Declined They shouldn't be in mainspace, but this is all in all only a small problem...easy to tag it as a test page, easy to delete as a test page. Let's call it a bit of an outlet/service to new users. If any other admin sees the dire need to protect...go right ahead. Lectonar (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The article on Sindhis should have its protection increased due to the high levels of IP vandalism in the past and to avoid unnecessary edits by non-registered users. This is especially important given that this particular article has been subject to significant disruption from anonymous editors, which could lead to inaccurate or potentially damaging information being added. Increasing protection would ensure that only registered users with a valid purpose are able to make changes, thus ensuring accuracy and consistency for global readers. TheBushSush (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Page has been constantly been vandalised with Olympiacos' fans putting Karaiskakis Stadium at second place. This edit warring has been going back and forth the past few months, with it having been reverted back and forth 10 times. This is the second request I submit for this page, the last one being rejected for insufficient warring, but now edit warring with IPs has gone out of control. Tranquill Komnin (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Page relates to Arab-Israeli conflict. This is already coming into play after recent events that happened a couple of weeks ago. (Requesting ECP for this page).... ArnavSharma602 (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Hmmm...i don't know about your definition for "recent"...but the last edit was on december 9th, last year. Lectonar (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended protection: Persistent Vandalism. This page has ongoing vandalism from IP addresses and has had for as long as I've watched it. I assume this will never end. CT55555(talk) 17:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: One particular anonymous user, using a dynamic IPv6 address that changes with each edit, persistently making an unsourced and dubious claim and edit warring when reverted. When warned about behavior, user continued to edit-war and demanded I "stop destroying the page." As it is not a fixed IP and part of the page is about a pending major event, page is a likely target for vandals, so semi-protection would be warranted J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – We're coming up on the annual Superbowl, and like clockwork, we're getting IPs making edits which have to be reverted. If we can protect against IPs for another 10-11 days, that will help. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Constant changing of "soccer" to "football" by IPs, which is not in line with WP:NCFA. Page was semi-protected for a week - the day the protection expired, and IP once again made the change. Requesting longer or even permanent semi-protection. -- SuperJew (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Misinformation, false and/or propaganda content referring Sokollus Serbian heritage and ethnicity should be removed. The complete text to be reviewed and referenced. 212.71.208.97 (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The vandalism was regarding an alumni that other alumni deemed unacceptable. There have been thorough and monthly discussions and learning that the Wikipedia listing is accurate. There will be no further vandalism of trying to remove the alumni, as they did attend the Academy. TrueCadence (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Edit requests are working fine; I'm not convinced by your assurances, and anticipate that disruption around Khalifa's entry would immediately resume. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary move protection: To prevent further undiscussed moves[1][2] and avoiding WP:RECENT and WP:TOOSOON. For a professional wrestler, it usually takes 3-6 months to establish the new ring name. So I suggest 3-month protection. Users can start a requested move on the talk page at anytime and if community reach a consensus, we can move the article to the new name. Mann Mann (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: IP editor who was previously engaged in an edit war in December has seemingly returned (with a different IP), now moving to the plot section and is changing Pinhead's credited name of "the Priest" to just Pinhead without providing a reliable source. Previously, the IP editor had been consistently changing a sentence in the opening paragraph and removing the reliable source I provided, and ignored the words "Do not remove" when editing. Seems like either semi-protection or extended confirmed protection could work to prevent the IP from making further disruptive edits on the article. Edwordo13 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – This namespace was recently used in an attempt to get around the SALTed namespace Van Calebs. GPL93 (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I also created a discussion on talk as none had been yet attempted. 01:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)BusterD (talk)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There is a little puffery - a couple on January 31, one on January 25 - but before that it goes back to December. If puffery continues or increases, ask again. MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article has faced persistent vandalism of the same unsourced information from various IP addresses. Since this seems to be the same user adding unsourced information despite direct explanations in the talk page as to why this information was removed, some form of protection might prevent further vandalism. If there is another form of protection I should be requesting, please let me know. Owlettes (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This Page Page Is About Newly Famous Person In Bangladesh.He Is Known As Musical Artist and Journalist.I Think Mistakenly I My Be Deleted .Please Sir Allow Protection About This Page : High level of IP vandalism. Touhid888 (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Requesting permanent template-protection as this is required by Module:AnnotatedLink (also needs protection) which is invoked by the currently protected high-risk ((annotated link)). All these are currently hovering near 7,000 tranclusions. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs11:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: User:Magnolia677 continues to revert article content specifically requested by reviewers during GA and FA review process of this article. Consequently, I am no longer certain this article meets FA criteria due to this user's continued edit warring and reversions. I will be requesting FA re-assessment of this article once the page is protected with the original content required for promotion and the request that this user be blocked. This user has a history of removing relevant, neutrally-phrased, reliably-sourced material from pages as stated by many other users on his talk page. DrGregMN (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I move protected to prevent any additional move warring. I did not protect the article itself because this is basically a content dispute between those who want to say "massacre" and those who want to say "incident". It's not serious enough (yet) to require full protection. But the disputing parties need to discuss this question on the talk page, which is currently not happening. MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: An unregistered user coming from multiple IP addresses in the 240B:C020:4XXX block has been editing disruptively:
In edit summaries, they have accused editors of "prejudice and racism".
In edit summaries, they have called other editors' edits "ridiculous" and "lies".
They have deleted sources.
They have not engaged on Talk despite repeated requests to.
They have repeatedly reverted (edit warring).
Since their IP address is not stable (they have used 7 so far), it seems that the only way to stop the disruption and encourage the editor to discuss on Talk is semi-protection. Macrakis (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Requesting semi-protection, since a vandal keeps adding the same unsourced content repeated through multiple IPs. They are ignoring discussion and warnings. Yuchitown (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The talk page doesn't appear to require protection, looking at the revision history there's nothing really untoward there. I just wanted to ask why the article is so out of date since the new revision for training ChatGPT got. 2001:8003:37B8:D900:1507:8D7D:250F:7725 (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. A few problem edits two days ago, but not since. Hopefully the problem has subsided. MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If talk page discussions resolve some of these issues earlier, feel free to request an early end to the protection. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – About as soon as the last protection expired, the same incorrect edits (claiming the station started in 1926 as an NBC affiliate — a highly dubious claim on both counts for a Mexican television station) that led to that protection resumed. WCQuidditch☎✎21:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Once again, repeated addition of unsourced (and incorrect) character last names, for which the page was previously protected. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Nearly the entire edit history going back to at least June 2020 is vandalism and reverts. While semi-protected for a year between March 2021 and March 2022, there was no vandalism, but since that protection expired, vandalism by IPs and newer accounts again comprises the majority of edits. Please consider permanent semi-protection. Toadspike (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – The creator of the article has had their completely unsourced article about a living person draftified several times. However, they just copy-paste their sandbox back into the main page, with no regard for the objections of other users. (Could also just block the user too). Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Another return of persistent vandalism and egregious BLP violations immediately after expiration of previous protection. Page has been a long-term vandalism target. See page's protection history. Mauderdale (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: IP users behind who I suspect the subject of the article have for years consistently edited the article, often adding unsourced praise. I added a long descriptions of my findings to the talk page back in 2021, where I came to the conclusion that the article was very likely mostly written by the subject himself, in blatant violation of WP:CONFLICT. Since then this pattern has persisted, for example with the same IP address adding praise back in without addressing any of the concerns regarding WP:CONFLICT and WP:V. At this point I think only deleting the article or semi-protecting it will help. QuaintlyLittoral (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox image caption, "States where English is a working languages of the government" is incorrect - should be singular ("language").
To be even more correct, the sentence should either read "States where English is a working language of the government, a language of education, or spoken by more than 20% of the population" or perhaps "States where English is a working language of the government, language of education, or is spoken by more than 20% of the population". I leave the level of pedantry up to you.
Reason: Edit warring. Disruptive editing from which there is an insistence that the band are a trio when there are no sources proving that they aren't. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the founders - James McLamore and David Edgerton as they are not Hungry Jack's founders.
It is soely founded by Jack Cowin.
As the Director of Brand for Hungry Jack's, Jack Cowin has specifically requested they be removed. HungryJacksAustralia (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the section "Genetics of race and intelligence", add this at the end of the second paragraph: By contrast, T. Warne (2021) argues that within the United States, a >0% genetic origin of intra-group differences in intelligence is probable, and discusses five lines of research to support this contention. END OF PROPOSED EDIT.
Here is the source: https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.134.4.0479 . The American Journal of Psychology is a reputable source. This specific paper discusses some of the literature concerning the situation in the US. The author of the paper, Russel T. Warne, is a psychologist and researcher. He also serves on the editorial board for the journal Intelligence.
185.183.147.233 (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the requested edit would violate WP:FRIND, given that Warne's stated position is definitely FRINGE, as determined by strong consensus at the most recent Race and intelligence RfC. This is assuming that the IP meant to write "inter-group differences" rather than "intra-group differences" –– Warne's article argues the former, and only the former would be relevant in any case. Generalrelative (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Frankly, register an account if you want to make these kinds of edits to these kinds of articles. You can't expect to make controversial edits on controversial articles by proxy. —ScottyWong— 08:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Requesting indefinite semi page protection - constant IP alteration of cited data relating to date of death and height. McPhail (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Previously protected; once the temporary protection expired, the bad IP edits/vandalism continued where they left off. I think an extended protection period would be good here. DecafPotato (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing mainly coming from IPs- includes vandalism/nonconstructive edits as well as unsourced changes/additions. Magitroopa (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This page is again being altered by multiple IPs on a daily basis. Last time it was around the removal of material the IPs thought derogatory. Now it’s a pointless debate over whether the article should say London, England or London, UK. Previously, a seven-day period where only registered users could edit was helpful, and I think it might be useful again. KJP1 (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Numerous IPs are making unsourced changes to programming and/or channels, not all of which appear to be correct in any way. (This is not a new problem; there are two previous semi-protections for this reason.). WCQuidditch☎✎03:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – This article is on the brink of an edit war. Author does not like it when the article is neutralised and tries to chase me away. The Bannertalk16:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. I've already said in my edit summary I will not edit war. Editor continues to follow me and my work, adding tags unnecessarily and removing sourced details. I've asked them to leave me alone multiple times. This is just additional drama; no need to protect page. ---Another Believer(Talk)16:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the owner of the articles you have written. That you want to restore irrelevant and spammy details is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. You should work on your editing style. The Bannertalk16:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, entirely unnecessary (see Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro above). I've been clear I am not going to edit war. Editor continues to follow me, adding tags unnecessarily and removing sourced details, even when other editors have disagreed with The Banner's assessments. I would like for this editor to please leave me alone, which I've requested multiple times now. ---Another Believer(Talk)16:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Unregistered users" are the same thing as IPs. If they have a username then they are automatically registered. I would assume you mean new users? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654519:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But these just introduce contentious topic, they do not authorise blanket ecp protection such as for example PIA. I do not see any ongoing disruption in the article which would require any protection. Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding (I can't find the page that says this, but everyone involved in this topic area seems to believe it) that the CT designation authorizes admins to impose ECP with less discussion than usual. I have certainly done this in the past without complaint.
I don't think protection is needed for this or the above article. It appears to have just been a random burst in vandalism. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654521:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Administrators this show requires a temporary semi-protection as due to ongoing conflict controversy between actress Shilpa Shinde and leads Gulki Joshi and Sonali Naik , their fans are coming up with multiple IP addresses and doing Unconstructive edits according to their convenience. So please provide a semi-protection for atleast 2 months till this matter closes completely. Pri2000(talk) 18:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Name and date of birth changes have persisted by a small number of user accounts and IP users. This has occurred since April 2021. Dawnseeker200001:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Spike in unsourced edits by new and anonymous (IP) editors. Anonymous editors (likely one person hopping to different IPs) have resorted to using personal attacks and insults on other editors. Yue🌙22:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined IP vandal was already blocked, and the remaining new user seems to be acting in relatively good faith and engaging in discussion on their talk page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Semi protection on this page has recently expired. Since it's still a red-hot topic (not least on social media) disruption has resumed. Suggest semi'ing again for a year in the hope things will have quietened down by next year. Bon courage (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – As with the article about the first season, this is a target of UPE editors trying to promote a brand-new TV show, so any new article about this should go through AfC. bonadeacontributionstalk08:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Request permanent template-protection for this module invoked by already protected high-risk Template:Annotated link. This module replaces the already protected Module:AnnotatedLink due to name change the only way that seemed unlikely to go horribly wrong. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs18:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated blanking by an IP whom I can't seem to report at AIV (reports keep getting removed with no action taken by the bot due to a partial rangeblock). Millahnna (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – An IP was disruptively editing the article, rearranging cast members in violation of MOS:TVCAST guideline. They received a two-week block, but now newly registered accounts are editing in a similar, disruptive pattern to the blocked IP, so very probable block evasion. I have filed a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JEBahrain concerning this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Quiero poner candado a mi articulo por problemas de falsa información que le hacen muchas veces a mi articulo diciendo que el cantante nacio en otra ciudad y entre otras cosas. asi que quiero el candado para que mi articulo no sea editado 186.21.15.22 (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Recently a scandle has broke out regarding this company in the international media. Hence, IP's are consitniously editing is page either adding or removing informations. Please semi-protect this page for 2 months until the dust settles down. Rüdiger.Ingrid (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of vandalism on a contentious BLP. Most of them are violating WP:BLP and even adding Urdu version of Mir Jafar which is not acceptable unless proved with reliable sources. Most of the controversies stuff is based on primary sources (accussations). Please protect it under pending changes review. 109.171.194.161 (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Repeated copy-paste moves from Hoshangabad by editors wanting the name changed - suggest Extended-confirmed protection Arjayay (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Levels of IP vandalism and some edit warring and disruptive editing from IP users. People are also changing things without a consensus. DDMS123 (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article got unprotected on 31 January 2023 then anonymous IPs started making disruptive editing again. Yuugone (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: IPs keep making the same pov edits dealing with the subjects heritage. This has been going on for a while. The page needs to be locked. OyMosby (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Its almost 1 month of period is over for page protection of this page, no disruptive edits are done within this span and before it's protection also, so please reduce this page protection from indefinite to some period of months or better remove its protection if it possible. 49.32.161.75 (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprotected – Please use an edit request to request specific changes to be made to the protected page. Absence of disruption is a well-known side effect of article protection. Favonian (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Continued disruptive editing by IP users. They repeatedly change things that require a consensus first. They also have edit wars by reverting edits by other users. DDMS123 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Two new SPAs doing coordinated disruptive editing. I want to avoid edit war or another 3RR violation. Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: An IP user (who uses different IP addresses, even) keeps adding original research to sections of the article, refusing to even cite the source they ostensibly have. Requesting protection for at least one month, because I'm certain they'll keep doing this until something is done. TheVHSArtist (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Being intensely edited, to be sure, and understandably so. But I don't see much vandalim or disruption, just a lot of the usual back and forth. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Page is having large volumes of material and sources removed by a non-autoconfirmed account created just today, but which has already reverted edits three times on the same page after their removals were undone by various different editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Exactly. Lectonar (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Contentious topic area, Russia-Ukraine war-related promotion. Please increase the protection to extended confirmed level as per the community consensus on such topics. Thanks! 37.115.225.152 (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Constant ethno-nationalistic disruption, constantly disregarding the high quality WP:RS, such as trying to replace it with deprecrated and/or centuries old sources, adding uncited info with their own words, or even simply just altering the sourced info. This has been ongoing for years now. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given how this continues at all their usual targeted articles across many different ranges, I would highly suggest a protection longer than just a month... Magitroopa (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article has been the subject of a long-term vandalism/POV-pushing campaign that has gone on for years. The page was protected back in June for a six-month period, but now that it's over, further efforts have been made to continue adding the exact same content. ser!(chat to me - see my edits)22:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: I am cautious so as not to jump the gun here, but the page has seen an increase in sporadic instances of vandalism over the last month that seems to have intensified over the last three days. Ppt91 (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. IMO it should have been protected while it was Today's Featured Article; looks like it got pretty crazy. Hopefully that will subside now that it is no longer the TFA. MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Intensified disruptive editing by multiple IPs in the past month, around the general map of highways in the lead section, despite local consensus.
Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I suspect more or less indefinite pending changes protection will likely be the result for this article, but let's give this a few weeks for a start. Steven Walling • talk01:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Several months doesn't seem to have done the trick and it's a BLP. Maybe after a year he won't be famous anymore. Steven Walling • talk01:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Requesting full page protection. Manganese, Minnesota is a featured article. I am the primary author and promoter of this page. Both content and photos requested by GA and FA reviewers have been gutted and reverted on several occasions resulting in the start of an edit war between myself and User:Magnolia677. I am requesting this user be blocked from further edits of this article until it can be reassessed: I am not certain the removal of content by this user meets FA criteria anymore. This cannot be done without this user continually gutting reverted edits. I have already tried to make a peace offering by asking him to participate in my recent request for peer review of the article Withrow, Minnesota: instead of participating in the process, this user fired an opening edit salvo by gutting this article as well. I am requesting that Withrow, Minnesota also receive full page protection and User:Magnolia677 be blocked from further edits of this page at least until the article Manganese, Minnesota can be reassessed for FA criteria. DrGregMN (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. The underlying problem wouldn't be solved by a full protection of any length; in the end, consensus about how the article should look needs to be found. Try to get some eyes on this; Wikipedia:Third opinion could be a good start. Lectonar (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. TrangaBellam, some of the IPs editing there are actually right. Please check the dates in the article. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kalsi is a pure Tarkhan tribe and again a propoganda is ran by jatt people to save their dipping pride by calling famous clans their..
i would request wikipedia to look into it. Mundaramgarhia (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There seems to be some argument over his goal tally which has caused disruptive edits. Suggest two-weeks protection. Govvy (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Unclear what you mean. I can't see anything in your deleted contributions that suggests that Bearcat has been doing so, and they haven't edited that page. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just requested unprotection and apologized to Bearcat. It was my fault--I completely forgot to put in the tags. Thanks LJA123 (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: I have some sources for more edits as the current information about the topic "OpIndia" lacks transparency and have one-sided view point. It should be neutral. It must be neutral. I've some proves for this topics as I've conducted a research about the topic "OpIndia" for a long time.
So, I'm requesting for making it unprotected so that I can edit with more proves. Yamdooot (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. You can use the talk page to suggest and discuss potential changes.Ponyobons mots18:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This page has been repeatedly subject to erroneous edits which take away the value of having fact based Wikipedia pages which reflect information with biographical significance. Welovepapayas (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I am honestly not seeing much evidence in the edit history that persistent addition of unsourced content by IPs is diverting editors from keeping pace with breaking news. Daniel Case (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Requesting autoconfirmed edit protection of page "Wings of Fire (novel series)": moderately frequent anonymous edits and vandalism has occured over the years and it seems to be a target for destructive, relativistic and occasionally unencyclopedic behavior from users. May need to be extended protection. ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. About two or three edits in the last month, nothing that looks like it's taxing the regular editors on the page. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotection: (Remove 'Pending Changes' reduce to 'Semi Protection') This page has been 'pending changes' protected since 2018 for 'Persistent Sockpuppetry.' I don't think this is a valid reason to have 'Pending changes' applied (it's not 'vandalism') and most pending changes reviewers won't be 'checkusers' anyway.
@JeffUK: Semi-protection is an escalation from CRASHlock, not a softening. And provided the article isn't otherwise contraindicated for it sockpuppetry is indeed a valid reason to use CRASHlock, as much as I loathe uttering that sentence. That most reviewers won't be CheckUsers is irrelevant; one doesn't necessarily need that tool to suss out if someone is a sock. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 16:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. I'm not sure whether the sockpuppetry is still an issue, but regardless there seems to be a good case here for pending changes protection: there's been plenty of recent disruption, but it's not so concentrated that PCP would be ineffective. There have also been a number of constructive IP edits (e.g. [9][10][11][12]) that semi-protection would have prevented. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The revision history of this article is just walls of "reverted" or "undid edits" done by IPs. Surprised that this article isn't protected even though it was a shockingly recent addition to the English Wikipedia. Crusader1096 (message) 06:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. This is about a single number afaict...get it to the talk-page, evaluate the numbers please, and find consensus. Protection won#t solve this. Lectonar (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Persistent vandalism and disruption since protection expired, being an article about an American state makes the page very vulnerable to vandalism. TylerBurden (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. As far as State articles go, this is far from being heavy disruption. The vandalism account has been blocked, the rest seems manageable. At need we can pending-changes protect. Lectonar (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Content dispute over the controversy section of the article. I think both parties should have a discussion on the talk page over which particular part of the section do they want to keep or remove but as of now, One party wants to remove the entire controversy section while the other one wants to restore all of it. The constant edit warring is preventing any healthy discussion. The last stable version of the article had the controversy section in it. Razer(talk) 08:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the admin who put this article under ECP a few days ago, I understand why this would be sought. The problem is that once the full-protection expires, it would be necessary to manually restore the ECP. So if we do this, someone needs to commit to getting it back either by notifying me or making a fresh request here. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Things have slightly improved since my request for protection and there have been a couple of editors who are trying to improve the article. I think ECP is sufficient under the current circumstances. Interestingly the same story is being repeated on the article of another pakistani general - Asim Saleem Bajwa. Where a group of editors have been trying to remove the entire controversy section. Razer(talk) 08:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Although the article is pending-changes-protected, there's still a high rate of IP edits coming, nearly all of their changes get reverted, and they're not stopping. This is wasting the time of pending changes reviewers. Wes sideman (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now. A single user, so protection isn't really the right recourse. Also, no edits from them since being warned today (i.e. horse, cart, etc.). El_C13:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:Semi-protection or extended confirmed protection: There's been a lot of unsourced information added into the article, done mostly by IPs. Edwordo13 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Current semi-protection appears up to the task. Favonian (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said yesterday that it didn't seem like disruptive edits were overwhelming the edit history. Today they were, so we blocked the user's range for a week. Let's see how it goes from here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works. First, the protection level you speak of is only able to be added by a member of the WMF. Second, the article doesn't exist. Third, WP:OWN, you can't control who does and doesn't edit the article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654521:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. This article needs help, but semi-protection wouldn't help it. The problem is nationalistic/POV editing by multiple auto-confirmed editors, who change the article to their version of the truth about this person. You, Odinaka1, are part of the problem; your additions are unsourced and non-neutral. But so are other people's additions. I wonder if there is someone at Wikipedia who is informed enough about this part of the world to sort it out? Anyone? MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Persistent vandalism after prior protection expired, being one of the most high profile football players in the world makes the article highly vulnerable to vandalism. TylerBurden (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing in the last days. It is not just about the sourcing/content dispute issue which was why my request was previously rejected, but please, just see the recent IPs edits in the article. Xexerss (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – It appears a new podcast provided by BBC has "cast doubt" (unspecified) upon previous documentation of Mary Mallon's birthsite. A series of IPs (possibly the same person) seem determined to extirpate mentions of her origin. I'd like a few weeks for this podcast to age out. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. On a side note, podcasts can be reliable sources just like any other media if they are produced by a reliable source (after all, WP:NEWSORG contains no limitation that only text should be considered reliable). Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoWhy (talk • contribs) 10:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Some users (possibly meatpuppetry) are continously trying to whitewash his biography by removing referenced information and adding promotional content. Please increase it protection as this oligarch has been supporter of Russia as a party member and, therefore, comes under Russia-Ukraine arbcom enforcement. 188.163.34.202 (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. WP:GS/RUSUKR is not an Arbcom Enforcement area but community-enacted general sanctions but I fail to see how this article fits even under a broadly construed ban. If you disagree, WP:ANI is the venue to request community GS enforcement. SoWhy10:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection:
Persistent disruptive edits from a sock puppet who is evading blocks by creating new accounts and will not stop no matter how many times they are warned and blocked. Bowling is life (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. I see plenty of editing activity, but the vandalism isn't overwhelming the page anymore after a very active disruptive IP-range was blocked. Disruption is manageable now, and many edits by unconfirmed and IP editors aren't vandalism. They might sometimes not be helpful, but often they are.... Lectonar (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection:
Persistent disruptive edits from a sock puppet who is evading blocks by creating new accounts and will not stop no matter how many times they are warned and blocked. Bowling is life (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Recently many people have been changing the country of origin from 'The United States of America' to 'The United States of Alex Kister' and has been pretty annoying to revert. I don't want heavy protection, just a small amount temporaily, thanks. Candeadly (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection:Arbitration enforcement – WP:GS/RUSUKR. Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area... The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with exceptions allowing non-ECP editors to chat on talk pages.
There's an IP currently trying to edit-war information on where the bullet entered this person's head out of the article, and ECP should be enforced to require them to engage in talk page discussion rather than edit warring (and to prevent future disruption). — Red-tailed hawk(nest)16:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just came here to request the same, as an IP continue to disrupt against/ignoring talk page consensus, including after it was declined. Requesting that you reconsider @Daniel CaseCT55555(talk) 22:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotection: Please make the page so it is not fully move-protected; I need to move the page to carry out an RM I recently closed here. Since this was fully move-protected a decade ago, such protection is also likely unnecessary at this point. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced to ECP move protection. Probably could have just reduced to semi—there's not actually a clear reason in the log why this was move-FPP'd—but erring on the side of caution given the topic area. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)22:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect. This page, under the title List of recently extinct bird species, was put under pending changes protection by Ronhjones in September 2018 because of waves of edits from socks. Over the past several weeks, an anonymous editor using a dynamic IP has made hundreds of miniscule edits, all of which have been accepted practically immediately by pending changes reviewers because this person's tweaks have all been clear improvements. Protection is now doing more harm than good. CityOfSilver04:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Requesting protection for this again because IP vandalisms and disruptions are long lasting. Just spotted this edit [13] which significantly reduced casualties without explanation, the edit remained for nearly 2 hours. Ecrusized (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is a very heavily edited article. There really isn't a whole lot of IP vandalism or misinformation, but what I saw was inappropriate enough to call for protection. (What is the matter with people, that they think it is cute to vandalize an article about an event that killed 20,000 people??) MelanieN (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not vandalism. The edits in question only removed unnecessary and highly subjective phrasing, and better organized things, so that the trial is covered before its aftermath. 79.60.232.33 (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semiprotection. For as long as this article has existed, every single time it's not under protection, legions of new editors with conflicts of interest appear to remove the contentious (but reliably sourced and entirely accurate) term "multi-level marketing." DMacks has had to waste time protecting this page over and over for the exact same reason for just about a decade now. CityOfSilver03:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ongoing IP vandalism. Has been protected in the past for up to 1 year. Indef protection would be nice? The nature of the topic being "no rules" "anarchy" (like 4chan as a metaphor) will constantly draw vadnals. Leijurv (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism from various IP users over the last few days; ranging from changing an episode's production code for no reason, to adding an episode not listed in reliable sources. BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Looking at the history of the page, there's been an edit war going on for 1.5 YEARS now. It started on 5 September 2021 with user Smitterdin adding the claim that canon is decided by the fan base, and he has been hounding that page ever since, undoing everyone's work who corrected this. Originally he did so without any source, and later on he just copied a random source from further down the page. Ironically the source doesn't support his claim, it contradicts it, defining canon as "The source material". It does note that not all people accept the concept, but that's a far cry from it supporting the claim that canon is decided by the fan base. Side notes about the opinion of some people have no place on wikipedia, lest we have to add to the Earth's page that some believe it to be flat! 1.5 years of edit wars is too long and he clearly has no intention of stopping. Therefore I request that his unsupported claims be removed and the page temporarily locked, as a sign for him to stop his vandalism 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm the user mentioned in this request so I decided to address it.
1) The claim that there is an ongoing edit war that lasted 1.5 years is blown out of proportion. This page was edited 68 times in the last 1.5 years and only a portion of those is edit warring.
2) The claim that I fought against multiple users is false. The edit war 1.5 years ago was conducted by me and an anonymous user who later made an account to post on the talk page. Multiple users agreed with me and there were at least two other accounts (not including bots) who reverted edits on that page.
3) The claim that I committed vandalism is false. I corrected this article in good faith and then I attempted to discuss my corrections on the talk page. The edit war 1.5 years ago happened because the anonymous user involved ignored my requests to take it to the talk page and instead proceeded to re-add the same information over and over again and use edit summaries for talking. I acted the way I did believing I was fighting vandalism which is permitted according to Wikipedia:Edit warring.
4) The argument at hand is incomparable to the flat earth argument and only serves to portray the opposing side as incompetent. Smitterdin (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) the fact that it's not always been the same intensity is irrelevant. I can see in the history page that it's been going on for 1.5 years
2) Multiple users agreeing with you doesn't matter if you can't provide a source to back up your claims. if multiple people agree that "the earth is flat" should be added on the Earth's page, it doesn't matter either because there are no sources to back up that claim. Wikipedia is about facts and not about "x number of people have opinion Y"
3) If you work in good faith, then why did you at first not even use a source and later just copied a source which outright contradicts your claim? The source clearly defines canon as "The source material." notice the full stop there! The added note that some people refuse to work with that is not part of the definition of canon, it's a side note
4) The comparison with flat earth is an analogy to highlight the absurdity of what you're doing, i.e. using the side note "some people have different opinions" as proof that your claim is right, even though the source directly contradicts you. Just like with the shape of the earth, it doesn't matter if some people have a divergent opinion, this is true for any topic ever
Protection would only disservice non-confirmed constructive editors. Possible recourse for this would be partial blocks, but seeing the discussions on the talk page: Declined. DatGuyTalkContribs08:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - I'd rather wait for more than one edit to see if this is a return of the pattern (which is likely, but not sure) or a one-off. No prejudice against rerequesting if/when it does occur. DatGuyTalkContribs08:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of ip vandalism, I also need someone to help restore previous edit since the ip removed a large sum of reliable sources, placing red tags on the page Theonewithreason (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - despite your claim to the contrary, there's been no recent vandalism at all, and only ten edits over the past 14 years. See here. The existing protection is plenty sufficient. Frankly, I'm not sure why you are making this request. --Yamla (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism - IPs keep changing to "twelfth season" for new show despite being warned. To a lesser extent, this is also occurring on Frasier as well. Requesting longer page protection for the upcoming series and maybe a shorter one on the main Frasier article as well? SitcomyFan (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism - IPs keep changing information about revival, info in infobox, for upcoming second series. Also requested protection for that above. SitcomyFan (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. That was just one edit in the day since it expired. If it will need to be reprotected, it's too early to tell. Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: persistent editors removing lead summary material of sourced content and no discussion on talk. Andre🚐23:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. One IP on 10 February and another the day before. Seems manageable at the moment. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. Two accounts in the last day or so. Before that, one account 20 days ago. It's already extended-confirmed protected indefinitely; this is a manageable level of disruption. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – Editors/IPs reporting he is dead. I did do a Google search but did not find anything to support it. S0091 (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some user whose account has been closed in Freelancer.com due violations against its Terms and Conditions and Code of conduct, is constantly vandalizing Matt Barrie's page.
We request a page protection for Matt Barrie's page.
Indefinite template protection:High-risk template – Was suprised to see an ip can edit this highly visible template doc page. I suggest we have the same protection as the actual template page. Moxy-04:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy and Ohnoitsjamie: I don't believe that protection is necessary for a template documentation page, and even if it were necessary, the template-editor level is far too high. The point of protecting high-risk templates is due to the havoc they can cause because they are transcluded in so many places. This documentation page is transcluded in two places: a sandbox and its parent template. Knock-on effects of disruptive editing for a documentation page are nearly zero. ((Infobox country)) is transcluded 6,000+ times; if you compare it to an incredibly high-risk template like ((Short description)) (5,000,000+ times), its documentation page isn't protected. Nor is the similar ((Infobox))'s documentation page (3,000,000+ transclusions). Please unprotect it. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I've asked for too high a level of protection... willing to except any increase in protection. looking at the history of the info box documentation page it should also be semi or whatever protected. Moxy-04:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't view that as necessary, given that in 2022 it was disrupted by only two accounts/IPs: one in April and another in October. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. Long-term full protection is too desperate a measure. We'll have to do the whac-a-mole, deriving some satisfaction from the amount of effort wasted by the creep. Favonian (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This redirect was protected in 2008 and needs updating. Lack of disruption on similar redirects indicates protection is no longer necessary. Peter James (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprotected – Changed the redirect to an existing section. If the purpose of the request was the creation of an article, a draft should be submitted to WP:AFC. Favonian (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Downgrade from full protection to indefinite extended confirmed protection. Look, I get this always will be an obvious vandalism target (I assume you know why) but I think we can take it down a notch (no pun intended). Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any legitimate, foreseeable reason for the protection on this redirect to be downgraded? "Because it's been protected for so long" isn't as convincing an argument on a redirect. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 16:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any extended confirmed disruptive editing in the page history? I don't see any but perhaps I'm missing something. I believe best practice is to use the minimum amount of protection needed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page was full protected after Imadethisforherobrine began to edit it, but that editor is nowhere near ECP, so ECP would have prevented their disruption. I don't see why full protection was warranted at the time; it seems more likely a misclick more than anything else. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)16:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IP editor (multiple IPs) continues to restore contested infobox trivialities without engaging in any discussion on the talk page or even via edit summaries. The user is edit warring with multiple editors, and distrupting the article. — TAnthonyTalk19:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, we agree. I submitted a request a few minutes after this one; appending my rationale for completeness: Reason: An issue regarding the lead has been under continuous discussion since October 2022, but is subject to constant edit warring with impunity at the same time, while the discussion is ignored. The article is in WP:CTOPICS as part of Eastern European history, and recent events have also connected it to WP:GS/RUSUKR. Perhaps a low level of protection will help. —MichaelZ.19:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Persistent vandalism by a user and several IPs since 6 February. The article had been semi-protected for a period of one week between 18 and 25 September 2022. Phikia (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The article has needed protection repeatedly over the last few years. It is almost ready for indefinite protection. MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protect: Due to persistent disruption for the past couple weeks by fly-by ip users adding unsourced content. Thank you - wolf22:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yes, I see the problem: The socks are autoconfirmed. This should help. If vandalism resumes after the 4 days, request again or alert an administrator. I also gave the article itself extended confirmed protection, for a month. MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: A series of IPs, some of whom seem to have an unusual level of Wiki-knowledge, are repeatedly making essentially the same edits concerning a controversial Serbian film to defend/mirror press releases from the filmmaker as the only coverage. Temp partial protection would help by making all editors responsible for their edits. Pincrete (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semiprotection. Disruptive editing and personal attacks. An IP hopper has been trying to add a bad edit and in a characteristically incoherent edit summary told me "logic is something you dont have and all wmf editors". CityOfSilver03:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: I'm confident that banned edit-warrior Ytpks896 (talk·contribs) is behind the IP 103.141.159.225. Same edit-warring, same Pakistani nationalist editing on same article, same refusal to accept anything that goes against him, and same refusal to discuss anything. 39.41.6.68 (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of allegions article hijacking and unsorce claims why doesn't you login with your account and come here to talk or creating a new article for Afghan town. you are looks like an experienced user must be an investigation launched against you. 103.141.159.225 (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Two such edits in last 24 hours. The mere existence of vandalism does not justify protection, otherwise we'd be the Portuguese Wikipedia and allow only registered accounts to edit. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. While it is recurrent, it seems to happen only once a week or so and is easily dealt with through usual editorial methods. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article is "pending changes" protected, but in recent days there's a steady stream of IP and new account edits and none of them are accepted - just seems silly to not have semi-protection on, none of the IP edits are helpful. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Mobile editor vandalising 'ownership' section of page. Indeed IPs & Mobile editors have been making such vandalism, to NHL team pages, for well over a year or more. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Repeated substitution by IP users of terms in short description and first sentence that violate MOS:TERRORIST and are less accurate ("murderer" for a getaway driver convicted of "felony murder," as lede paragraph accurate explains). Changes have been reverted previously with request (ignored) to take dispute to the talk page. PDGPA (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:WP:GS/RUSUKR, as it states, "A community discussion at the administrators' noticeboard/incidents has placed all pages with content related to the Russo-Ukrainian War, broadly construed, under indefinite general sanctions", so this article needs to be placed under protection. RowanJ LP (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Requesting extended autoconfirmed protection of page "Wings of Fire (novel series)": there seems to be consensus per the article's talk page that the article is likely a long-term sockfarm/fancruft target. Additionally, banned user CC8200's talk page issues a threat to anonymously vandalize this and other pages (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CC8200) - one which is possibly being carried out at the moment considering a recent page vandalism. The page has inconsistently been threatened over the years, yet a protective precaution could stop countless problems. ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: not extended confirmed account edit war - restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, not extended confirmed accounts can not edit that page. GizzyCatBella🍁13:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Lack of consensus on appropriate citations leading to edit war - if someone might at the same time provide an opinion that would be greatly appreciated Jguglielmin (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. So far this year, there have been thirteen disruptive edits from IP editors, and four more from registered users. Often the attackers change the religious denomination of Ja'far al-Sadiq, even though there is really no question in reliable academic sources about his Shia beliefs, e.g., the Iranica article here. These edits are often caught early and reverted by other editors. Had it not been for their efforts, it is likely that the article would have been damaged further by unsourced and tendentious edits. Albertatiran (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Someone using IPs is switching out the statistical leaders listed within the article to whomever had the highest average for the season. The Greek League, unlike most leagues, goes by total statistics accumulated for official leaders and not by the highest average. This explanation is written within the article. GPL93 (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism today by IP editors - possibly not over a long enough period, but I thought it worth putting the request to you. Tacyarg (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Doug Weller semi-protected this user talk page indefinitely in 2016. I'm not sure why indefinitely, but I would venture to guess the protection has ran its course. I asked the protecting administrator to unprotect, but they dismissed my request without explaining why the protection is still needed.
On a surface level, I would understand a temporary protection, but Gamaliel is an administrator, which means that their user talk page should normally be open for public editing. If the page is unprotected and Gamaliel is harassed by trolls or socks, any administrator – including Gamaliel – can of course apply a temporary semi-protection. Politrukki (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the reason for the indef prot is because this is a common student vandalism target (since the Black Death is usually a required history topic in grade school cirricula at some point). Note that every prot has been during the school year. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 17:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Courian: Whatever reason it is, nine years is a bit too long for me. Could at least remove "death" in the section "complications" since it is not one properly speaking (on the contrary, the disease ends with death) – unless it's intended for black humor who knows. 176.128.237.169 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprotected. I'm not convinced that disruption won't resume when the unprotection is discovered. In any case, I have removed "death" from the complications in the infobox. For further changes, please make edit requests on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Seems to be recent disruption on article about a possible move to Leeds United. However there are no sources for this. Maybe a weeks protection needed. Govvy (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are the problems with the edits? It is rather confusing to state that Corbett met Bates after consulting him, as the version you are restoring says. 79.60.232.33 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVADE your edits can be reverted because you have caused mass disruption. And yes you can consult someone and then meet them, that is what is normally done, you do not just randomly show up to meet doctors, you consult them first. You think you are being clever but are not. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is going to be reverted! We do not have time to separate out which of your edits are vandalism and which are innocuous edits cynically designed to cover your tracks. We revert them all because we do not owe you our time or consideration. You need to go away. DanielRigal (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your presence here as a sockpuppet is an act of vandalism. How many sockpuppets have you had blocked now? Consider yourself de-facto banned! DanielRigal (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Over the past few days users have been continuously removing and re-adding sections to the wiki. Given that the sections to which were added included sources and reasoning for said sources were provided when requested, I am requesting that a protection be added to the page so that information to which is added isn't easily removed. I would also like to note that some of the users to which have removed certain elements of the wiki weren't able to provide much of a clear reason as to why they have chosen to remove said sections. AlmNack (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Having followed the exchange about this at ANI, protection is not the way to go here. You and the IP should follow the very sensible advice you have been given over there. Lectonar (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The Wikipedia article on Zulfikar Ali Bhutto should have its protection increased due to the fact that most of the information has been done by IP users who have committed vandalism in the past and users with their own biased views. This is an important figure in Pakistan's history, and it is essential that accurate information be provided to readers. Increased protection will ensure this accuracy as well as prevent any further vandalism or bias from taking place. Starkex (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP persistently adding unsourced material (each one seems to get a partial IP block shortly afterward). 2pou (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Anonymous user(s) had been changing the track listing for a 14-year-old album without any provided sources. Googling their changes came up with nothing. Warned user about edits to the album's page but the edits continued until the page was protected. Now they've moved on to replacing the set list at To Party Arhizei with the fake track listing instead. I am requesting that page to now be protected as well. Grk1011 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Persistent changing of the link to a fake one. IPs do not seem to be deterred and I don't think the range is small enough to block ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654522:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ongoing comments about non Wikipedia topics violating WP:NOTAFORUM. IPs and new users continuing to report Facebook scams and attempting to contact the article's subject. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to the public log, there was an original three-month semi-protection that began on November 25, and would conclude on February 25, but there have been at least two intervening, shorter ECP periods. The semi-protection should last until at least February 25. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP editor has a very strange concept of what this article is about. Has bulk tag bombed it and thinks this article is about a company, and not a league. The-Pope (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Karnataka based geo locations articles are frequently targeted by non Kannada editors who will add Additional language/regional languages etc . To the articles , in Karnataka State only Kannada language is Official and no other languages are recognised as regional languages in the state. Please give protection to this article. Nimmoun (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please separate the examples in the "Accusations of antisemitism" section so that it is clear which responses were actually made to the game itself, and which ones are background information. The statement by the Anglo-Jewish Campaign Against Antisemitism as well as the one by Jon Stewart are about the books and films, but they are mixed with Travis Northup's response in such a way that it may mislead people. Ammaeli (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Header section on Space Race implies that the USA won. Please change:
They also competed in the Space Race, which culminated in the 1969 American spaceflight in which the U.S. was the first nation to land humans on the Moon.
to:
They also competed in the Space Race, which led to the USSR's Sputnik 1 in 1957 and Yuri Gagarin's orbit of Earth in 1961. The USA caught up in 1969 by landing humans on the Moon.
The article claims the game is set in 1899 but that is not possible as a letter in game states Sirius Black the second still is a Hogwarts student at that time, as he is born in 1877, he would have finished school by that time. Furthermore, a letter between Ursula Black and Phineas Black the Headmaster also states Cygnus Black has just started to crawl. As he is born in 1889, the likeliest year for the game to be set is in 1889 or 1890. TonkyBonks (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing -- A lot of unexplained content removal has been done by IPs in the last two weeks or so. Edwordo13 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Looks like one person in the UK, somewhere around the 2a00 IP node/particular IP address/London keeps on posting nonsense in an attempt to advertise...something? Persistent vandal/"contributor". Can someone just make it so unregistered accounts can't edit this article? Shearonink (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That criteria is too loose to apply to this page. I just spot-checked over a dozen members of Congress who are regarded as highly controversial as MTG is. From Matt Gaetz to Ilhan Omar to Lauren Boebert to Lindsey Graham, and none of them have move protection set higher than extended-confirmed. I remain opposed to this unnecessary creeping bureaucracy. Zaathras (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Persistent long-term misuse of the talk page that doesn't seem to be going to stop anytime soon ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654502:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Consistent vandalism from a certain user. I know exactly who is vandalising it and I know that they will not stop if they are able to edit it. Rwpardey01 (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: the IP address has been blocked but I believe that the page is still at risk from vandalism by others who may be associated with the user Rwpardey01 (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – A series of IPs (probably same person) keeps changing sourced information in the infobox without explanation. They've done it 3 times in the last few days. Another IP was also doing it earlier on 23 January. R Prazeres (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined As I have just explained at ANEW, I think a particularly experienced user's intervention has taken care of things here. In any event, it's a little much to ask for an article previously never protected to get ECP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not justifiable for semi-protection status, could it be possible for the history log that contains the link to the cannabis shop to be deleted. Because this kind of information is illegal in many jurisdictions. Thank you. Noktonissian (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Reasi district is highly as sensitive territorial area of j and k union territory .it lies in the north of j and k with kulgam district it neighborhood in the north . It is a disputed area used to be highly terrorism area . Pakistan is claiming its own but it lies in Indian territory as well lithium reserves have been found in this district that is why their are chances of overseas attacks.. Das yug 1 (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Newly created Wikipedia users and some various IP address users keep on doing unreferenced and unsure edits causing other users to revert their vandalism for how many times. Some of them include unnecessary edit descriptions as well. Mr. Kenshin (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: this page has been redirected long ago and no longer servers as a viable sandbox. Lets force ediors to the real sandbox that is automated. Moxy-16:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprotected – Please use an edit request to request specific changes to be made to the protected page. The protection was applied only today. It is pretty bad form to request unprotection almost immediately without discussing it with the protecting administrator. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It has never been protected before, and I only see one recent flareup, so I don't think we can ask for ECP just yet. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The amount of vandalism this talk page has experienced over the past two years in a row is absurd. Please put an end to this madness. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The article hasn't even been around for a month. I see occasional disruption but not persistent disruption. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Regular partial page blanking by IPs, noting subject area does also include areas defined as contentious issues where certain edits counts (eastern Europe, Balkans (Serbia) etc) and I think (but am still learning this) 500/30 rules apply here. CT55555(talk) 21:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – This article is constantly being disrupted; click here [17] and then Ctrl + F "reverted", that's a whole lotta yellow (I know this goes all the way back to June 2021, but still). It often has to do with changing the ownership of this diamond, such as the recent edit I reverted [18]. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: An IP editor continues to re-add the same thing despite being reverted by multiple editors and they are now ignoring a hidden note. -- Zoo (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism removing images containing depictions of the prophet Muhammad. These images are historically significant and Wikipedia is not censored. — Jumbo T (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please separate the examples in the "Accusations of antisemitism" section so that it is clear which responses were actually made to the game itself, and which ones are background information. The statement by the Anglo-Jewish Campaign Against Antisemitism as well as the one by Jon Stewart are about the books and films, but they are mixed with Travis Northup's response in such a way that it may mislead people.
Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism from the same IP user; changing the order of episodes around. Has been going on for sometime now. BrickMaster02 (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High levels of IP vandalism due to recent release of the Public Order Emergency Commission report (of which he was the Commissioner). TheShadowScaredMe (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – New users and IPs are repeatedly changing the name, changing referenced content, and/or deleting referenced content pertaining to the 2021 name change. There are maybe a dozen or so reverts in the last week by different users & IPs. — MarkH21talk21:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined because semi-protection would not help. Most of the problem edits are being done by a single editor who is auto-confirmed. I posted a warning on their talk page. MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism of a single nature has been continously ongoing since last year, being carried out by multiple accounts and IP's most likelly connected to a single person!. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The page is supposed to be protected. A few days ago, I undoed an edit that had suspicions of a conflict of interest. Also, by looking at the date of its modification, there are many modifications that worked to remove prominent and important things, and also the article of a political figure that will witness many attempts of sabotage. Osps7 (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent removal of maintenance templates, addition of spammy links, and other MOS problems from an IP hopper over the last week or so. Millahnna (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: There's been an ongoing edit war on this article over the neo-Nazi controversy in Ukraine and the use of the Edelweiss honorific, this seems to need moderator attention, or the controversy will just keep being erased and reframed and erased again. Talataash (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – As the page edit history, many users are adding non-WP:RS links and adding blog links. Hence, I request for a protection supervised by administrators before approved. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – This character vandalizes a broad pallette of user talk pages couple of times a week, only to be bulk reverted. It's been going on for years. Temporary protection of individual pages won't really help. Favonian (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't requesting a specific edit to be made and even if it were the talk page is not protected. Make an actual request there, in format "change <foo> to <bar>" and providing whatever sources may be required to support the change. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 20:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. This page was semi-protected last year for the exact same reason. But ever since the protection lifted, too many IP editors have returned. Also last year, newer accounts were created for the same purpose of disrupting and vandalizing the article. The semi-protection needs to be extended much longer, perhaps indefinitely. Sylvester Millner (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Page was recently unprotected, only for vandalism from the same IP hopper to continue. Perhaps this needs long-term or even indefinite protection. Link20XX (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – Protected 7/1/23 and then again 31/1/23 and requesting it a third time as the page is a vandalism magnet, with allegations of criminality and other BLP major problems. I don't think this is going to be fixed by a third two week protection, I'll just be here in 2 weeks. CT55555(talk) 16:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: BLP Policy Violations. The person just died, altho the IPs AGF adding the same info, there's too much disruption at the moment — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm not entirely clear about the BLP violations, however, there are some other issues going on. The volume of IP activity would overwhelm the pending changes reviewers. Chetsford (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism, people are still doxxing the streamer, providing highly unreliable sources for the claim, the streamer never confirmed the name or any other highly personal information on stream. I would request, similarly to the last approved request, to protect this page for the streamer's safety. SturmFernmelder (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't include anything about the controversy over the use of symbols associated with Nazi Germany in the modern Ukrainian miltary (see: Azov movement) and there was an edit war over this. It's a contentious issue but I feel that Wikipedia cannot simply ignore it, omitting it feels like the opposite of neutrality yet we also need context on how Russian propaganda exploits this situation. The edit war was frustrating. I requested the article be protected and now I hope someone can add the relevant information without it being erased.
The 10 Separate Mountain Assault Brigade's honorific name and symbol: 'Edelweiss' is controversial for the association with Nazi Germany's 1 Mountain Division, also called 'Edelweiss'. In light of the Ukrainian military's Azov movement and the parades for Stepan Bandera, this is extremely contentious and the information needs to be presented neutrally. Talataash (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – A mysterious number of IPs and a confirmed sockpuppet of MakaveliReed appear to have been repeatedly been engaging on this page to insert a "more citations needed" tag as if it were from 2008. Unclear what the motivation is, but the disruption needs to stop. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary move protection:Doudrop is move-protected until 1 May 2023. However its talk page is not move-protected and someone moved it[20]. I think the talk page needs same protection too. Mann Mann (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This article being protected is unfair because this page is about the nursery rhyme of Jack Horner and not the film version but there was a section on this article about the film version and some IP addresses wanted to improve that section by adding that Jack Horner was the main antagonist of the film Puss in Boots: The Last Wish (which he was) and not some major antagonist and then added that the character portrayed in the movie was "megalomaniacal, ruthless, sadistic, and narcissistic" (which the film also portrayed him as that) and then this page got blocked. There was no need for this article to be protected, no disruptive vandalism ever happened on this page at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.194.14 (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Regular culinary nationalism-driven disruptive editing over the course of past two years with little to no constructive edits in between. The page has already been temporarily protected twice and several of the disruptive editors have been banned. Seeing how most of the disruptive editing comes from newly-registered users, maybe's it's finally time to consider permanent protection against non-autoconfirmed users. Turaids (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Request semi-protection: IPs from the same area have been inserting the same spam link to a law firm's website as either a a citation (that doesn't verify the content) or as an actual external link. This has been reverted five times now in the last three days. Imzadi 1979→15:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Unregistered and/or anonymous users posting misinformation about the disappearance of this person. Repeatedly posting unexplained edits, confirming a body that was recovery today belongs to the missing person, with no current evidence confirming this.
There have also been offensive edits from anon users adding "missing white woman syndrome" into the See Also section.
This missing person, Nicola Bulley's disappearance has already attracted much unwanted speculation from the media and members of the public, with her family complaining about this also. This is something that will likely become more prevalent in coming days, if/when the body is confirmed to be Nicola's.
The anonymous user is 2605:A601:AE1E:400:E9D5:8FB1:1B39:E1B4. They have repeatedly added content asserting that the body is Nicola Bulley's, despite no announcement yet.
Reduolf13 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Sudden surge of IPs changing content of article without source as to a return of a member to the group and adding other unsourced content. Nate•(chatter)01:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support there's been a campaign regarding Abraham's supposed ethnic background (contrary to Abraham's own declaration about his ethnicity) for years. The page history is littered with the struck-out usernames of POV warriors, and the edit summaries filled with claims of Assyrian ethnicity. This was finally handled in a unanimous Rfc. Mathglot (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Some new user (most likely a sock) keeps adding text to the logo that not part of logo. E.g. here "product of robi" is not part of logo, i am 100% sure. As far i saw, all the promotional, marketing and other materials of Airtel Bangladesh (online & offline) doesn’t include that text (even logo printed on the actual sim card). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Continued vandalism. This is the third page protection request for the same page, the same IP vandal has been at it since at least October 2022. Jpatokal (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – my page being frequently vandalized since last month, thus i want to ask for user page protection. however not talk page protection as i want get a grip of the current vandal who impersonates me. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you confusing your userpage for your talk page? Cause the impersonator vandal is going for your talk page and not your userpage. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654513:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected As the protecting admin is only seldom active at the moment, I have restored access for all. After reading the discussion, and looking at the back and forth over the years, I think this should be discussed via AfD. Lectonar (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Cultural conflicts exist between Thailand and Cambodia. causing some Cambodians Come and edit the Thai cuisine page on Wikipedia. cause misinformation to stray from the truth, so I ask that this page be protected. in order not to cause another mistake to be corrected. 2405:9800:B943:56C7:59D6:9:3AD1:12A7 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Have requested this before but it was declined. However, vandalism has persisted. High level of IP vandalism - IPs keep changing to "twelfth season" for new show despite being warned. Requesting longer page protection for the 2023 upcoming series and maybe a shorter one on the main Frasier article as well? SitcomyFan (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Have requested this before but it was declined. However, vandalism has persisted. High level of IP vandalism - IPs keep changing to "twelfth season" for new show despite being warned. Requesting longer page protection for the 2023 upcoming series and maybe a shorter one on the main Frasier article as well? SitcomyFan (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined I see no great disruption at the moment, and the article will probably end up being merged somewhere. If disruption picks up, please relist. Lectonar (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The article was indefinitely semi-protected back in 2011 by @Fluffernutter:, who appears to be largely inactive. Requesting it be unprotected or pending changes protected as it is rarely edited. The last update, outside of bots or the like or copy edits was in July 2022. S0091 (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Over 4 years has elapsed since protection was applied. I contacted the admin who placed the protection but s/he didn't respond LibStar (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Persistent editing of one sentence by IPs. The edit is grammatically incorrect and multiple users have tried reverting it, but to no avail. Juve2000 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Multiple IP addresses within the same IP range (IP hopping) and a random username editor out of nowhere have been doing the same disruptive edits non-stop. — YoungForever(talk)16:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Ongoing IP attempts to add WP:SYNTH / WP:OR or maybe just incorrect WP:BLP, basically adding the race of a shooting suspect who is a child (not supporte by any sources). Exact same changes being made by different IPs. CT55555(talk) 22:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short disambiguation page for a current slang term, where kids inevitably keep writing in the name of a person who they think it applies to. Belbury (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – A number of (deliberate) factual errors have been introduced to this page in recent days and have been left unchallenged. Unfortunately large unsourced tables like this tend to be a magnet for wikifiddlers. I feel the page needs a much much longer period of semi-protection than has previously been applied to it. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This is a rather recent article, and I count about 2 instances of addition of unsourced material. Not every new user knows about Wikipedia's sometimes rather byzantine policies and requirements when starting editing here. Lectonar (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add to the heading that 'this page has been written by people/a person with a particularly negative view of letting women speak.' Yveyveyve (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: To whom it may concern,
I act on behalf of Mr Tim Dawson, I can provide a letter of authority if requested via email: joy.martin@ex-seed.co.uk
This page includes the false allegation: In 2019, the Guardian newspaper reported that Dawson - a keen supporter of Brexit - was acting as the public face of the pro-Brexit organisation, Britain's Future[14].The organisation was the biggest single UK political advertiser on Facebook, spending £422,000 campaigning for a hard Brexit.[15] The money was spent buying "dark ads" targeting anti-Brexit politicians.[16] Dawson has refused to answer questions about who funded his campaign.[17]
Mr Dawson has never been arrested, charged or convicted of this and we can evidence this with his criminal record. Under Article 17 The Right to Erasure this must be deleted because it is Inadequate, it is not an adequate representation of him as an individual nor the nature of events. It is excessive as it suggests he is guilty of a crime. It is irrelevant because he has never been convicted or investigated of this and a significant amount of time has passed since. It is inaccurate too. This must be removed. We have edited this out multiple times but one individual under the name: Garnett F has been reposting it despite this breaching guidelines.
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article has sustained repeated vandalism by mostly school IPs, likely targeted as it is studied in some sort of school curriculum in multiple states. CutlassCiera15:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: I have a reference link for the early life section of the page and I want it to be used in the page Raqib Zaman (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is this is intended to be targeted at Rishi Sunak like the other two requests on the page, since the target article here is on a Bulgarian village. What's gotten him into the news recently? —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 16:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Many of the information in the article are not true and hence, the article needs to be correctified Alison Johnson Smith (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't know how much it will help, because a lot of the problem edits are coming from auto-confirmed users. MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – The Sarah Bulley case is being repeatedly added without adequate sourcing. It has been ongoing for a few days now. I am pretty sure there is some socking going on too. Betty Logan (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., indeed, the last non-reverted non-autoconfirmed edit was in August 2022, about 70 edits back.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: User "Trincao" keeps reverting the notable information about the fraudulent activities of an award winner. Grouptheorist (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there is a history of one editor abusing multiple IPs to edit war in the same change, over and over. Previous IP bans and protections expire and so he is back again. An indefinite page protection is required to prevent the cyclical edit wars and rush to report the same editor. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Edits which display different opinions about the lenght of the plot, or the content of an article are not automatically vandalism, so please don't label them as such. Engage the other users on the article talk-page, and try to find consensus please. Communication via edit summaries is rarely effective. Lectonar (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The article is already extended-confirmed move protected. One user belonging to this category moved the article, possibly because they didn't notice the discussion. A polite message (rather than this accusation of move vandalism) might prevent repetition. Favonian (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. – Edit warring. A similar IP with the same behavior appeared last summer. Lone-078 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: IP users were vandalizing this page that's why it was protected for around a week after I requested for a protection here. When it's protection expired earlier, IP users are back again doing unnecessary edits making us revert them. I'm requesting for a higher protection to protect the integrity of the article. Thanks. Mr. Kenshin (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To create วีรชัย เหล่าเรืองวัฒนะ (Weerachai Laoruangwattana)
The politician from elected candidate of Bangkok Governor (Thailand) in 2022,the newbie’s politician,who didn’t have any cutouts but got 20,749 Votes (8th Rank) by his policies.
For 2023, He presents the new 3 policies from the New Alternative Party to resolve the Thailand Major problems.
1. Work from home campaign to resolve traffic problems and theirs consequences such as PM2.5 pollution.
2. Anti corruption with AI and Blockchain
3. Educational Applications for every people to reduce the educational gap between rich and poor. WeerachaiLao (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Article has attracted an increased level of vandalism this month, possibly due to his reaching a scoring threshold recently. I'd like to see more than a standard duration/level of protection, if possible. PKT(alk)23:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This is a preemptive request. Miller was just named by police in relation to an open murder investigation involving a teammate (more info here). GPL93 (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Users have repeatedly tried to alter details about the number of children had by the article's subject. Anderson's first child is documented in reliable sources that are included in the article, but no reliable sources have been presented to back the claim that he has a second child. This seems like a clear BLP policy violation. — Paper LuigiT • C17:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. While a lot of the edits in the history are disruption or reverts, the more salient thing is that the article is only being edited once every few days to begin with. Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. It happened days ago, when an IP is fighting over between mulitple editors. CastJared (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Vandalism, and someone has been spreading misinformation in the page about the person being of Bengali descent only, the person said himself in an interview that his family is from both Bangladesh and India, and thus he is both of Indian and Bangladeshi descent, but someone keeps editing it and changing it back to "Bangladesh" or "Bangladeshi" only and it has been going on for about a year, so I suggest this page should be locked down for protection and to stop misinformation being spread continuously. 43.245.123.52 (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Protection of this page is detrimental to the page, as it's missing a bunch of important information, and is heavily outdated. I'm requesting unprotection so the page can be edited by anybody who knows info about the park, as it seems most people on here don't know enough info on it to edit the page. 2601:14F:4400:83D0:E052:1E55:65DA:EC3F (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Because there are informations on this page which are outdated and are needed to be fixed.
23 February, 2023
Re: Edits to the "restricted" article on Wikipedia entitled "Muhammad in Islam"
To Whom It May Concern:
The protection allotted this article is no longer necessary because it has clearly been stated in the sacred writings of the Baha'i Faith that the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is regarded as the "Seal of Thy Prophets and of Thy Messengers", this quote from Prayers and Meditations by Baha'u'llah: XXV, written by Baha'u'llah, co-founder of the Baha'i Faith and Himself a Manifestation of God. The foregoing established, it is misleading to represent Muslims as the only religious group to share this belief.
Temporary semi-protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. Persistent addition of WP:MBFC by IP despite several reverts, please either protect the page or block IP range — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: There is a history of IP edits being repeatedly made, dating back at least to September 2022. The edits are unsourced, do not follow Wikipedia editing guidelines, and are a continuing edit war describing who is, and who is not, in the group's line-up. Despite my reversals, edit summary comments, and leaving notes at some of the IPs talk pages, the edits continue unabated. Maybe a week of semi-protection would send the IPs elsewhere. Thanks, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: A number of different IP addresses have been removing sources, overwriting information and making unreferenced changes. It's difficult to engage with them when they have roaming IP addresses. Sionk (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Can I get access to edit the page, I just want to add information with links but I cannot update the page.
I won't anything false or misinformation. Chameleon 97 (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Sockpuppetry. The previous protection does not appear to have discouraged this IP hopping vandal as they simply returned. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This is a University IP address, and we need it unblocked after it was wrongfully blocked for no reason given to us. It is against the rules of our University to ban and/or block ANY of our IP addresses here, as our students require the usage of them for their studies. Because it was a wrongful IP address "block" in the first place, giving our IP address page protection was especially unnecessary! In other words- it was never needed to begin with! Factchecker994 (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Wrong venue. This does not concern page unprotection, but IP address unblocking. You've already found your way to User talk:24.78.138.224 where such requests belong. Please be advised that Wikipedia is not subject to the university "rules" you quote above. Favonian (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it DOES concern page unprotection, as many of our University's students have tried to edit our IP address's page at the request of our school's higher ups, as it says that we need to request page unprotection in order to be able to edit it! We have numerous users here, and we require that we be able to use the IP address! Oh- and EVERYBODY is subject to our University's rules, whether you know it or not! Factchecker994 (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page is absolutely protected- I even shared the EXACT message that comes up whenever any of our students or faculty members try to edit our IP address's talk page! The dean of of University is working on getting the IP address unblocked, so it was left to me to do this part! PLEASE tell me you understand that at least! Factchecker994 (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what it says anytime any one of us students log in and try to edit our school's IP address page! "This page is currently semi-protected so that only established, registered users can edit it.
Why is the page protected?
While most articles can be edited by anyone, semi-protection is sometimes necessary to prevent vandalism to popular pages.
The reason for protection can be found in the protection log. If there are no relevant entries in the protection log, the page may have been moved after being protected.
What can I do?
If you have a user account, log in first. If you do not yet have an account, you may create one; after 4 days and 10 edits, you will be able to edit semi-protected pages.
Request that the page's protection level be reduced.
Find out more about how to get started editing Wikipedia.
If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple, non-controversial change, please check the talk page first in case the issue is already being discussed. If the issue has not been discussed yet, you can submit an edit request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. Make sure to clearly describe which page your request is about, and which change exactly you are requesting.
If you wrote any text, please save it temporarily to your device until you can edit this page." I myself should have the ability to edit such a page, as I have over 10 edits, and have been here for longer than 4 days, but I still get that message if I try to edit our IP address's page while logged in, which shouldn't be possible, as like I said, I have over 10 edits and have been here for longer than 4 days! It said to come on here and request page unprotection, so that's what I'm doing! That's what I had to do! Factchecker994 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are unable to do that on the talk page, if anyone of our students try to edit anything on the talk page, it says- as follows- " "This page is currently semi-protected so that only established, registered users can edit it." That is exactly what I am, but for some asinine reason, even I cannot do anything on the talk page, which is why when it also said "Request that the page's protection level be reduced.", I knew I had to do that here. If I could've done it on the IP address's talk page, I would've, but despite being an established, registered user, I am unable to do anything on the talk page! Now do you understand the problem? Factchecker994 (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't "kind" advice though- it was rude and completely uncalled for! They also didn't realize that I had to come on here AFTER I was unable to do this same thing on our University's IP address talk page because it's protected. The fact that I am the one who has over 10 edits and has been here for over 4 days means that I myself should've been able to ask for this sort of thing on our IP address talk page, so it's baffling to me that I am unable to do that there despite having the qualifications to do so. That smells... fishy, wouldn't you say? Factchecker994 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page for our IP address has a notification saying that it is a semi-protected page. It didn't say that yesterday. Maybe it was done in error, maybe it wasn't, but regardless of that, it is indeed protected now! Factchecker994 (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: We students and faculty members cannot edit our IP address's talk page, if we try, we get the following message- " "This page is currently semi-protected so that only established, registered users can edit it." I myself am an established, registered user and yet I am unable to edit the talk page for some reason. As such, we CANNOT request this on our IP address talk page, because no one can edit it. If we could've done that, we wouldn't have needed to come here to do it! However, considering it also said "Request that the page's protection level be reduced.", and we are unable to edit anything due to that, I had no choice but to come here and request it- I hope you can understand! Factchecker994 (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you were told last time, your account does not meet the requirements for autoconfirmed yet (10+ edits and 4+ days). Be patient. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 16:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The page was literally created yesterday. There has not been any disruption so far. And if the idea is that there will be, we never do this on the expectation there will be. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent disruptive edits/edit-warring in the lead by a series of IPs, one of which (130.223.161.94) has already been blocked, but disruption continues via others. (If relevant for context: IP edit-warring or vandalism in the lead have been intermittently recurring since September 2022, page was previously protected for this in October 2022.). R Prazeres (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Multiple IPs originating from Tunisia (maybe LTA as denoted by Magitroopa in this this diff however I'm not sure which LTA it belongs to) persisting adding promotional content linking to videos uploaded on probably their YouTube channel. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)17:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:Temporary full-protection - slow motion edit war that's sped up a bit as of late; none of the editors involved have touched the talk page from what I can see. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 18:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The last request was denied a few days ago because there was not enough activity, this page is still getting vandalized via doxxing, using unreliable news articles to post potentially private and/or unreliable information, particularly by user 2002:5969:DBA5:0:0:0:5969:DBA5 SturmFernmelder (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anachronist, thank you for the protection, but could you please undo the last edit you made? It states "Zack Hoyt" for Asmongold, which comes from an unreliable news source that uses incorrect information (i.e. wrong birth date) and shouldn't be used to rely on the name, as there is no reliable source supporting it and Asmongold never confirmed his name, other than his first name, Zack. It would be great if it could be removed in order not to potentially dox him, as this may be private information that he wouldn't want to be shared, if it were his true name. SturmFernmelder (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a page about a city councilor in Chicago. This is not a high traffic article, there's practically no content disputes, and I'm the only person whose edited the article in like 2-years. I don't believe an extended confirmed protection is necessary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk03:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – One blocked user has been adding edits that does not follow the neutral point of view. Now, at least 7 different IP addresses have been doing similar things that the blocked user has been doing. Layah50♪ (話して~!) 07:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – I have warned a Tunisian user to quit adding content from a translator and they wouldn't listen. It's been happening since August. I have corrected all major errors and those edits stood, with the warned Tunisian trying to put them back all the time. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The user is حمد أمين الطرابلسي and they just love ignoring warnings. Request to block them as well, indefinitely. They edit warred with me before the World Cup last year on this page before finally agreeing to leave it the way I had it. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Indefinite semi-protection. A dynamic IP has been inserting incorrect information onto this page for years. There is an open invitation for this person to discuss their point of view on the talk page, which has not been adhered to. Instead, the user has turned to adding swear words to the page or threatening me. I've seen pages be indeffed for over a decade for reasons that were shorter-term and less WP:NOTHERE than this. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been protected multiple times for the exact same reason: BLP violations. Even though the most recent protecting admin isn't active, the other admins are. @Ged UK:@AlexiusHoratius: please give it a look. Possibly the news about her has died down enough that it's safe to unprotect. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – For about two weeks now, page has been consistently hit with an IP hopping anon who introduces deliberate factual errors via egg links. Millahnna (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since this is the first time this article has been protected, and the registered accounts used by the sockmaster have both been indeffed, and the socking has continued only with IPs, I do not see ECP as necessary at this time. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been going on for a long time, so it would need a very long term talk page protection. Wouldn't archiving it so they don't see it anymore and think it's gone be more effective? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia must never be used and/or misused to harass anyone. Especially anonymous or non-notable individuals, or any person or individual of the private public at large. Edits constituting harassment such as the ones you have been making to harass RDJ, his cousin, who happens to also be his personal assistant, and other connected celebrities with this particular talk page. Your reverts, well over the three revert rule now, constitute harassment of this individual. Edits constituting harassment WILL BE REVERTED, DELETED, and EDITORS who engage in harassment are subject to BLOCKING AND BANNING.
This WP: HA policy applies to ALL Wikipedia editors, and Wikipedia administrators who engage in harassment, as well.
The harassment noted includes actions by a handful of Wikipedia editors calculated to be noticed by the target(s) and the specific named celebrities, and it IS clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place with the non-noteworthy private individual, and the celebrities named in the discussion. Editors MrOllie and ElKevbo are guilty of harassment in this matter and their harassment continues unabated in violation of the Wikipedia policy WP: HA pertaining to harassment. Suggest blocking or banning user MrOllie and user ElKevbo.
Reason: High level of unregistered users (IP addresses) vandalism. I don't know if it's possible but I request a WP:SEMI because this type of vandalism "appears and disappears" in waves. Thank you. Blahhh23 (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism (IP repeatedly changing the text to say the opposite of the sources used for the sentence.) Jeppiz (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Swiatek is really popular with her win streak, No 1 status and in another final tomorrow. The Polish IP keep removing or adding content over the last week. Can we get a week of semi or maybe ECP protection to see if it dies down?. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent long-term disruptive editing by unrepentant sockpuppeteer Belteshazzar. I suggest a reasonably long period of protection this time given that previous short periods have not been enough to discourage him. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "disruptive edits" are only fixing clear mistakes and removing highly subjective phrasing. Note that the cited source indicates that Ingram was promoted to Major in 1995, yet you keep restoring the version that says 1996. 89.17.214.10 (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a lie. You are making major edits to an article using a proxy IP address after having had many other accounts and IP addresses blocked. You are de-facto banned from editing. Your behaviour is not innocuous and you must know that by now. This isn't just a date change and is it blatantly dishonest to pretend otherwise. DanielRigal (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The date change is an example. The bigger issues are fairly straightforward, and no one has offered a substantive objection, yet you keep reverting just because. 89.17.214.10 (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was right about a single date being wrong which I have corrected but the other stuff he was claiming is wrong. He is being dishonest with some his editing, he may find one mistake on an entire article but then he makes major changes which are not supported by references and marks his edit summaries incorrectly. I have noticed a pattern with this. I agree that the behaviour is not innocuous. Thankfully the article has now been locked so he cannot edit it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: A small group of individuals involved in arbitration (because a research paper alleges manipulation and lies) are the primary editors of this topic. In my opinion the arbitration needs to resolve itself to conclusion while the editors in question should be recusing themselves. To be mentioned in an external research paper for promulgating falsehoods creates a conflict of interest that needs to be recognized as it calls into question the credibility of the platform. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/CaseFlibbertigibbets (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is the only current dispute the rapper/criminal ordering in the lead? If so this is more of a content dispute than a BLP issue, and doesn't warrant page protection. As an aside please also the approaching 3RR. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Might want to protect this for a little while. There's been a recent controversy, and a fair bit of IP vandalism (including some that involve BLPvio). DFlhb (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: When I submitted this using the request unprotection form, it added this page to the category instead of adding a link in the title. I'veFavonian has fixed it, but it may be a good idea for an interface admin to update the code to prevent this from occuring when nominating categories. Zerbu💬20:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't notice it was already fixed, I was going to fix it myself, but you beat me to it. I've updated my comment accordingly. Zerbu💬20:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Disruptive editing by adding unsourced claims to the article. The article was already page-protected in the past. I’m asking for temporary protection. Sricsi (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This is an article about Albanian noblewoman Voisava Kastrioti. Serbian nationalists are claiming her origin as being Serbian without any solid proof, as her origin is unclear. This article needs to be protected and only sourced information to be included in it. IEstiv03 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: ECP expired yesterday, and since then there has been some vandalism, but more importantly it's a very high-visibility page that WP:GS/RUSUKR revolves around. AE is exempt from the no-preemptive-protection rule, right? Heavy Water (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent additions of incorrect/undetermined claims that US was behind the sabotage. Initially by a new editor (who is now participating on talk page of the sabotage article), now by anonymous editors. – robertsky (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: There is no reason as to why a page that is barely checked in a year is receiving confirmed edit protection, apart from that the article currently isn't even a dispute point for which it has its security increased hence it is illogical for a page to recieve such protocol when other deserving pages like Sindhis, Kashmiris and Saraikis have no additional protection. Starkex (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done The lack of protection on other pages is not a valid rationale here. The upgraded protection was applied recently after renewed disruption, and there is a long history of protection. OhNoitsJamieTalk18:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Requesting permanent semi-protection due to persistent vandalism by an anonymous editor (possibly a group) who has been jumping from IPs and throwaway accounts to blank the article. Blanking has been going on since June 2022 and the vandalism immediately resumed on a near-daily basis after the temporary semi-protection expired. In my opinion it is pointless to have editors revert article blanks and restore, review, etc. again and again when the simplest solution is to restore the protection on a permanent basis. Yue🌙00:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Despite there not having been any new sources to reflect a more-current store count than the one from April 2022, various IPs nonetheless keep trying to update it to a more current count in a way not supported by the existing source. (Semi-protection might not necessarily be enough; even during the last semi-protection these changes were still being made.). WCQuidditch☎✎03:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Very high level of IP vandalism with the same pattern: Removing the same sourced routes again and again without a comment by similar IP ranges. Der HON (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Very high level of IP vandalism with the same pattern: Removing the same sourced routes again and again without a comment by similar IP ranges. Der HON (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Edits to the page since May 2022 have almost entirely been vandalism and vandalism reverting, since the page is pretty much to the fullest extent it can be for a list. Johnson524 (Talk!) 16:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed protection: Not even a day after the previous extended confirmed protection was lifted, the article is still seeing cases of disruptive editing. Requesting further extended confirmed protection. HackerKnownAs (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I cannot do this without noting that it probably would be better for the IP user to actually cite some of those reviews if they insist on that wording. Their failure to do so is the only reason I have protected this page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. One instance of disruptive editing in the last 24 hours against almost no edits this month does not, to me, reach a "high" level. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we do template disambigs? I don't see anything in policy at help:template or wp:disambig, so I would be inclined to decline this request, based on the problems that let to the mass deletion of this template and others. Still, willing to hear another admin on if we do disambigs, as templates are not where I usually work. Dennis Brown - 2¢22:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know template disambiguations isn't a thing. It'd be better to add hatnotes to both template pages (state and country) pointing to the other. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 22:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined as inappropriate for this venue. Given that there was a lot of controversy with the deletion last time, there needs to be an RFC on whether or not this disambig is needed. A single admin shouldn't overrule a deletion and salting discussion unilaterally unless it is blindly obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how this works, and in any event this is the English-language Wikipedia. Administrators here cannot help with Hindi Wikipedia-related requests. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 03:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pending changes:BLP policy violations – Article gets two ongoing types of IP edit, and not much else: accurate updates to his current wealth, but also vandalism to say that he's not actually the richest man in the world. Belbury (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Long term problems with this page. There have been virtually no edits by new users or IPs which have not been reverted for being either BLP violations or advertising/whitewashing. The page was previously protected on a few occasions, and there really doesn't seem to be much (or any) benefit in allowing new users and IPs to edit this page. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Seems to be the result of a single fight causing the problem, should be forgotten about by then and folks moved on to the next thing. Courcelles (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by IPs as Eurovision season has started and selection controversies keep arising. Please protect the page until the end of May. Blue Edits (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Recent event, page well watched. Disruption still manageable. Lectonar (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent vandalism – Incognito and IP accounts are edit warring amidst a debate about this article's subject. Proposing Extended Confirmed Protection so that users not logged in and those with a new account may not edit it, and the argument is redirected to the Talk Page. RobotGoggles (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Administrators please protect this page with Indefinite Extended Confirmed Protection as several newly made editors and IP users are doing Unconstructive edits on it since the previous Protection expired. They are editing this page like a personal blog spot or fan page sometimes by adding detailed plot which crosses word limit sometimes by removing/adding/changing cast sequence which was done according to original broadcast. Pri2000 (Pri2000) 19:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: In response to recent reports from the US intel community, the talk page has seen increased IP disruption. This includes sarcastic WP:POINTy comments, like [29] and [30]. While Talk protection is rare, requesting a temporary semi-protection or similar of the page to limit the disruption on what's already a difficult and contentious topic covered under sanctions, until the topic of the day moves on. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism, allegations of criminality (BLP violations) for this controversial and polarising subject. CT55555(talk) 03:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:Here, an IP has added a class of very rare altered edits, it says in the summary
of edits that included photos of the corporate offices and asked a class of questions on the discussion page of another IP about why the Crunchyroll website (the streaming service) was removed from both the infobox and external links when mixing with numerous competitors (section below) since it merged in mid-March 2022, almost barely a year since it began to consolidate into Crunchyroll itself. 179.52.223.99 (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For this, it has partially reverted to the old edition to be able to migrate the bit of history from the Crunchyroll article, the recently merged streaming service and now it sounds confusing to me that it has the same owner with Sony if instead Funimation is still owned by Sony Corporation of America with a joint venture with Sony Pictures Television and Aniplex's Japanese subsidiary in the United States also owned by Sony. And it gets confused by placing the Crunchyroll website both in the infobox and external links. 179.52.223.99 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you want your edits protected and your edits are being reverted by @FilmandTVFan28:. So maybe this is a content dispute and needs discussion on the talk page. I will defer to @Lectonar: or another RfPP reviewer, but I do not see the need. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just replied on my discussion page to the user here It is that I did not disrupt the edition on the Funimation page, in fact, I restored this confusion of Sony and Sony Pictures properties instead of saying that this is the current owner of Sony Pictures Television since 2017. Not Crunchyroll which is currently owned by Sony Group Corporation and Sony Pictures are different things. 179.52.223.99 (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: BLP Policy Violations. Persistent BLP violations concerning amount of children from several IP's, probably the same person. TylerBurden (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: 4 separate IP vandals (probably the same person) in the last month all surrounding the same general vandalism concept. Requesting pending changes for 3 months. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – May need a temp protection since anonymous users keep saying Sizemore has died when he hasn't (officially). MikeAllen15:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Most of vandalism/disruptive edits surrounds changing his name or adding content around him being "Uncle Howdy" and looks like it started back in December so requesting two month protection. S0091 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The pronouns of a non-binary character have repeatedly been changed by IP users in violation of MOS:NB. They attempt to hide it as "fixing grammatical errors" or "grammatical corrections". Patlut (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary move protection: Two improper moves within 6 days of each other. Felt some short temporary protection might be in order to keep the article stable. -. Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprotected – Please create a sourced version of this article in a subpage or your userspace. When this is done, please make the request again, or ask any administrator to move the page for you. (Largely for the bot, but also general advice.) Courcelles (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]