit. Test edits like this are not unusual but the repetitive nature of it is a bit strange. It is not massively disruptive, but maybe if we semi'd it for a few days it would break the cycle?. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: The page was recently protected due to disruptive vandalism/editing; 69.158.41.41 has been adding fake TV Shows to the list and changing the air dates when the air dates should not have been changed; the page was semi-protected until May 7, 2019; yesterday a few vandalism edits were made by 69.158.41.41 and another IP User. I have sent 69.158.41.41 a message regarding the edits they were making but they ignored it; could someone protect the page List of programs broadcast by Treehouse TV again? Or Block 69.158.41.41 (I'm not sure about the other IP User since that was a one time edit with the other IP Address. Thanks. TheBlackKitty (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Lock(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I am requesting that this title be created as a redirect to the disambiguation page Lock, where there are currently two items listed with the title "The Lock ([disambiguating term])". I already tried making a request to the last admin to protect the page (not responded to) and on the Talk page (deleted without response as "Talk page of a deleted page"). Certainly once the redirect is created it can be fully protected to prevent the activity that got it locked up to begin with. --ShelfSkewedTalk21:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection Page was recently protected due to disruptive editing; with the expiration of the protection, the same pattern of disruption has started again. PohranicniStraze (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hopefully, that's enough time for the IP to join the discussion that's already happening on the talk page. Ordinarily, I would issue a block, but the user was warned for vandalism and disruption rather than edit warring, so they may have not known they were engaging in it. El_C23:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
About six years ago, an understanding was reached at WP:HOCKEY that the Soviet Union be used for ice hockey players born in the Baltic states (1940-1991), before Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania re-gained their independence. The IP was merely restoring that consensus. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent disruptive editing – Anonymous IPs keep editing article and adding unsourced contents, i previously requested for a temporary Protection and it expired during that time i was able to work on the page and make some updates. But with the way things are going i am proposing an indefinite or temporary Pending changes protection on the page. Thanks. Lapablo (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Aranya have deleted all the citation from Bodo people page.
He has deleted citation of Journal , Book by Suniti Kumar Chatterjee , Book by Sidney Endle. PerfectingNEI (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An official PNAC bioweapon quote is steadily censored out of the discussion, due to some people ignoring the fact,
that it is not only published in PNAC's most important official document R.A.D, but also discussed by award-winning
journalists and political scientists, who explicitly discuss this quote and its' implications in their publications,
which I've correctly cited to prevent any allegiations of original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8388:1845:7400:60a1:5cc2:980:a08f (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Looks like you have been edit warring for over six months, discuss the changes that you want to make on the talk page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Malcolmxl5 said above. The page is protected because of prolonged edit-warring by IP editor(s) and refusal to abide by Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:Consensus. Protection will not be listed. I encourage the IP editor(s) to engage in discussion at the article's talk page, as I suggested when they contacted me directly. —C.Fred (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. The previous time that the article was created before last time was five years ago, then one month ago, then five years ago before that. This article isn't created frequently enough over a short enough span of time for me to justify protecting it from being created again in the future. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)13:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This strange behaviour of persistently creating empty edit requests appears to have been going for much longer than April. Let’s see if a one month protection will break the cycle. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite move protection: Page has already gone through multiple names over the years because “people” dispute his occupation. There is a snow consensus to leave it as musician. Any more moves would be pointless, unacceptable disruption. Trillfendi (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The article is being repeatedly vandalised by a couple of IPs - the same IPs also make a lot of constructive edits however, so may be shared between a vandal and a good user - a period of page protection might be a better option than blocking?. GirthSummit (blether)07:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs vandalizing and some users basically adding bias and vandalism. FireBlade70801:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Samsara14:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Blocked Bobby Gammonster-Internet Horror Host (talk·contribs) appears intent on getting his promotional material in this article. Is now using IP socks. Toddst1 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed:BLP policy violations – This page was recently protected and is still in need of protection based on the expiration leading to a new round of IP and new users vandalizing the page (sometimes more carefully, sometimes more crassly than others) with everything from BLP vios to POV-pushing, weasel words, undue weight, tone shifts, not news, etc etc.
Seems to be part of a set of targeted editing given the similarity of the edits from disparate IPs as well as confirmed users.
Protection would be good for another week or so, until subject falls out of the news cycle. JesseRafe (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The inter-city rivalry is flaring-up. How about locking for a few days (or weeks, or months, or years, or decades, ad the admin's discretion of course). Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The inter-city rivalry is flaring-up. How about locking for a few days (or weeks, or months, or years, or decades, ad the admin's discretion of course). Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Highly visible page, suffers from persistent IP vandalism, including graffiti, patent nonsense, and test edits, since the page was last semi-protected for 3 years. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Not enough activity to justify protection, plus it looks as though the issue may be resolved now (7,000th episode has aired and a citation is provided). GoodnightmushTalk16:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., it was so far only protected once for a week, let us see whether a month long protection would help.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Recently De protected, but vandalized several times shortly afterwards. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)
Declined - Not yet. It's only been tagged a couple of times. If the vandalism and disruption picks up and starts occurring at a high rate, file another report and I'll be happy to take another look. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)12:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mid-term semi-protection: Page repeatedly targeted by problematic IP that changes address every day and adds unnecessary punctuation, makes ENGVAR violations etc (see similar edits here). Number5711:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent material vandalism by different IPs, new users, and even blocked SOCKS, for months now (since August 2018). Not sure why, but this needs a more substantive protection solution. Britishfinance (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: This BLP is connected to the Super 30 issue above, and is also still getting a very high level of vandalism since last August from IPs etc. Needs similar protection to Super 30. Britishfinance (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent vandalism – High level of unsourced edits and vandalism by IPs and new users. Requesting indefinite duration because there have been two previous periods of semi-protection. Reposting this request because last attempt asked for wrong level of protection. Horserice (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - I'm still confused with your request and your explanation of what's going on here... I don't see large amounts of vandalism by anonymous users or new accounts as you state in your request. Many recent edits have been made by DerekHistorian, which I notice that you've reverted a few times. This looks to me to be a content issue or dispute, not a case of vandalism or malicious disruption. Have you tried discussing your concerns with the user directly? Have you tried working things out properly? I do see a couple of edits by a few IP users and a new user (Beefwbroccoli) over the last 30 days, but not enough to justify protection. Again, sorry, but I'm seeing something different than what you're giving here, and I think the right action is to direct you to DerekHistorian's user talk page (or the article's talk page) and have you discuss your concerns there. :-) Feel free to message me on my user talk page here if I missed something or if I'm incorrect about anything. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – High level of unsourced edits and vandalism by IPs and new users. Requesting indefinite duration because there have been two previous periods of semi-protection. Horserice (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - The only users that edited the article recently that semi-protection would affect are 169.228.204.237 and 129.49.68.160. All other users who have recently edited the article are confirmed or autoconfirmed, which allows them to edit semi-protected pages. This protection level would have almost no effect. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)21:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They are not disruptive editions, in addition, the protections are used when there is a massive number of users causing vandalism, which in this case, is not. --181.53.12.7022:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: - Persistent disruptive editing from IPs who keep removing reference to the show being canceled by Fox. I'm assuming these are upset fans but they are causing an issue and I would like to request the page be protected for a few days to prevent further vandalism. Thankyou. Esuka (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: There is consensus at AfD that this should not be an article. Considering the history of massive reverts, including one after the closure of the AfD, I think it will be necessary to protect this page to prevent anything further. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection:WP:BRR by WP:SPA IPs from dyn-ip network btcentralplus.com (diff 1, diff 2), possible sock-puppetry as part of a content dispute with non-contributing editor. To give time for a consensus a 1-4 weeks long expiry time seems reasonable to me. Thank you. — Aron Manning (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection for a few days to a week: High level of recent IP vandalism due to an announcement that Vogel is the new head coach of the Los Angeles Lakers. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pending changes: Recently this article has recieved alot of activity from users placing copyrighted images by new users. SSSB (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the speculation is no longer unconfirmed [16]. Semi-protection may still be necessary however, so please keep an eye on the page at the very least. Lepricavark (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – A recurrence of IP vandalism from several months ago -- compare [17] (recent) with [18] (December). In last iteration, disruption continued for several days. JBL (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Continuous vandalism of the page by different page adding unscheduled matches again and again. The page was protected earlier for 2 days, but as the protection removed again such persistent vandalism started. Please protect the article this time for atleast 15 days.Dey subrata (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Second time requesting, please anyone put a protection in the article, it has been vandalised several times. This time for a longer period atleast 10-15 days. Dey subrata (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Repeated edits since the end of March by Australia-based IPs, removing valid "citation needed" tags without attempting to improve the article or solve the issues, and changing the spelling of a direct quotation from British English. The edits have become more frequent, with four changes made in the last week alone [19], [20], [21], [22]. The IPs never leave any edit summary or explanation for their changes, and polite explanations and requests by myself and other editors are simply ignored [23], [24], [25], [26]. Richard3120 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Similarly to Peru article, continuous vandalism of the page by different page adding unscheduled matches again and again probably by same miscreants. The page was protected earlier for 2 days, but as the protection removed again such persistent vandalism started. Please protect the article this time for atleast 15 days. Dey subrata (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pending changes: Persistent disruptive editing – Low-level disruption from non-AC users; most non-AC edits are to delete reliably sourced information about sexual misconduct allegations against the article subject with the assertion that the information is false. This sort of behavior, while infrequent, has been going on for nearly a year and so I think PC is appropriate. Aspening (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Repeated whitewashing of the "controversies" section by IPs and socks with a conflict of interest (as can be seen on the talk page). The last protection ran out today and we already have two whitewashing IPs: [27][28]. – Þjarkur(talk)12:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Semi-protection: Avalanche of vandalism, POV and politically charged language after Neil's interview with Ben Shapiro. ELH.Peace (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Repeated low-level vandalism (e.g. introduction of deliberate spelling mistakes) for over three months now from a range of IP editors, all of whom had to be reverted (including by ClueBot). Don't understand the obsession but over half the edits are now vandalism. It is not an article that needs material further editing as its content is largely stable. Britishfinance (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotection: Erroneous deletion which was subsequently protected. Admin already contacted but unprotected the wrong article. I tried getting back but no response, still.
Station is already confirmed and is under construction already. Name is already mentioned in different news articles/programs. Hiwilms (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NJA: There has been much discussion on the deleting admin's talk. The text of the article has been moved to draftspace for the time being and Hiwilms's concern's are clearly meta-issues of MOS capitalisation. I expect that that can be the subject of a move request once notability has been established for the topic. ——SerialNumber5412911:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not donepending changes seems to be working. I wouldn’t say there’s enough recent disruption to warrant a renewed period of semi for a longer period at this time. NJA | talk02:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Almost half the edits in this article are IP/new user vandalism, and it has been that way for months now; it was given protection yesterday a few hours, and on expiry, the vandalism restarted from a newly registered user. This is a controversial BLP (due to his actions in the Congo) and needs longer-term protection for stability and to force talk page discussions. 09:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – New editors (possibly socks) adding unsourced and trivial content to the article. No discussion, so a lock may achieve that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection for some reason a rotating set of IPs keeps trying to change the owner of the team. I can find nothing on the net to support the change. MarnetteD|Talk23:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forever semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Can we please just protect this page for all eternity? It's getting extremely tiresome to come back here every time that the protection ends. The subject of the article is a prominent conspiracy theorist, and there is nothing to suggest that the vandalism will end. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Given the massive popularity of the series, it draws much unhelpful and vandalism edits from IPs. A one-week protection would be very helpful with the series finale airing this Sunday. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism, mostly revolving around changing his name to "Frank Childress". This seems to have been made worse by the fact that several unreliable websites seem to have copied this misinformation from Wikipedia, causing a citogenesis problem. Gilded Snail (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Draft has been edited by a number of IPs, all in the same range; given the draft's history of being created and edited by undisclosed paid editors, the draft should be protected so that the party interested in editing this article discloses their affiliation with the subject and edits under one account. In addition, very credible off-wiki evidence indicates the IPs are connected to the blocked sockfarm that originally created the draft, and thus this is clear WP:EVASION. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please, if your request contains the phrase "happening again", indicate what is happening again, particularly when the last time the page was protected was nine months ago. Looks like pretty generic petty vandalism; if it's something else you meant, let me know. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP accounts keep adding and deleting albums from the discography section with no sources for the additions or removals (for instance "Warp and Woof", which was issued in April, keeps being removed with no explanation). Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook02:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. And trout-slapping myself for misreadimg the date of creation. Sorry about that. Lectonar (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – high % of nonconstructive edits from IP editors - couldn't find a constructive edit from an IP in the last 2 years. Article is currently b-class, mostly high importance. Article subject is in the school history syllabus, eg [31] for his role in Australian federation & edits appear to be school-like humour. I am not aware of any current event that would attract attention. It was included on the main page on 24 October 2018, but that doesn't appear to be a source of vandalism. A quick look at the history shows similar patterns of reverted edits over previous years. Find bruce (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. + Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. 10:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Lectonar (talk)
Semi-protection: for a period of one year, preferably if not indefinitely! Months ago I requested protection for this due to inexperienced editors and vandalism from fans. Now people are resorting to edit warring within pending changes. It’s been going on too damn long. Trillfendi (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – I've been drawn into an extended edit war with Antoine76000 (and his pre-registration IPs) over the last few months, as he continually restores a contested edit which I believe is overlinking. I have used explanatory edit summaries, initiated a talk page discussion as the user's talk page, but this editor has NEVER used an edit summary or commented on a talk page. I'm hoping temporary protection here may spur this editor to discuss, though I'm doubtful. — TAnthonyTalk16:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Suddenly the victim of IP vandalism. A short protection should get them to move on to something else. Ifnord (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – This page is consistently bombarded with vandalism, disruptive edits, and BLP policy violations. I believe it should be semi-protected indefinitely. (Also, Tupac Shakur is protected. It would only make sense for this to be as well). ChipotleHater (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Despite almost constant protection, the moment it expired the ip sock has continued without any discussion, edit warring to remove content. . Praxidicae (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Previously protected, it has been the target of IPs and newly created accounts for the past week. Perhaps a longer protection required, at least temporarily. Ifnord (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite Semi-protection: Persistent level of IP vandalism by a small group of repeat offenders, probably sockpuppets and COI editors. Kbrose (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page has been hit multiple times with vandalism over the last three days. All likely sockpuppets of each other. —Farix (t | c) 15:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Recent disruption is confined to today, and all the IP addresses resolve to the same school district. If the problem persists, report here again or drop a note on my talk page. Deor (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – The company announced FTC issues in April, and since then there has been almost constant disruption/section blanking with no/little engagement on the Talk Page. Britishfinance (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandals are smearing the article again; article has been protected in the past. Suggest protection duration for at least 1 month. Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Full-protection: Some rogue accounts have been changing the content with intent to cause disharmony and disinformation for personal benefit. NatIsrael972 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pending changes: Some historical vandalism, defamation, unverifiable content, warring and lack of consensus with edits for BLP. Repeated addition of questionable or unsourced edits. Subject of BLP disputes accuracy of some content and editors cannot reach consensus on such claims. PESchneider (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Pending changes would be useless anyway, as almost all users involved are autoconfirmed. After I had a look at the article and its talk-page, this is an issue that cannot be solved by protection of the article. @Op: you've been given plenty of hints etc....I would advise you to heed them. Lectonar (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced content from IPs. I requested protection last week and it was protected, but once it went unprotected, IPs started to add the same unsourced content again. Please protect for a larger period of time please. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Temporary) semi-protection: Unregistered users keep changing the winner of the award for the 2018–19 season from Vincent Kompany to Andros Townsend so I think it needs to be semi-protected for a bit to prevent this vandalism. --6ii9 (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page is getting a lot of vandalism, mostly from persons who clearly dislike the party. A lot of editor attention is going on undoing this vandalism. Suggest semi protection for about a month, which will cover the 23 May EU election and the period immediately after that. LukeSurltc19:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed:BLP policy violations – Issues around an apparent recent divorce that are not reliably sourced. In the Christian sub-culture, this is still somewhat controversial so reliable sourcing is needed but is not being provided. Extended protection is probably the best solution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Currently pending changes protected, there are only six edits, I think, that have been rejected since pc protection was applied on 3 January. I would suggest leaving the page as pc protected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It's true that there hasn't been much vandalism since 3 January. However, the recent spike in vandalism in recent days suggests a short-term pattern that semiprotection can effectively address. I'm leaving the pending changes as is (set to expire in July). Airplaneman(talk)✈19:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I also redacted and revdel'd negative, unsourced BLP. Sorry if I crossed the line into WP:Involved, but I felt removing the BLP violation was that important DlohCierekim15:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Someone might consider a WP:SPI for the obviously off-wiki orchestrated effort to add unsourced negative BLP about the subject. DlohCierekim15:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Various unregistered IP address users and redlink users have constantly vandalized this page in the last few months removing info, adding unconfirmed info, and adding info without sources or reliable sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An IP hopper is removing suggestions of fringe, pseudoarchaeology form several articles relating to Graham Hancock, John Allen West, Robert Schoch, etc. This has been going on for at least two months I'd say.. This article is being hit particularly hard. Doug Wellertalk12:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Since I've started monitoring this page about 24 hours ago there have been over 30 cases of disruptive editing by both logged users and unregistered users. Thomas Westerlaken (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. In case they find a way around the block. DlohCierekim12:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Permanent Pending Changes Protection This has been on PCP since December but as time has gone on, it's shown that the majority of edits to this page since have mostly been vandalism which if the PCP was lifted could cause damage to the article so can I request that we make the PCP permanent please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)08:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined This has still more than one month to run on Pending-changes, so it is too early to evaluate the overall impact of the applied protection. Lectonar (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I would say leave the protection in palce and use WP:AfC to draft an article. The AfC reveiwers could move it to article space if it is truly acceptable. DlohCierekim15:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This goes double as the thing has already been deleted via an AfD and must overcome G4. DlohCierekim15:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Full unprotection: This subject has gone through a lot of drama. Before I got involved it was salted because of a sock puppet. I got permission to create the draft. Eventually I asked for unprotection which was granted (limitedly, it seems) but it’s been months sitting in the Very Old draft space with 600+ others. Basically, I just want to get this over with and move the page myself. Trillfendi (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. The draft page isn't protected. The target page is protected, and the draft has been declined, so it wouldn't be appropriate to move it. SarahSV(talk)01:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: The draft was declined nearly 4 months ago in its previous state and yet has by now been expanded 5x with more than enough information and therefore resubmitted.... The target page is what I intended to be unprotected because the draft was unprotected last year but as far as I was concerned since it was blocked they were one in the same. Oh well, I guess it’ll just continue sitting there for the rest of the year. Trillfendi (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined I'm seeing two possibly disrupitve registered users; they should be warned and then reported to the appropriate noticeboard if they continue to be disruptive. Also, at a first approximation, this is a content dispute.. EC protection would be overkill here. Vanamonde (Talk)04:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP editors are have been making random year changes over several days. Can we protect it for a while so they move on to something else. noq (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring + BLP – edit warring between stable version and a version containing a work self-published by a SPLC profiled individual. In addition there are BLP issues in that a mainstream academic's highly cited work is presented as "Based on no research, Michael Meng speculates" - which beyond being OR (not in the cited source - Meng) - is a rather serious attack on an academic. Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Has the matter been resolved with the latest addition? Because I'm not seeing Meng mentioned anymore. El_C17:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Meng's research have been removed. There still is no consensus on the talk page (huge wall of text). Unclear to me that there is consensus either way.Icewhiz (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well - when I requested this, there was back and forth reverting (starting immediately after the expiration of the last protection). It seems to have stopped in the last 12 hours (Francois making a compromise edit an hour after I posted here). I have no idea if this has been resolved - if not - it ahould be a RfC or DRN - not back and forth reverts.Icewhiz (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined No longer necessary, but all the editors reverting there will be risking blocks if they continue; they are all experienced editors who should know better. Vanamonde (Talk)03:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Full Protection: Persistent vandalism and disruptive editing - A wikipedia user (Eccekevin) with a history of engaging in edit wars, vandalism, and ownership on Wikipedia's university entries has removed a properly sourced and common knowledge claim on the CGU page, which rightfully acknowledges Claremont Graduate University as the oldest all-graduate institution in the United States. I am therefore requesting full protection of the CGU page (which is currently semi-protected) until this matter is resolved and Eccekevin stops vandalizing the page. Wikkedout (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. This is a legitimate content dispute, with discussion involving three editors going on at the talk page. I blocked the reporting user when they made a fourth revert to the article. MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Current IP-hopping disruption, repeatedly reverting to less referenced, more promotional version of the article, probably sock evasion of blocked COI User:Tazsummers. Dl2000 (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The disruption is long term but currently infrequent (only two edits this year). Let’s try a long period of pending changes. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please consider warning registered editors adding unsourced content, and reporting them to WP:AIV. Vanamonde (Talk)03:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite Pending changes protection: Persistent IP vandalism commences as soon as protection is lifted, few other edits to page. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. also it appears a recent IP editor perhaps causing disruption has been blocked by another admin. NJA | talk20:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pending changes: Josu Urrutikoetxea was part of a separatist movement in Spain. He was arrested 16 May. Articles in this area typically see a steady, low-level of non-NPOV changes such as 'separatist' to 'terrorist'; however since Urrutikoetxea's arrest there have been BLP violations such as these. Two of the IPs helped clean up here and here, which leads me to think pending changes may be a better choice than semi-protection. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect: Please unprotect Tomorrowland (film). This article was protected in 2015, the year the film was released, with indefinite protection. I find this very odd, since clearly activity should drop off in a year or two since release (which it did, most edits are from 2015). I don't see any discussion of why it was permanently protected. Why wasn't it under just a 1-year protection? -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am minded to accept this request and perhaps monitor it for a while to see how often it is edited or disrupted to see if protection of any type is needed, etc. NJA | talk12:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Since early May various IPs and new accounts have been trying to indicate that this individual's nationality is "Jewish" or "Polish-Jewish", in violation of MOS:ETHNICITY. Discussion on the topic cannot be had, as the individual(s) uses a new IP address/account each time. Jayjg(talk)16:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Since early May various IPs and new accounts have been trying to indicate that this individual's nationality is "Jewish" or "Polish-Jewish", in violation of MOS:ETHNICITY. Discussion on the topic cannot be had, as the individual(s) uses a new IP address/account each time. Jayjg(talk)16:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: IP editors inserting speculation and edit warring to retain it, whether a former band member will participate or not. @Sergecross73: This seems within your area. Is it worth protecting? Ss11217:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - I'll try to keep an eye on it too, it'll likely be ripe for issues considering new album excitement and personnel changes... Sergecross73msg me17:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Neither of the above are "copies", they’re just redirects from different but valid disambiguations. There’s no dispute over this article's name and move protection is not required.—NØ13:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page has already been subject to 2 semi-protections and 1 ECP. [32][33] The vandalism has been consistent. I am not sure if semi-protection will be enough, but I suggest keeping it at indefinite semi and only switching to ECP if it becomes apparent that that is necessary again. MrClog (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Warn user appropriately and seek engagement on talk page. If they continue and refuse to discuss take to an appropriate forum to seek a block for disruptive editing. NJA | talk12:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing following news that Massimiliano Allegri will leave Juventus at the end of the season (not the end of the season yet). Vaselineeeeeeee★★★15:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this is not in line with our policy which says extended confirmed can only be applied if semi-protection was shown to be inefficient, or in PIA articles following the Arbcom decision. Waiting for a second opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The situation changed after Ymblanter's comment: an edit-war broke out, involving not just M-J (the target of the original request) but a third user, Icodense99. Edit-warring to maintain an accusation on someone else's talk page is altogether unacceptable, and our policy specifically permits you to go as far beyond 3RR as you want in your own userspace, so there's no reason for the third user to get involved. I've consequently blocked M-J and Icodense99. Nyttend (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The film was released today and it's important to protect the page to prevent vandalism in Reception and Box Office. WikiLover97 (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: The page's formatting is constantly being changed and reverted to older versions because it "doesn't look" like similar pages. However, this formatting is required for FLC. Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Also not really enough recent disruption, and further “semi" would not be appropriate as the edits in question do not appear to involve new or IP users. NJA | talk10:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined not high risk nor is there any evidence of vandalism. I appreciate your concern, but I don't think protection is neccessary. NJA | talk10:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month. Semi would affect some genuine good faith edits. Aside from recently, page has low traffic and perhaps short-term PC1 will assist. If so and issue re-appears request longer period of PC1. , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NJA | talk12:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I asked editor to discuss. Knowing something to be true is quite dofferent form having supporting RS. DlohCierekim12:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Continuous reinsertion of spamlinks by a number of IPs. The Wikidata page is under attack too in case someone has permissions there as well. 78.28.54.200 (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – an IP user is constantly making disruptive edits on this page and it's vandalizing the referenced information . WikiLover97 (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Repeatedly adding false data and unsourced content. Please allow only extended-confirmed user if possible. Next season is yet to began officially second or third week of June , temporary protection will not help preventing vandalism. User:Lesenwriter07:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. On principle this seems like a page that should be open to posting by new users, except in a rare out-of-control situation. I notice in the log that the article has occasionally had edits revdel'ed, but it has never been protected. MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalized by 6 different IPs in less than 24 hours. Not sure what's going on, but probably related to current personal news. —[AlanM1(talk)]—23:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection for 2 days: IP vandalism surge from Reddit[34]], please protect until post loses popularity. User:Oshawott 12 11:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only the one edit today, which was caught by Cluebot. Report back if disruption does occur. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism coupled with bad-faith WP:NPA attacks/edit summaries from an IP-hopping anon. This user talk page should be protected so anons cannot edit there. Shearonink (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Film has been released internationally already, so international users have added the plot summary. Other users have been blanking it. Crboyer (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article is closely connected to Charles Darwin and Evolution, and is subject to continual vandalism, probably affected by people's feelings about those topics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Attracting BLP violations due to being a candidate in next week's European elections. Temporary semi protection until the end of this month would be sufficient. Valenciano (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. This article is already semi-protected, the previous protections were because of persistent vandalism, and it is not related to the AI conflict. Jayjg(talk)18:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and removal of reliable sourced content replaced by WP:OR or with sources from fringe far-right website and blogs. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. The existing PC protection seems like exactly the right level. MelanieN (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs add nothing but trivia about some grandchildren. That's Wikia material--it's also violating the BLP and turning this barely encyclopedic article into something wholly unfit. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Have needed to revert unsourced edits on several occasions, as well as hyperbole (likely due to fandom of property). TropicAces (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – 192 of the last 1000 edits to this page have been reverts. 100 of the last 500 edits have been reverts (this shows that the problem is systemic). The topic seems, by its nature to attract 'nonsense'. I realize that the last edit was not vandalism, however this seems like a perfect place for Pending Changes. Crazynast19:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by sockpuppets of Mannyboy2015 using dynamic IP addresses since 14 May. An SPI is thus unlikely to resolve the issue. -RaviC (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Requesting permanent SP. For the last 1-2 years there have been recurring IP edits about the status of the site, forks, etc. Promotional, anti-promotional, hard to say, but they don't join talk discussions usually. Well, they are not constructive and it's time to stabilize this a bit. Please note that a few months of protection is not sufficient, I don't think this is a temporary issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here07:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continued persistent vandalism which started just as previous protection expired. Requesting longer period. Muhandes (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – I've reverted a few new accounts who seem to have an agenda wanting to post content that is either unsourced or poorly-sourced. Don't know if this is a coordinated effort or just the twitterverse thinking they're "helping". Primefac (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: The football player still plays for the team until the season is over on 30 June 2019. As there was a big farewell at the match yesterday, some editors erroneously think that they have already finished playing. Jaellee (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: The football player still plays for the team until the season is over on 30 June 2019. As there was a big farewell at the match yesterday, some editors erroneously think that they have already finished playing. Jaellee (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: The football player still plays for the team until the season is over on 30 June 2019. As there was a big farewell at the match yesterday, some editors erroneously think that they have already finished playing. Jaellee (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi protection for permanent
Persistent disruptive editing, adding some unsourced information and this user over over again is reverting other edits as she owns the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.110.223 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandals are repeatedly smearing the article due to an ongoing lawsuit between the subject and Vic Mignogna. Requesting at least 2 months of protection (as the article was smeared before). Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done Two months seems a bit much, so I've done one month. Please feel free to come back if vandalism resumes, because "This was protected twice, and the same stuff recurred after protection ended" is a great reason to request more protection. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. This congressman yesterday became the first Republican congress member to call for Trump's impeachment. Subsequently, the page has been full of BLP vios and vandalism, and there is every reason to believe it will continue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent IP adding WP:OR and other unsourced content. Being as professional wrestling is under general sanctions (WP:GS/PW) I request an extended period of time for the protection. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk15:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Apparently some student has been exiled, this person now keeps editing the page by different accounts making unsourced acquisitions towards the school. Thomas Westerlaken (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Vandalism and unsourced additions by IP editors immediatly following last protection period. This BLP has been protected multiple times this year . StaticVapormessage me!21:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Article gets vandalised a lot, article as it is now is very good changes should be checked more intense before publishing. Thomas Westerlaken (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Looks to be limited to a single user at this point. If warnings/blocks prove insufficient, rereport. GoodnightmushTalk18:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection:edit war since 15 May, disruptive editing. Instead of reaching a consensus on the TP, a registered user keeps removing sourced content without a right to do so, following the logic: "If I disagree with something, I'll get rid of it". I've restored the text and hope protection will help to shift the user's focus from confrontation to discussion. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I've given a warning to both you and the other editor. You're just as involved in this edit war. I see discussion on the talk page is ongoing, so neither of you should be touching the article. --Chris(talk)17:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Lots of recent IP and new user vandalism/edit warring/unreferenced information. Temporary semi-protection would be helpful. PhillisMinaj 19:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Article has been experiencing very heavy disruption recently, and semi-protection isn't helping. Page history has been mostly reverts for over a year. Aspening (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection (permanent): Vandalism by IP editors. Constant vandalism in the lead to the election on Thursday.
Jopal22 (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – As mentioned on Talk page, there appears to be some disruptive editing, content disputes, and as mentioned in Request for comment, a consensus that all references to Mr Karat should be removed from this page.
Temporary semi-protection was requested and granted in March 2019. It was removed in April 2019, and an anonymous user added back in the reference to Mr Karat.
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It was protected for two weeks in March/April. It’s too soon to move to an indefinite protection, I think, let’s see if one month has an effect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism of BLP-violating content. Page had previously been protected and IP had previously been blocked. ToaNidhiki0512:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Yet again the season of influx of unsourced football gossip of transfer rumour that need to protect the page and requesting interesting editor, providing concrete citation in talk page to change the "current club". Matthew hk (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Checking to see if protection is necessary. Pending establishment of consensus on the article talk page. El_C05:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El_C: It is not your role to decide if my proposed changes alone justify continued full protection. meta:Protected pages considered harmful, and the burden is on the admin who protected it to demonstrate that there is an on-going problem. That admin locked it in 2006, with no explanation as far as I've found, and is no longer an active Wikipedian as of 2008. As far as I see, it was locked and largely forgotten about. So unless there is any specific, immediate need to keep it locked to prevent a problem, the default resolution should be immediate unprotection. Its a wiki. -- Netoholic@07:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El_C: This page was protected 14 months after that AFD - and its been 13 years since it was protected. I checked that admin's contribs from that day and the protection log - no reference at all to the AfD, and no justification even given for the indefinite protection. That admin was also de-sysopped in 2008 for playing things fast and loose with the rights. So yeah. Even if I had zero plans to use the page, I'd still say it by default should not be protected indefinitely. We don't do this. -- Netoholic@07:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't feel comfortable doing so until I know that supplanting the protected redirect would yield a decent article in its stead. But if another admin wishes to unprotect it, they may do so without consulting me. Otherwise, there's always draft space. El_C07:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El_C: Even if there were no proposed article, it should still not be protected indefinitely - its current status doesn't tick any checkbox at WP:FULL. Since you've already participated on the talk page in a content discussion, so you're now WP:INVOLVED. I'm disabling your ((RFPP)) template above and will wait for another admin. -- Netoholic@08:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what's if another admin wishes to unprotect it, they may do so without consulting me means. But if you want to play procedural games, knock yourself out. El_C08:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve just pissed off an admin, so I’d advise you not be be so aggressive towards other editors, Netoholic. Oshawott 12
Not unprotected. There's enough debate at the talk page about whether there should be a page that the concensus there should be created. There is also no pressing need to create it at that location, and can just as easily be worked on/drafted in the Draft or User space. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: This is a wiki and, whether or not I intend to create an article, the issue remains that this protected redirect serves no purpose nor should it have been locked indefinitely in the first place. I request that it be unprotected strictly on that basis alone, and if I create an article that people don't like, they can AfD it. No experienced editor in good standing should have to submit an article for pre-approval to an admin just to get an ancient bad page protection cleared up. -- Netoholic@17:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was a deletion discussion that said to delete. There was a mini edit war that resulted in the page being protected. It is now up to you, or someone else interested in this topic, to demonstrate that it should be converted into an article. I would argue that what appears to be an ((r from alternate spelling)) would definitely serve a purpose. No experienced editor in good standing should have to AFD an article that was already decided shouldn't exist. You don't need "pre-approval [from] an admin", you need a consensus from the community that the page should exist. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: On the day the page was protected, that admin did this revert of some silly one-time vandalism and then protected it without noting why in the log. Prior to that vandalism, the the page had not been edited in over 3 months. It was not protected due to "a mini edit war". And I shouldn't have to remind admins here that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can boldly edit without having to gain approval for an article before creating it - rather it is the burden of concerned editors to prove there is reason for deletion. My intended page is nothing like what was present before and I have never before been involved with the page's history... so except for this incorrect, indefinite page protection that no reasonable admin today themselves would perform, my intentions should not come under this undue scrutiny and demand for pre-approval. -- Netoholic@19:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotection
No one is doing any vandalism on this page anymore and promise no one will do any disruptive editing. Please its been many years and plus like the other seasons please remove the protection— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.110.223 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprotected Still have sockpuppetry at the page (both in Jan and Mar), and there's no way that any editor can "promise" that vandalism won't continue. I suspect that there will be further sockpuppetry in the months ahead. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. The last few sets of IP edits look like legitimate attempts at improvement, and it's been a week since the last major "issue". Primefac (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. I can't find any evidence of any edit-waring; it seems like for every "bad" IP edit there seems to be a good one (or at least one that isn't reverted). If it becomes more of an issue there's no prejudice against re-requesting. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unsourced and disruptive edits of IP like change of Owner and other information without providing any reliable source . Sid95Q (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – It appears there is a legal dispute between former and current band members playing out in the form of multiple edits back and forth to this article for the past year. The following editors seem to have a conflict of interest and lack a neutral point of view: 2a02:c7d:7485:3d00:25f0:995f:9db2:92ea, 81.154.123.20, PaulMacnamara, Salemthetruth, 212.50.179.123. Is it possible to roll the page back a year or so to when they all got along, then prevent them from editing it until they cool off? Thank you! Orville1974 (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Edit-warring on article the last couple of weeks. The issue is being discussed in the talk page, request protection until the process is complete and consensus reached. Hzh (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Applies to both. Obvious sockpuppetry by changeable IPs; I'm willing to give it a few days to settle down. MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP hopping individual(s) on some kind of bizarre mission to remove or tag as suspicious the section on diversity in YA fiction. I can't make any sense of it but the weird tagging has been going on for a while (one ip was blocked for doing it) and now they have started blanking the well-sourced section entirely without any reason or attempt at discussion. bonadeacontributionstalk19:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: There appears to be an editing war regarding who is hosting the awards this year. I could find no media source announcing the host yet. The 50+ changes go back and forth for the last few days. I recommend rolling back to the creation page in April (every edit after that has changed the host names).
Note: It's only been twice and both deletions were CSD's so we generally give them a chance to repair. Left them my standard CSD notice directing them to AfC. If that doesn't work, we can create protect. DlohCierekim20:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent vandalism – This article gets a material amount of low-level vandalism (e.g. date and name changes) at a high rate, from both IPs and new users. Given the bulk of the article's facts are really done, I think longer-term protection should be considered. Britishfinance (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – Account editing logged out adding fringe sources and ironically considering their complaint about the age of sources one almost 200 years old . Doug Wellertalk12:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done The user concerned is auto-confirmed so semi-protection is not useful here though I am tempted to move protect given the history of page moves. Will watchlist. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite Salt Repeatedly recreated – Per Osman Mir: Repeatedly recreated and repeatedly CSD'd. No recent recreation here, but due to recent recreation on Osman Mir I think a protection here is prophylactic. Optakeover(U)(T)(C)07:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Vandalism and unsourced edits. This page has needed non-stop protection since the subjects death in March. Requesting we can get a few months of protection this time maybe. StaticVapormessage me!08:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Repeatedly attempting to add a file that is currently up for deletion due to improper copyright license compliance. Edit-warring since February by obvious sockpuppet of LTA Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334/Archive, from serveral IPs at their known location/network, and from open proxy IPs. Some are now blocked, but they continue to hop IPs and proxies. IamNotU (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – The Mets just got swept by the Marlins over the weekend so many are editing to call Mickey a former manager to express their dissatisfaction however he has not been fired. Protection to protect those from editing him to former manager. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk))14:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing by IP's and now blocked users (same person) who just doesn't listen. Vandalism has taken place since early this year (see history).--Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There does seem to be a lot of meddling with the box office figure in the infobox. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – A significant amount of disruptive editing from IPs regarding a very controversial Indian political figure. Britishfinance (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Band is involved in a political incident, page gets abused by either pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian vandals, neither option is good for the stability of the article. Page should be protected until the effect of the event (which was held Saturday night) has cooled down, e.g. for a month. Lordtobi (✉) 11:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Multiple IPs attacking boxer's article after recent quick loss... he's dead, he's in a coma, he's in the hospital, his wife has left him, etc. Meters (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move protection: Repeated moves of the article. May require the article to be moved back if it's been moved again since this report. Cheers, Number5721:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – A controversial BLP that results in a lot of disruptive editing from IP and new editors (almost all edits are disruptive), which has now started again. Needs pending changes protection for a period. . Britishfinance (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite template protection:High-risk template – Widely used template shortcut. I was quite confused for a minute, only to discover an IP address had blanked this page. Semi-protection may also suffice to prevent widespread breakage. — Godsy (TALKCONT)20:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce to semi-protected: This was indefinitely full-protected in 2006 with no indication as to why in the log, nor apparent from any comments made by that admin in their contributions from that day other than this revert of some silly one-time vandalism. That admin was desysopped and has been inactive since 2008, and so can't be contacted. There was an AfD Masculinism discussion that generally preferred a redirect, where it was thought to be a misspelling, but we do not normally indefinitely protect the resulting redirects. By all appearances, this indefinite protection was an overreaction at the time, and the current situation of the page doesn't fit any criteria listed at WP:FULL. Since m:Protected pages considered harmful, there is no justification for keeping it fully-protected at this time. -- Netoholic@14:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note:As per previous declined request. No purpose aside from enforcing prior AfD decision and averting the disruption that led to protection. If a separate article about a different subject is to be created, let it be via WP:AfC. If the AfC reviewers feel such an article can be mainspaced, then the time to unprotect will have come. DlohCierekim15:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) We do not, by default, indefinitely protect AfD redirect results. 2) It was a one-time vandalism in 2006, and there is no reasonable expectation that it will be vandalized in the immediate future any more than any other page. -- Netoholic@21:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Permanent Semi-protection: to stop ongoing vandalism from various IP addresses. I note that this article has been semi-protected 6 times previously. Thank you, PKT(alk)17:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IPs arguing over whether the viper is Israeli or Palestinian. This has been going on for several months, with a recent increase in this type of disruption, and pending changes is not a deterrent. Aspening (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Collateral risk is low. Made PC indefinite. Like the snake even cares about the affairs of those bickering. I mean really. Should this be an ARBPIA candidate? Really? DlohCierekim17:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive/trollish/vandalistic editing by IP editors, dating back to at least April 2019, possibly to November 2018; reverted by at least eight different editors. Narky Blert (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pending changes: Persistent disruptive editing – Newly crowned NHL Western Conference champions. Page drew a lot of attention overnight last night and may continue to do so for the next couple of weeks during the Stanley Cup Finals. Suggesting Pending Changes in order to keep vandalism under control. StrikerforceTalk14:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temorary semi-protection: Issue with IP user on May 21, 2019. Multiple reversions without summary and a disregard for repeated warnings. Admin board blocked IP address. Today, same edits from a different IP (137.97.106.84). Believe this is same user. Request the article be protected against IP edits. StarHOG (Talk) 13:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism due to recent playoffs elimination. Needs a few days autoconfirmed only until the vandals forget about it. Yosemiter (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection: High level of IP vandalism. Someone is removing information from page claiming wrong/false information even there is a reference of Real World Record and other pages. Admin can look at it there is no wrong information on the page. The article is about a band and there are separate articles on Wikipedia for band members, even then article is disrupted by personal information of members of band which should be mention in the articles belong to the member name. 39.57.234.59 (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Continuously vandalised by several users from a single country out of frustration on a single topic, which has been discussed extensively before at the talk page of the aticles and had been concluded that the changes done by various users is not factually correct. But still such continuous changes and abuses going on. Please the article need protection atleast for 30 days. Dey subrata (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing with a changing IP address of information already included in other places. Anonymous user will not discuss on talk page or attempt to reach consensus. AbleGus (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unfortunately, the page seems to have been vandalised a few times, often by new users. A semi-protected status might help to prevent that. jftsang00:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This article has needed virtually continuous protection, with vandalism resuming as soon as the protection expires. MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent, petty IP vandalism. Reversion through PC is becoming time-consuming/tedious. Begoon21:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 12 hours on, it seems to have stopped. No obvious pattern before yesterday DlohCierekim11:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This was TFA on the main page yesterday hence the surge in editing and vandalism for 24 hours. Now it’s off the main page, I expect it will return to a quiet life. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim:No, there were rumours about the film from past few months and it is announced surprisingly just before 18 days of release.SangrurUser (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I concur that there has been constructive editing by IPs. The recent disruption was from a single IP; I have warned them. (Nobody had bothered.) MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Protection expired on the 5th, there was only one vandalism edit since. ST47 (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ST47. Just been vandalised again by a different IP (and reverted by ClueBot); I don't know why, but this article gets a high level of vandalism; just look back over the last 12 months. It is just not stopping. Perhaps "Pending Changes Protected" is the right option for a year? 21:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Since airing of final episode of Big Bang Theory TV show, IPs and newbie editors have repeatedly added Sheldon and Amy Cooper as 2019 recipients. The gag is getting old. -- WikiPedant (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotection: Discussion has ended and no consensus has been reached, it should be unblocked unless there is more edit warring again. -- 186.213.22.35 (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment:@186.213.22.35: This request cannot be parsed. Please ensure it follows formatting consistent with the current or previous methods of submission.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online00:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note:@186.213.22.35: As consensus has not been attained, unprotecting sounds like asking for trouble DlohCierekim02:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. seems under control and possibly content related vs outright blatant vandalism. NJA | talk12:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent addition of unsourced content, by sock IP, as well as false archive URLs by sock anonymous editor; this is a persistent happening across multiple Real Housewives franchises. livelikemusictalk!13:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite Move protection: Repeated (once in 2011 [47][48][49][50] and twice [51][52] in 2018, one of them a now-blocked editor [53]) bad-faith and undeclared COI page-moves by suspected rival UK Labour politician or activists to this on this then former UK Tory or Conservative (now UK Brexit Party) candidate, despite no history or evidence [54][55] of the subject ever using her 'married surname', if that is even her current surname as recorded on her passport and driving licence, etc.. There is no law in England and Wales or in the whole of the UK which says a married woman has to by law adopt her husband's surname instead of her own. Unlikely that she would now suddenly change her mind about her surname after 9 or 10 years. Smacks of sexist political bullying that a male UK politician would never have to go through (and now ever more likely because of who her brother is, and his ever increasing public profile since 2016). If new evidence emerges, it should have to go through discussion, and submitted therein, and the result implemented by an Admin. -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. With only a few reported incidents, the most recent of which was nearly a year ago, protection is not necessary at this point. Favonian (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruption from IP users and SPAs especially when it comes to place of birth (despite a reliable source stating clear as day). Pending changes will NOT be strong enough because they will continue. Trillfendi (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This along with the associated archive, has repeated been targeted by Manda 1993 sockpuppets. Puppetmaster is now using the SPI page to brag about all of their sockpuppet accounts. —Farix (t | c) 11:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: This has been a problem for years regarding IPs changing the episode numbers. The problem stems from the fact that season 4 of The Office started with several hour-long episodes, which are counted as two episodes each officially by NBC and the episode numbers match List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes. However, on Netflix (where The Office is immensely popular on), they count those hour-long episodes as one episode, so the episode numbering is different. So, IPs consistently change the numbers and have to be reverted every single time across multiple articles. I believe an indefinite protection is warranted here and it would save much time and trouble from the diligent editors reverting the disruptive edits. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Constant need to restore/revert edits, lots of removals of sourced material in favor of personal thoughts by IPs/new users. TropicAces (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]
Semi-protection: Sudden increase of meaningless edits from IPs/new users in the past week. Possible sock puppets to emerge after news announcement of Kwong Weng Yap on 21 May 2019 as a potential political candidate. I expect more unsubstantiated edits from IPs/new users ahead. Hence requesting for semi-protection to save time and effort from diligent wiki users to restore/revert edits in favour of personal thoughts. Superwifi (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment:@2600:1:9282:6015:BCF1:715E:637B:2B25: This request cannot be parsed. Please ensure it follows formatting consistent with the current or previous methods of submission.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online22:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note:@2600:1:9282:6015:BCF1:715E:637B:2B25: It would probably be best to ask the protecting admin. DlohCierekim02:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. … close, but not quite a level of disruption to justify protection. NJA | talk19:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – The BLP is currently contesting the 2019 European elections in May and IP's and new editors keep deleting referenced material and replacing with unreferenced material with no Talk Page discussion. Britishfinance (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent addition of unsourced content, by sock IP, as well as false information addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikrizwan88 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – This person is widely noted for his abusive behavior and remarks. Hence I request to protect this from vandalism from his supporters. 16:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: I’m afraid I’m not seeing much evidence of a content dispute or edit warring in the history nor of vandalism from supporters or not. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I concur with Malcolmx15. I see lots of constructive editing by IPs and very little vandalism. Formally declining for the bot. MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Chaipau constantly deleting [Bodo-kachari people]] name from the contribution list who are major contributor of culture of Assam.
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – Requesting ECP till 31 May as a lot of IP and autoconfirmed editors are changing the chief minister to a new one who is supposed to be sworn in on 30 May. The current chief minister continues to remain as a caretaker till then. —Gazoth (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: rotating IPs adding unsourced items. Talk page discussion has received no response at the moment. MarnetteD|Talk18:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've unprotected. So protection Declined: on Main page, level of vandalism not high enough to warrant protection. Jayjg(talk)14:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Given the recent article that came out about him yesterday, some of the disruptive editing that has taken place, and the fact that this is a BLP, a semi-protection should be placed here. I would recommend at least a month until this news dies down. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – I request you to have protected this article Bepanah Pyaar because this article is many IP user try to make unhelpful changes so I request you sir accept my request and protect this article at least 1 month,. Goodd-002 (chatme)06:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has been edited many times without reference, or it has been edited which has no official confirmation, if you wish, you can see on this article's talk page. The last time this page was protected, someone requested a play in this story but I did not get any reply to this information requesting a reference. Goodd-002 (chatme)12:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Although I see some reverts recently, there is not a significant amount of disruption to warrant semi-protection at this time and there is scope for at least some collateral issues with constructive IPs. I’d engage the specific IP(s) directly and should they fail (or if you did and they’ve failed) to discuss, then report to an appropriate forum e.g. WP:AN/I or if it’s socking WP:SPI. Pending changes is another thought, though again I don’t believe the disruption is at a high enough level at this time. NJA | talk12:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This appears to have been going on since last August and I suspect block evasion is involved too. Several periods of protection have not stemmed the disruption. Semi-protected for six months. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Several days of IP vandalism, removing and changing information, as well as making weird unexplained edits like adding album infoboxes on artists' BLPs. Ss11215:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: The article is "haunted" by a conflict-of-interest editor (on the talk page, she claims to be the subject's daughter) using different IPs since her user account and dozens of sockpuppets were blocked. She keeps deleting unfavourable, but well-referenced, information about this politician and inserting a quote by him that is both too long and of dubious notability, obviously trying to promote his image and "clear his name". Numerous efforts by several editors to deal with her on the talk page have failed, as she claims to know "The Truth", while adverse statements, despite being referenced to high-quality academic sources are simply "false information". She also talked about support from "the group of my Fanpage", so WP:Meatpuppetry may also be involved. --RJFF (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This appears to have been going on since last November. Previous protections have not stemmed the disruptive editing. Semi-protected for six months. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: (What would we have if we wrote an encyclopedia based on secondary source?) Also, even if this were a problem, activity insufficient for PP. And certainly not indefinite DlohCierekim15:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed: I just tried submitting a RPP as well. The edit history is a mess, going back to mid-April sometime with BLP issues, edit warring, and apparent sock puppetry. Orville1974 (talk)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., we are not authorised to apply extended confirmed to articles which have not been previously semi-protected (with the exception of ARBPIA), and the only confirmed user who behaved disruptively has been blocked anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Constant removal of valid projects by various IPs (although most likely the same editor). Discussion has been started and rationale requested, but no response and removal continues. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism over the past few months, changing her nationality and album release date. DarkGlow (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Suddenly the victim of IP vandalisms today. A short protection may have them move on to something more productive. Ifnord (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Disruptive editing with inaccurate and false information, disturbing the presentation of the article, and vandalism. Also requesting indefinite protection as it is a highly popular page having over 100,000 pageviews per day on an average basis. Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page is being prematurely edited by IPs to include the first overall pick when the draft will not occur until June 20. It’s been occurring since the draft lottery. If this could be protected until after the draft that would be helpful. Rockchalk71718:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Due to the recent disbandment of the (populair) K-pop girl group Pristin on the 24th, their management page sees a lot of edits from disgruntled fans which can be described from not neutral to pure vandalism. Due to this request temporary semi protection. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is broadly construed to ARBPIA but not reasonably construed, and since there was no specific disruptive activity recently, I would decline the request.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - came back after a year long semi-protection expired, and some recent vandalism is offensive enough to have been revdeleted. The protection log also goes back many years, so I can't see this problem ever going away. Entranced98 (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent removal of negative reception of certain matches or the controversy surrounding the event by multiple anonymous users. I would assume that there is an economic interest (from WWE and/or Saudi-Arabia) behind these edits, as all edits from all IPs generally remove the same content. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent edit-warring to re-instate false statements about a fictional "merger" between two of the English-language Uncyclopedia wikis; any contributions made to the article during this edit war are being lost as collateral damage. The edits are coming from multiple IP's, including an O2 mobile telephone on a dynamic, shared address. Q788771 (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – All the IPv4 and IPv6 edits since beginning of May 2019 have been from similar geo locations and all have been adding fake casting information to the article. The last IPv6 was range blocked for this pattern but the editor has access to other IPs which he uses to continue on this and other articles. This looks to be one of his main targets. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pending changes protection: Persistent IP attempts to insert foreign language pipes to English Wikipedia pages, inconsistent naming with the rest of the project and generally unacceptable behaviour as seen in their edit summaries. Some of their contributions are constructive so request pending changes protection. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Temporary auto confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – I request you to have protected this article Bepanah Pyaar because this article is many IP user try to make unhelpful changes so I request you sir accept my request and protect this article at least 1 month,.
because it has been edited many times without reference, or it has been edited which has no official confirmation, if you wish, you can see on this pagearticle's talk page. The last time this page was protected, someone requested a play in this story but I did not get any reply to this information requesting a reference. . Goodd-002 (chatme)12:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – After semi-protection expired there have been continued edits by IPs changing his club to Manchester United when no transfer has been announced. Consider protection until 11 August, the transfer deadline day for Premier League clubs. CoolSkittle (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent misgendering of a non-binary transgender subject (whose pronouns are sourced and clearly stated in the article). Funcrunch (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just came here to also request, for same reason. Am endorsing. The article is being hit relentlessly. Funcrunch has done a valiant job reverting the disruption but I know I'm worn out from dealing with the IPs and new accounts. I edit the article so need an uninvolved admin to protect it. - CorbieV☊☼03:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protectedindefinitely., given the vandalism pattern and the protection history, this looks like the best option to me. If vandalism peaks to the point that pending changes get unmanagable, we will need to semi-protect.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please note that, to some extent, this appears to have characteristics of a content dispute. The talk page is a good venue to work that out. GoPhightins!03:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected until 04:05, January 18, 2020. I just reset the semi-protection to what it was before the protection was raised to the extended confirmed level. Mz7 (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz has apparently tweeted something about Wikipedia that has riled up his followers, who insist that various Nazi collaborators were Jews, not "real" Poles. We have been inundated with new/rarely used accounts that keep putting ethnicity into the nationality field of infobox person, and after a month it still shows no sign of stopping. Jayjg(talk)12:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz has apparently tweeted something about Wikipedia that has riled up his followers, who insist that various Nazi collaborators were Jews, not "real" Poles. We have been inundated with new/rarely used accounts that keep putting ethnicity into the nationality field of infobox person, and after a month it still shows no sign of stopping. Jayjg(talk)12:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz has apparently tweeted something about Wikipedia that has riled up his followers, who insist that various Nazi collaborators were Jews, not "real" Poles. We have been inundated with new/rarely used accounts that keep putting ethnicity into the nationality field of infobox person, and after a month it still shows no sign of stopping. Jayjg(talk)12:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz has apparently tweeted something about Wikipedia that has riled up his followers, who insist that various Nazi collaborators were Jews, not "real" Poles. We have been inundated with new/rarely used accounts that keep putting ethnicity into the nationality field of infobox person, and after a month it still shows no sign of stopping. Jayjg(talk)12:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz has apparently tweeted something about Wikipedia that has riled up his followers, who insist that various Nazi collaborators were Jews, not "real" Poles. We have been inundated with new/rarely used accounts that keep putting ethnicity into the nationality field of infobox person, and after a month it still shows no sign of stopping. Jayjg(talk)12:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz has apparently tweeted something about Wikipedia that has riled up his followers, who insist that various Nazi collaborators were Jews, not "real" Poles. We have been inundated with new/rarely used accounts that keep putting ethnicity into the nationality field of infobox person, and after a month it still shows no sign of stopping. Jayjg(talk)13:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz has apparently tweeted something about Wikipedia that has riled up his followers, who insist that various Nazi collaborators were Jews, not "real" Poles. We have been inundated with new/rarely used accounts that keep putting ethnicity into the nationality field of infobox person, and after a month it still shows no sign of stopping. Jayjg(talk)13:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: An IP is replacing a source and reverting attempts to restore original source. IP appears to be confusing space command with space force. Garuda28 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Look on the edit history and you will see that IP addresses have vandalized the article on various occasions, separate ones too. --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:Disruptive IP User is changing information on this article without any explanation behind their actions. Changes don't state if they are correcting information, and a number remove notes attempting to highlight notable points about participants of this year's BGT. GUtt01 (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected@MusikAnimal: Is there any way to see the transclusion count at the time of protection? My guess is that someone testing something accidentally used Module:String/sandbox instead of the main module and the bot did it's job in the time between fixing that (just a guess!). I'm not sure that /sandbox$ or something needs to be added to the regex exclusions, but just fyi. ~ Amory(u • t • c)13:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could dig through the logs, but I'm quite your theory is correct. I do agree we should *not* add an exclusion for sandboxes. The last time this happened the editor forgot the sandbox was being used and it remained visible on articles for days. That would have made an easy target for vandalism. — MusikAnimaltalk13:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: For many years, there has been persistent vandalism by unregistered users. The page had been protected but as soon as the protection is lifted, the vandalism continues. Isn't there a way to protect this page from unregistered users indefinitely? Thank you so much. Stephreef (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Continued financial vandalism right after protection expired. This guy has been doing this since a while, coming in IPs and fresh accounts. Perpetrator is a Mammootty fan and is deliberately reducing the box office numbers of Mohanlal films and exaggerating it in Mammootty films. Pure vandalism out of jealousy and fan'ism. 137.97.138.109 (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This Irish politician has been involved in a personal injuries case with large national media attention. Her page has been subject to persistent vandalism from IP address accounts and newly created accounts. ZL10 (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism after previous protection ended. The protection that expired was the fifth to be placed on the article, so a long term solution is needed. DeluxeVegan (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:
My edits are being removed by other wiki user without providing any reason , what is use of wikipedia if my edits are not protected , need protection of my edits which has authentic source , please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raakuldeep (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I have warned the other editor about removing cited material and suggested he go to the talk page. MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – COI and NPV violations. User:Afrazwarsi, a SPA, has made numerous unsourced edits to this article over the last few weeks, removing some sourced content and adding unsourced content. He states he is the Chief of Staff & Attorney General of the article's subject. When protecting the page, please scrub the article of his contributions. Thank you!. Orville1974 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: preferably indefinitely. I requested increased protection a week or two ago due to an ongoing edit war mainly between two editors about how to phrase his nationality. I compromised it including using the talk page to warn them and thought it was settled (naïveté). Now it’s gotten worse with uninvolved users rehashing the same thing and also most recently an IP user. Enough is enough; this has been going practically all year and even longer. Pending changes doesn’t work. Trillfendi (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Various ip addresses have been disruptive editing the article again ever since the semi-protection was removed several days ago. It was previously semi-protected for 2 weeks. Please see the history [62]. — YoungForever(talk)21:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Constant spamming of promotional cell phone numbers. Zzuuzz is adding these to the filter as they pop up, but new IPs happily come in with new numbers. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Getting a constant level of vandalism for the past few months from both dynamic IPs, static IPs and now new users. Pending changes protection might be a good option. Britishfinance (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Vandalism and unsourced edits by IPs and new users. This will need long protection, it has needed protection non-stop since its creation. StaticVapormessage me!18:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Continued removal of content by an IP editor after the page's most recent protection expired. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Same type of case as the one I reported above and yes, this has happened on numerous occasions recently too. Kyle Peake (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Previous protections and pending changes have expired - semi-protection would probably work best here given the subject matter. – bradv🍁05:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Player has agreed a move to a new club but the transfer cannot take place until the transfer window opens on 1 July. Some editors are jumping the gun on the completion. . Kosack (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive and banal IP reverting, IP already vioalted 3RR and openly invited edit war, and ignores to join the discussion at the talk page. Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
What is an article called on the wikiipedia? Nikola Šubić Zrinski or Nikola 4 Zrinski?[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Almost every edit to this article is now from an IP, and all of it is vandalism; some of it pretty vile (at least one edit from 23rd November 2018 needs a revdel per edit summary); I think we should protect this long-term. Britishfinance (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Over the last 24 hours an editor with a dynamic IP has repeatedly hit the article deleting masses of sourced content. It would be much appreciated if this could be semi-protected for a few days and then hopefully the editor will move on. Betty Logan (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why does the Bret Hart article get protected for six months and this one only one when the edits to this page are much more offensive and BLP violating?★Trekker (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but I think the edits made to Roses page are far more worrying and I doubt they will go away anythime soon. Harts edits are mostly just silly stuff.★Trekker (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Whenever this page is unprotected, vandalism restarts. It's a major target and the edits are consistently unhelpful: it's very rare for anyone to request a serious edit, and they can readily do that on the talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have several different IPs blanking large amount of text with no discussion 7 times in the last 21 days (including again, today); I don't that is really a DR issue. Britishfinance (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:Persistent vandalism – Robert Thomas was recently injured by Boston Bruin player Tory Krug, there have been numerous attempts to add a death date or a career end date to the page and it likely will continue.Toreightyone (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. I see issues perhaps with ownership that should be resolved on the article talk page or other dispute resolution methods. NJA | talk16:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reduction in protection level: From full protection to semi-protection. There was no content dispute as IP completely misunderstands the topic as explained with RS in the article's talk page. This is basic knowledge about the topic. I have more information and reliable sources to edit and bring the article to GA criteria. Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. although close, but there’s some evidence of potential collateral issues so re-report should the disruption not decrease. NJA | talk14:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page and Manzoor Pashteen are receiving high volumes of vandalism, pov editing and unsourced content due to a current political situation in this area of Pakistan. Mramoeba (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 4 days , after which the page will be automatically unprotected. due to content dispute, no matter how misguided. Newer editor warned as well for disruption and all parties should use article talk page to resolve. NJA | talk15:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: An ever changing IP is repeatedly removing the article image without explanation over the past few days. I asked why on two different IP user talk pages, but I'm guessing they don't even see the question. GRuban (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The club's ongoing financial problems seem to be attracting a host of vandals who despise either the club as a whole or certain individuals like the current owner, who has been the subject of numerous comments that breach WP:BLP. The article is subject to reverts on a frequent basis at present. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full:BLP policy violations – User inserting poorly written negative WP:NOR, and doesn't seem to understand that WP:BLP is serious. Edits intermittently, so I'm requesting full protection for two weeks, so we can work this out on the Talk: page. Jayjg(talk)16:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – This page is linked with Pashtun Tahafuz Movement and Manzoor Pashteen and although only teceiving low levels of disruptive editing is a potential problem because of the current political situation in this area of Pakistan (see two other requests submitted regarding pov editing, disruption and addition of unsourced content). Mramoeba (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No this is not edit warring as three reverts to constitute an edit war has not been exceeded. If the user, edits again then it will be. Ajf773 (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – The author appears to have a COI and sock issue and eagerly moving it to mainspace without following the AfC process. If this title is protected please move protect the draft. Thank you . GSS (talk|c|em) 08:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Going through a period for sustained vandalism by various IPs for the past few months. Almost every edit now vandalism and needing reversion. No sign of stopping today. Britishfinance (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by anon user. We have a fair idea who's doing it, but short of hunting him down and stealing his mobile phone, we have no way of stopping him. It's getting tiresome checking every day and reverting his edits. The last lock held him at bay for just short of 4 weeks before it started again. Matthew.geier (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive and reverting, users/competitors engaged in edit war, reverting page back to containing inaccurate information (e.g., size of company, location, subjective diminutive statements, etc.). Scottedwardcole (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've left a warning for the WP:SPA that originally added most of the disputed material, and also advised Scottedwardcole to avoid editing the article directly. Semi-protection would have prevented the problematic material being added originally, but won't now achieve anything in preventing that SPA from editing the article again. MPS1992 (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There has been no vandalism or disruption. The requesting party here appears to be either the subject himself or someone associated with the company, and has been edit warring to get his own version into the article. BTW I am nominating the article for deletion. MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A controversial article whose edits are now mostly vandalism/disruptive; worth trying Pending Changes Protection for a period. . Britishfinance (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Please keep for at least a month as I believe it will subside by then. If not, we can always extend it. Jayab31400:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If, it continues w/ SP, warn and report autoconfirmed users at WP:3RR. I left the one a COI welcome. It looks like supporters and detractors fighting over content. DlohCierekim10:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: IP user is making claims that article is incorrect and deletes information. Notices have been added to revert comments from logged in users in attempts to help. All information is cited. . Mr Xaero☎️20:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Breitbart or whoever must have declared wikipedia "far left propaganda". Off-wiki canvassing of those who right great wrongs DlohCierekim10:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated disruptive editing (PoV pushing for an unverified false airport name). Dynamic IPs are obvious socks of User:Ramesmurmu214, a globally-locked socking editor (as Rameshmurmu214). Multiple requests for talkpage discussion have been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Full protection is normally used to stop edit warring between multiple users. I’m not seeing that here. Nor am I seeing vandalism. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The nature of this BLP means that it gets almost continually IP vandalised by rival football supporters on a regular basis. I think we should move to a more permanent solution. Britishfinance (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – SPAs keep removing the plot section. I am actually in favor of its removal as per the discussion on the talk page but the priority needs to be stability and the inclusion of content should be determined through discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Random string of IPs outright blanking content. No common range, just need to block IP editing. Masem (t) 01:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. This article has been subject of unsourced personal opinion for a few weeks, and now that the film's release is upon us (and it’s getting mixed reviews), best to protect from the subjective and/or unsourced edits. TropicAces (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]
Semi-protection: Sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. New accounts repeatedly being created to make edits endorsing to add a particular film Madhura Raja on the list thus creating an illusion of support from multiple users. Possibly continuation of Hackerwala111 and Sagar.kottappuram777. 137.97.127.158 (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Controversial BIO subject who gets a lot of disruptive IP editing which has to be reverted; was recently protected but the disruption resumed once protection lapsed; Pending Changes Protection might be appropriate?. Britishfinance (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – With no consensus having been reached this article has been moved and moved back for several days now. Needs move protection to allow agreement. Egghead06 (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Not sure what is going on here (had this on my watchlist as I marked it as a orphan) but seems a user and a IP are reverting back and forth with this page. Wgolf (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well I wasn't sure what to say-if to leave it alone, contact the IP and the user or do this. Someone else can look into it. Wgolf (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Article has an active edit war involving multiple IPs and two registered editors, possibly socks of each other. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Per WP:DOY guidelines all new additions to day of the year pages need a reference, even if they have a page. An ip user/hopper keeps adding new additions to the page ignoring my explanation and undoing my reverts. WP:3RR has also been violated because of this. Note, this is not the first time problem has raised, see also May 22 where I have just been reverted again after block protection expired. it always happens by an Ip that at least starts with the range 1. - most often 1.144 or 1.129 Redalert2fan (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: ResIpsaMan has been editing the page to include multiple porely sourced and multiple unsourced claims and is deleting multiple sourced claims by Oddpittsburgh. ResIpsaMan seems to be unfairly fixated on removing any mention of Pittsburgh & newly souced information regarding the history of professional hockey. OddPittsburgh (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent IP vandalism. Some IPs are introducing what appears to be correct information, although others are not. I'm unsure. InvalidOS (talk)14:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full: for three weeks. BLP policy violations – An editor has recently (albeit intermittently) been inserting personal commentary and poorly sourced (or unsourced) material into this fairly high-profile BLP. Previous experience with this editor has demonstrated that he will continue re-insert material with almost complete disregard for WP:BLP and WP:NOR. His intermittent editing history means it will likely take some time before he returns and can be engaged on the talk page. Jayjg(talk)17:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: On reading this, why should we make it imposible for anyone else to edit? Would it not be best, if discussion has proven fruitless, to seek remedy at WP:ANI? DlohCierekim18:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This editor appears to be fairly fixated on this individual, but only edits a small number of articles. If you peruse his edits to the article, it becomes obvious how inappropriate the insertions are, and attempts to remove material are simply reverted back in. Here's a typical example of this editor's work, on another article. Note the entirely unsourced POV nature of this completely irrelevant and WP:UNDUE insertion. Jayjg(talk)18:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like you need to discuss with the editor, which you have not done, and then proceed with all the other remedies for a content dispute, and then file at ANI. I don't know how anyone else feels, but making the page uneditable for all but admins seems worse than your complaints about the content, which can be removed by any other editor. DlohCierekim18:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but it's highly unlikely your polite post will have an impact. When he eventually returns to Wikipedia, and immediately re-inserts the material, I'm planning to ping you. Jayjg(talk)18:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear user:Dlohcierekim, I thought your post on his Talk: page was great, and I appreciate it. I'm just pessimistic that it affect his behavior. Jayjg(talk)21:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dlohcierekim, thanks for the kind words, but your note was excellent. Like Jayjg, though, I also wonder how much good it's going to do. And these edits are so wildly inappropriate that I wonder what else this editor has been up to. BTW, if El_C drops that AE warning, one of which I assume will be for BLP DS, we can take swift measures. Because if this user is as incompetent as those diffs suggest, they do not need to be editing BLPs. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Users (IP and registered) constantly changing the artist origin and mixed ethnicity background, contradicting the referenced sources from high value media press. It has been going on for years. Requesting a long term semi-protection at least for the origin part. Please see the recent diff here. diffdiff (Ownbjdi5082) 21:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Semi-protection: Repeated disruptive editing by IP users and one registered user that appears to be a single-purpose account, with repeated attempts to remove a section on the recent dispute over attempts to cover the ship's name before President Trump's visit on Memorial Day. The disruptive editors have not engaged on the article's talk page, and have continued to revert changes made by other editors based on reliable sources. Rainclaw7 (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP and other types of vandalism. This is a short and new article about a show that hasn't even aired yet, but like Blue's Clues, the show that spawned it, has already experienced a lot of vandalism. It's sure to get a lot more as we get closer to the premiere date in November. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There has been some vandalism, in the form of deletion of content, but there is also a lot of productive editing by IPs which I am reluctant to cut off. Ask again if the vandalism continues. MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Semi-protection: suggest temporary for a fortnight; constant disruption by anons and brand new editors via repeatedly filing near identical edit requests without participating in the discussion. I'm slightly involved. — xaosfluxTalk23:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Request upgrade from recent pending changes protection, persistent bulk IP reverts and refusal to engage in talk page discussions. The IP insists on naming that is inconsistent with the rest of the project, refuses discuss page formatting and makes disparaging comments aimed at other editors in edit summaries. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Semi-protection: Users (IP and registered) constantly changing episode titles & production numbers/episode numbers, contradicting the referenced sources (specifically the episode, "Camping is In Tents" (changing it from 41 to 41+42, contradicting Futon Critic. Magitroopa (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Permanent semi-protection: An IP range with a clear conflict of interest continually tries to whitewash the article and will not respond to comments on their respective talk pages. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. Both accounts have been indefinitely blocked as vandalism-only accounts, and are clearly sock puppets of one another due to adding the exact same vandalism to the article. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)17:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: IP editor is repeatedly adding disruptive and highly controversial content in violation of page consensus. ToaNidhiki0518:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Some obvious trolling or/and briganding is occurring in real time, brand new accounts surfacing who have some obvious experience editing WP, deleting sourced material on a BLP. JesseRafe (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page is about a basketball player currently in the NBA finals and has been the source of much IP and user based vandalism. Krazytea(talk)16:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nope, you're right. After looking through the edit history over the last three years, most of the edits by anonymous users have been vandalism, spam, and the addition of personal phone numbers to the article. Semi-protected indefinitely. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)17:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Permanent semi-protection: This page was a fairly recent WP:FORK from Family Guy which has permanent protection on it. A number of IPs continually are making non-constructive edits, and I believe the same level of protection should be applied as the page it was FORKed from. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk12:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This (and some other Sydney New Year's Eve WP articles) are going through a period of regular IP vandalism now; large deletions of content. Britishfinance (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. The IP user was making numerous reverts and against multiple editors who have undid the changes and in compliance with policy. The IP user has been blocked for 24 hours. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 10:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)The block was declined by another admin in WP:AN3. I've decided to honor the decline and the original decision and I've unblocked the IP user.~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - The IP user is the only one that's causing the actual trouble here. Protecting the article from edits by everyone and due to the disruption by one person is not a good use of the restriction. We should be taking action against the user instead. I would've blocked the user, but an admin already declined blocking them in a report at WP:AN3. If the user continues edit warring on this article, please file another report. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Only one IP edit since 6 May. Pending changes protection may be a better fit if there is a long-term but infrequent pattern of vandalism from IPs? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Multiple users are disrupting the editing of this page claiming either false, old sources and completely misrepresenting information that has since changed with new verified, complete sources that were discovered in May 2019.
Requesting temporary protection of the page to resolve these changes being made. . OddPittsburgh (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This looks look a content dispute that needs to be resolved on the talk page or using some other form of dispute resolution. I don’t think semi-protection is going to help much here. Full-protection maybe to stop edit warring between multiple users? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - Holding off for now. It's been over 10 hours since the edit warring, and I'm hoping that this has stopped for good and won't continue, and no action is needed here as a result. If the edit warring does continue, please file another report. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Increase level of protection: Persistent vandalism and persistent disruptive edits. Honestly, I don't know what level of protection would be appropriate for a page of a football club almost bankrupt without a fan base too, and where I really do not understand why these strange edits are made, edits which bring in foreground information over 10 years old plus some invented one. It's total awkward (in my opinion) the vandalism that is cyclically appearing on this page. Rhinen (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note:@Rhinen: After looking at this history, I believe that the problem is with 2 long term editors, so semi-protecting may not help. I think that if you put warnings (see WP:WARN) on their talk page(s), and if they persist, then you can get an administrator, (like me) to block them. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. (BTW, I am an American, and know very little about what you call "football") --rogerd (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - Not enough recent edits have been made to justify any kind of protection here. As Rogerd indicated above: If there's ongoing issues between editors involving this article and edits in the past, you should reach out to them directly with your concerns so that any problems can be discussed properly and resolved. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)09:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - The edits in concern were made many hours ago and seems to have stopped. The user that's been adding these edits (Chase Simpson) has been given sufficient warnings on his/her user talk page. If the edits continue by this user, we should consider action against that user rather than action to restrict editing to the entire article... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article is almost continuous vandalism, and it has been this way for a long time now (have a scroll down through the last 500 edits over the last 12 months); almost every edit. These articles are largely completed. It should be moved to the same protection level as Bambi. . Britishfinance (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I also blocked additional accounts that were adding disruption to this article, as well as followed the trail through one of the accounts contribs to another article, resulting in that one being protected for a year as well. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Another IP user stepped in to undo the revert by JalenFolf after the edit warring by the IPv6 user, suggesting that this may be a case of IP hopping. Adding pending changes protection should hopefully help put an end to the unreferenced content being repeatedly added to the article. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Both pages are now indefinitely template protected from editing and indefinitely full protected from being moved due to being highly used and high risk templates and modules. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – by IPs and new users. Article has a long history of being smeared. Suggest protection period of 3 months or more. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The edit history clearly shows that the vast majority of the edits made to this article by anonymous users have been vandalism. Adding semi-protection for one year should hopefully put a stop to the problem. We can always revisit the protection when it expires and easily add it back for a longer duration if the vandalism continues. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Several IPs/newly created accounts (the same editor, so blocking /AIV is no use) deleting large referenced material without and Talk Page discussion, and replacing with completely unreferenced material. The particular section seems to be controversial. Need temporary SP to force a proper discussion/protect the existing referenced information.Britishfinance (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – by IP trolls and smeared by new users. Subject is being harassed due to an ongoing lawsuit between her and Vic Mignogna. Given that the article has had a history of being protected, suggest protection period of two months or more. . Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This looks stale, the last IP (or non-autoconfirmed) edit was 16:00, 29 May 2019. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – This page needs a longer period of protection: as you can see from the page history, edit warring over who is the leader has been continuing since August 2017 and reflects a real-life violent struggle. : Bhunacat10 (talk),09:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I left the one autoconfirmed user an edit warring notice. As this little battle involves real living people and the newly dead, it would be possible to impose discretionary sanctions. I hate discretionary sanctions, they are a lot of unnecessary bother, but not as much as I hate real world fights being extended onto the encyclopedia. I've left a note about this little passion play on the article talk page. Rather than denying the millions of constructive Wikipedians the opportunity to edit this page, it would be better to sanction the few (or one) disruptor. DlohCierekim10:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done It's the talk page for the Main Page and we should keep it open as much as we can. One of the administrators watching the Main Page will protect it if needed. @CLCStudent: Will you stop requesting protection for this page please? That’s three times in the past eight days. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism changing city population (7 times in last 8 days). Editor ignores repeated invitations to justify edit or cite sources . Old Wittonian (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]