Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by an IP, IP's already been submitted for a block request but figure it may also be worth temporary protection The Kip (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Numerous IP editors are adding primary research in headline news, and ignoring edit history and talk page discussion explaining why the content is premature. The source is not a WP:MEDRS review for such safety information. Zefr (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Still a lot of the same disruption by different IPs from what seems to be the same range. The range seems to be used by a lot of different people, so making a report would be problematic, hence why I think protection is better. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Constant repetition of “not far right” arguments from IPs and new users; normal action like FAQ adding and removing/suppressing disruptive comments isn’t stopping it. Dronebogus (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It hasn't been protected before; I'd prefer not to go indef but, yeah, a good long term is a good idea. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Edits to this page in the past week have consisted of unconstructive edits attempting to remove categories and edit sources on the page, as well as adding unsourced material that directly contradicts sourced material on the page.
Currently, the talk page is devoted to resolving contention over category placement; it would be best to protect the page to prevent further disruption until the topic is resolved. Panian513 00:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Declined For now, disruption isn't that great, so protection isn't needed imho. Discussion on the talk-page should continue, some more people to have a look at it would be nice; consensus would be more reliable then. Lectonar (talk)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continued disruption by his apparent followers. This request was rejected some hours ago but with the note that request can be made again if disruption resumed.[6]. Editorkamran (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page needs to be unlocked as per current UK law According to a 1917 law from King George V -- also known as the George V Convention or 1917 Letters Patent -- the children of a Sovereign and the children of a Sovereign's sons are entitled to HRH style titles and the distinction of a Prince or Princess prefix to their name. Per law in the United Kingdom, both Archie and Lilibet are entitled to use the title as prince in princess. The only titled are not entitled to use is HRH or his/her Royal Highness as they are not working Royals. The person who keeps editing this page and locking it and removing prints by the name of Dr. Kay is 100% wrong and should absolutely be restricted from editing Wikipedia Asher information is incorrect and not valid.
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Lectonar (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The article has been vandalised by IP users since the subject's marriage. There are many edits involving removing her infobox image which has been repeated multiple times over the time. Rejoy2003(talk) 05:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Exactly....pending-changes working as intended. Waves back at Deepfriedokra. Lectonar (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – There are recent levels of vandalism from IP users on this page. I think that this page should be Pending Changes protected in order to give the readers accurate information. It will also protect the page from vandalism and other disruptive edits. Protecting this page will also stop future vandals. DDMS123 (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually debating requesting protection earlier, but decided against it since all the edits in question are from one user who has since been indefinitely blocked, not counting UtherSRG's (understandable) knee-jerk revert of its removal earlier today. Any request for protection would be rejected on that basis alone unless and until a new account starts it back up again. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 23:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph of "Public image" the third sentence begins "He later created the fitness appCentr".
Change "appCentr" to "app Centr". SwedishShrimp (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined As it is only one user, protection isn't the way to go here. The user has already been warned, so report them to an appropriate noticeboard. Lectonar (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Please use the article talk-page to make that request; the article is fully protected to further discussion on different topics. Lectonar (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit from JtC – I tried broaching it with the administrator who locked the page and they directed me here
Yes...but see above: "Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here....unless the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request". They aren't, so the request on the article talk-page is the right thing to do. Wikipedia is a difficult place to navigate even for veterans. Lectonar (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pending changes protection: Long-term addition of cruft by multiple different v6 IPs with some useful IP edits in between. Ranges are too big to block without collateral damage ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pending changes: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Persistent addition of unsourced date (or not verified by the source given). This has been ongoing by this largely Detroit-based series of IPs since June 2022 and pending changes was temporarily added in October for this exact ongoing reason. The issue resumed once PC expired, and the IP has not used the talk page in any capacity. Aoidh (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. Seems to have had one instance of disruption today, one IP on the 24th, with disruption relatively spaced out. A lot of the reverts are due to content disputes instead of actual vandalism. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done simply because that is a nonsensical reason to unprotect. Other avenues exist to make edits for IPs, including requesting at the talk page, or Request for Edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢19:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken out language that was only inserted a week ago, as it seemed unnecessary and went against much of what the long-standing versions of the article said. Let's see how that goes. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Page has a lot of nuisance and disruptive editing, similar to Graham Potter's. Potter's page was locked for 2 months, to me, that is simply problem resolved. PeachyBum07 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: There seems to be an edit war between unregistered users. No edit summaries, no talk page engagement of the parties. I personally don't edit the article myself and dont know what it is all about but it looks like it's getting out of hand. Calistemon (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Repeat of previous denied request as IP issues have continued since the original request. 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 [13] and [14], through to outright accusations of racism like [15] and [16]. While Talk protection is rare, I'm requesting a temporary semi-protection or similar of the page to limit the disruption on what's already a difficult and contentious area of editing, until the topic of the day moves on. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. There are very few edits from IPs, and more of them constructive are than problematic, at least recently. (The page is being very, very heavily edited.) MelanieN (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid reason to unprotect, that is an opinion. Template doc pages can be vandalised or edit warred upon, etc just like any page. There is no policy that I'm aware of that says they "should not be protected", which is your rationale. Want to take another stab as to why? Dennis Brown - 2¢02:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently template-protected, which, per Wikipedia:Protection policy#Template protectionshould be used almost exclusively on high-risk templates and modules, and this is none of those things (it's a /doc page, and only transcluded in one place). At the time it was protected in 2019, a temporary semi-protection may well have been warranted based on the history, but that protection, were it done properly, would have expired ages ago (since we don't generally indefinitely protect pages unless temporary protections fail to stop the problem), and since all of the disruptive edits in the history were by non-autoconfirmed users no period of any higher protection level was necessary. Looking back, I do agree that the initial request was terser and less detailed than it should have been, probably because I subconsiously assumed that the responding admin would be familiar with template namespace conventions. * Pppery *it has begun...03:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Article was semi-protected indefinitely in 31 Aug 2011 after a long chain of IP vandalism here. Fast forward to today however, I feel we should open up the gates to IP editors once again, given how quiet and calm things look in the history of the article now.
Somewhat Done I have lowered to pending-changes protection, as I somehow think the quiet in the article history is due to the protection of the article. Lectonar (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Hii, many ip address user added missleading info like fake web info- contact etc. i think we need to protect this leading hindu temple page. thank you Wiki97828 (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Admins, please take a look on this page and do some action for protecting it from IP users. The page was recently protected for 2 days and now expired but still facing persistent vandalism by IP users of opponent political party. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Hello everyone, After the opening of "World of Winners" to entrants located in Singapore, certain edits has been made by a user with a goal to mislead other entrants. The edits pertained to the year of the airline's founding as it was one of the three questions. I hereby ask an admin to lock and protect the Wikipedia page until the campaign is over. Chaussettesarchiduchesse (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Last edit before the revert today was 4 months ago. Protecting it now wouldn't do anything. Courcelles (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined I see a disagreement between you and at least another user concerning the existence of a separate page for this award for the year 2023. Until now, the article really hasn't enough sources for a separate page; a redirect to Star Awards would make sense until we have enough sources. Protection will not solve this underlying problem. Lectonar (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Create protection: Repeatedly recreated – This title has been used multiple times to attempt circumvention of the protection on Priyanka Choudhary (currently full-protected for a year). Similar protection on this title seems prudent given the history of the subject here. --Finngalltalk16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: This page is related to a election so please protect this page to prevent the entry of unofficial data. Bdm166 (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This page could be better edited by viewers of the play and fans, creating a better, more in-depth, and more accurate page. HeNrY99SH (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done It can be edited by viewers of the play and fans if they create an account and establish a track record of productive edits. Alternatively, those without accounts may make an edit request on the article's talk page. Given the recente history of protection on this page, I see no reason to lift it now. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: It's been in the news that Golladay is expected to be released on March 15th (first day of the new league year). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and some people have mistaken a rumour for being official. There have been what appear to be 4 unique individuals that have changed his team status over the past few days. Requesting PP for 2 weeks so that we can get past the March 15th date. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Since March 1, 2023, the page has been continuously vandalized (twice) removing vital information by anonymous users with only IP addresses. Heymikky (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The page does not need protected as she is a Curling athlete. I believe this page was protected in air. Please unprotected it as I have some edits I noticed need done to it. 72.39.178.211 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Her being a curler has no bearing what-so-ever on whether or not an indefinite semi-protection is justifiable, as explained above. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 23:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Target is frequently changed. The plural form "Mouses" refers exclusively to the computing device, yet many users insist on changing the target to something else. ANDROS1337TALK22:26, 2 March 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 IPs reverting disruptive edits by other IPs, and all in all not much editing activity overall. Lectonar (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because it is protected but does not need to be as this is not a president or another high level person and is a Curling athlete. There for the page should be unprotected 72.39.178.211 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a compelling argument for unprotection in the slightest. A better one would be arguing that the protection - which is the first one in the log - is indefinite in duration. However, given the edits that triggered it, biographical concerns would justify it. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 20:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m trying to edit Kaitlyn Lawes Wikipedia page because there are errors I noticed on it. She is a curler and I know they are errors because I follow this sport very closely. I would like to make the changes but can’t because the site is protected. The changes I’m trying to make are the following: the current Curling Club is St. Vital CC, it should be Fort Rouge CC.
This is the link to the incorrect info
St. Vital Curling Club
this is the link to the info i want the incorrect info replaced
Fort Rouge Curling Club
and finally the link to the site the changes need to be made on
Kaitlyn Lawes 72.39.178.211 (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because the page has so much wrong written about the the Kathi Rajput, while they were once ruling the whole kathiawar. They are compared to peasants. Whoever has edited this page has written unsupported information which is also disrespecting the Kathi Rajput Community . 184.148.134.239 (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism that has persisted for months, adding false information (some of which is quite inappropriate as they're referring to incest)DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Continued refusal by drive-by fans (including a warning on talk page) to neutrally source a story not confirmed outside of YouTube videos (group and several members are permanently suspended from the site thus said video shouldn't even exist in the first place). Nate•(chatter)04:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Disruptive editing regarding caste background on this biographical article has started-up again after its prior page protection expired earlier this year. Same pattern of an editor (User:Amangarewal) insisting on disruptively changing the caste background on this article, he has already been warned. Check the protection log here. ThethPunjabi (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I would normally call this a borderline content dispute, but seems doubtful the IP in question is going to fruitfully discuss it on Talk. Steven Walling • talk23:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: After an admin fully protected this page for around 1 day, all protection now seems to have been removed. Please bring back the prior level of protection. There's also been some vandalism. Nythar (💬-❄️) 22:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Violatios of 3RR after being warned may result in a block, but this is a good faith editing dispute, so page protection is not warranted. Steven Walling • talk23:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Please protect this page with Indefinite extended-confirmed users level as again several new and IP users did Unconstructive, fan-based and unsourced edits on this page.
Pri2000 (User talk:Pri2000) 18:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Longer temporary semi-protection. Recent article came out of a one week semi protection from random IP drive by vandalism. Again occurring, possibly needs longer semi protection given the Houston Astros sign stealing scandal. Already reverted three times with a fourth needed. Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Presumably the same LTA constantly trying to insert the same source-contradictory edit through, like, 10 different IPs so far. Has been protected in the past [18]. Article doesn't see much activity at all outside the back and forth with the LTA, so I'd request an autoconfirm protection to be a bit longer-term. Juxlos (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: An unregistered editor that uses multiple accounts/IP addresses is persistently vandalizing this Talk page. The page was semi-protected for a few days but the editor has returned now that the page is not protected. ElKevbo (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High Level of Ip and one purpose accounts vandalism. For about a month now every 6 to 7 days some one purpose ip or accounts appears and vandalise the page. I am asking for page to be protected or for an admin to put it on watchlist page. Thank you Theonewithreason (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: I want the cris mj article to be protected so that it cannot be edited, having only protection from office actions 186.21.15.22 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pending changes may be warranted next, since this article is gross enough as it is and all anyone seems interested in is adding more pictures. Steven Walling • talk06:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Generally the vandalism uncritically and unqualifiedly repeats truth claims made by the church, such as how it was founded by Christ himself, or it is Christ’s church on the Earth today.
Indefinite semi-protection: Discretionary sanctions (critical WP:ARBIPA biography) – Continued BLP policy violations after last protection expired. This page is a continuous target for drive-by politically-motivated edits and pending changes mostly had to be reverted. More than a year after he's exited public life, there's no sign that that's going to change. WP:ARBIPA contentious topics procedure can be invoked. 25stargeneral (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Apologists for the Marcos family are making bad faith edits in service of the propaganda film's historical revisionism Nono111111z11z55 (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Apologists for the Marcos family are making bad faith edits in service of the propaganda film's historical revisionism; Disparaging and twisting history to make a national hero, Benigno Aquino, a villain to promote the dictatorship of the Marcos family. Nono111111z11z55 (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, especially from users changing the "call-out order" section of the article based on "spoilers" spread on the internet or their opinion on the competition result. Anthonyleonard1 (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Numerous repeated attempts by IPs to insist that the "file information" date must, without exception, be identical to the upload date (which in reality does not always need to be the case). WCQuidditch☎✎18:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Repeated IP vandalism - anonymous Liverpool FC fans vandalising with factually incorrect information JakeFassam (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Surely you jest? That article hasn't existed since 2014! (Administrators on the English-language Wikipedia cannot use admin tools on other projects unless they have those rights on that project - in which case you need to make the request at that project and not here.) —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1, the proper name is Muhammad PBUH
2, PBUH should be added with every Muhammad written
3, imp of this is solely religious and islamic as muslims send blessing upon the Holy Prophet PBUH
4, All articles with islamic mentioning of the Prophet should be changed to Muhammad PBUH Abdullaharif1 (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the title wises of Muhammad should be changed to wives of Muhammad PBUH
PBUH should be added to every Muhmmad in article , the proper way to write the name Abdullaharif1 (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the proper way to address the name Muhammad , ie the Prophet way of islam is Muhammad PBUH or use fdfa , press alt x on microsoft word .
if Buddha can written for buddhism , kings be referred with their titles then its completely unfair in this regard .
hence you should change it . ill change it for all the islamic articles personally if i have to and allowed Abdullaharif1 (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent disruptive editing/edit warring - was protected in early February, but the disruption returned after the protection expired. BilCat (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by IPs and new users over a number of years. Being a DAB page, even more reason to restrict to experienced editors. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. A disruptive edit every few months is not enough disruption to warrant any kind of protection. I have watchlisted. Lectonar (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: please remove the extended protection from the article about the invasion of Ukraine . And you will make sure that the phases of the invasion are updated in the article . And then the phases stopped updating in the article . Just like before . Kiriuxa2002 (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – The page is not protected, but if you want the redirect replaced with something else, you'd better submit a draft through WP:Articles for creation. I do believe you've been told this once or twice in the past. Favonian (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Continued edit warring from IPs and users attempting to whitewash the film as factual without any provided sources. I believe this is happening again due to the recent release of Darryl Yap's latest film Martyr or Murderer. Maybe it would be a good idea to lock the page for a month or more, just to wait until the hate between political sides die down. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated insertion of POV and unsorced content. Range block of IPv6 editor might be an alternative. Sjö (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of the same IP vandalism - steady removal of the same, sourced content. IP users have been warned about it becoming vandalism but do not care. Page has been already protected a few times because of that. Der HON (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: IP is regularly removing info from the lede, which is sourced in the prose, because I don’t think it fits their ideology. Seasider53 (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: I already applied for page protection, but it sadly got declined - and the vandals have just striked again afterwards. Same IP ranges as always (89* and 79*), same content vandalized.
Quite unfortunate that one does have to steadily keep track on a handful of pages just because of those. Der HON (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Can this be semi-protected? A sequence of IP editors (I am guessing a single person with an unstable IP address) keep restoring a large graphical table of colors which is original research not supported by reliable sources and is also out of scope for the article. They refuse to engage on the talk page or attempt any community consensus, instead revert warring and throwing insults into their edit summaries. jacobolus(t)23:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Blanking, illegitimate, reverting to vandalism. I have tried to follow the vandalism guidelines but messed up, I apologize for that. I'm not being paid. The person doing vandalism is removing important information instead of adding links which were easily found on Google. 2600:1700:CEF0:4EF0:A5BF:1B9D:3F70:6744 (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended protection: Sockpuppetry. This page was previously protected by an administrator because of persistent disruptive editing by sockpuppet users, and as soon as the protection expired, they returned and started editing the page. It would be better if we protected this page again to prevent any further disruptive editing. Thanks! Waqar💬07:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Tucker Carlson presented selectively edited J6 videos on his show tonight that led to dubious assertions that led to editors attempting to include them in this article. soibangla (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Temporary semi-protection due to another uptick in vandalism. The edits always pertain to the PTI party in Pakistan, made by several anonymous IP editors or new, throwaway accounts. I think this list article would benefit greatly from permanent semi-protection, as its scope invites targetted vandalism. Every time the temporary semi-protection expires, a new wave of vandalism begins. Yue🌙07:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Some low level, but persistent IP disruption to edit the article against the flow of the recent move discussion and consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An editor, suspected to have close connections with the subject, is adding content which are casteist or eulogizing in nature. jojo@nthony (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An editor, suspected to have close connections with the subject, is adding content which are casteist or eulogizing in nature. jojo@nthony (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Recently it was many strange edits, content removals by anonym IPs, and 3 wiki users already reverted those edits. Could you increase the protection of the page? OrionNimrod (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Please semi-protect this user page indefinitely because of vandalism and potential impersonation (even in the far future). There really is no reason for this page to be left unprotected. Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've indeffed the vandal, at least. (Guess what, they made 10 pointless little edits to their userpage to get autoconfirmed.) Definitely NOTHERE. Bishonen | tålk13:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Reason: Since December 2021, on at least 7 occasions, an IP has added a series of 5, 6 or 7 unsourced and implausible names to the cast list. GrindtXX (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Repeated and persist editing by IP and non-confirmed users. Edits contradict all listed sources, and no alternative sources are given. HistorianAJG (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Multiple IP addresses trying to add final results and winner for a match that won't be played until March 12. (Please protect through March 12.). Schazjmd(talk)17:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: In many cases, content contains inaccurate or erroneous information. (Since other large articles about the Russo-Ukrainian War have an Extended Confirmed Protection, this should also be considered here)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Persistent vandalism and disruption now that the Formula One season has started, recently expired protection as well. TylerBurden (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It's unusual to protect a talk page for such a long time, but the vandalism here has been relentless. MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Immediate protection required as the page is subjected to non constructive editing by multiple IPs and new auto-confirmed accounts. Unverified content and promotional-personal images are being added on the page without any discussion on the talk page of the article. It degrades the quality of the article. Kindly intervene and increase the protection of the page for few days. Thanks.
Kridha (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Johnny Au, sorry, is that a joke whose punchline I'm missing? Because that is not a thing that we do. Semi-protected for a period of 2 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C03:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. That is not a reason to reduce protection, that is a reason to propose a change on the talk page with a proper edit request. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotection: Move prot, in 2009, was to prevent 'page-move vandalism'. This was done on one occasion, and as far as I can tell has not occurred since. Meanwhile, the protection hinders RMPMC/RMNAC closures. Silikonz💬23:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist, sorry, my bad, I meant to say that it only occurred once before protection, and the offending user was blocked. The RM I am talking about is the current one, which is pending move (closure completed). Silikonz💬00:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Since March 1, unknown IP users have continuously vandalized the page, repeatedly deleting vital information about the group. Heymikky (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creation protectedindefinitely. I salted "Pari Choudhary" and "Draft:Pari Choudhary". I suggest looking at the draft article Draft:Priyanka Choudhary to see if it is also a problem. "Priyanka Choudhary" is already salted because it was AfD'ed last year but was recreated. These are two names for the same person. MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Instead of protecting these pages, why not an edit filter for something like this? I think that might be necessary because this isn't limited to specific pages. Just my two cents! Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Even if it is a single vandal they've been quite persistent if you look at the furry related convention articles. And they are able to subvert account creation blocks to so I've proposed and edit filter here if anyone has comments, please discuss at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_21#Furry convention page vandalism.
I think this might be a better solution than indef extended confirmed protection. Obviously, the filter would need to be a little more robust than I've proposed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; in no circumstance do I see ECP being an immediate answer. If they are the same guy, semi would work (takes time to get new sleepers up and running, and it'd give CU a licence to check further socks for more sleepers). If they're not, the filter would work much better. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wow, good catch. I know earlier, I saw somewhat older accounts being used earlier today. And it looks like this has been going on for some time! Not sure what the solution is here. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The solution's most likely a combination of the edit filter, CU (to identify open proxies to block all editing from, registered or otherwise), and blocking with autoblock enabled (to burn open proxies for a while). This is a situation where the only proportionate responce is to hit hard and hit everything. This is basically a calmer Nate Speed at worst. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on the edit filter request, but I may as well say this here: furry hate is not new to this encyclopedia. Even if right now it's just this one vandal, there will be others in the future. Jalen Folf(talk)21:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pending changes protection: Disinformation: red-baiting being inserted into the groups involved in strike. Please also block user behind those additions, which seems to be exist only for disruption. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent vandalism – Every change by an IP editor has been vandalism. As a DAB page, it is rare that an inexperienced editor would add anything useful. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. IP edits today, three weeks ago, a week before that, and before that in June 2022. Disruption this year has also solely come from IPs, so if this page were to be protected, extended-confirmed is too high a level. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. There is disagreement about whether or not to include certain content. Discuss it on the talk page, please. MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – BLP of a neo-nazi. Perhaps unsurpringly, it's a magnet for BLP violations, addition of uncited negative and neutral content. CT55555(talk) 20:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattadjwic:Not done. You didn't read the instructions. You must make requests on Talk:Romania. You make a request here if the talk page is inactive and has not received a response. A request like this would be declined anyway because it is not specific enough. You must specify exactly what text to change, how to change it, and cite sources to support your proposed change. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: As one of the admins managing public information about SB19. On behalf of the wiki team, may I request semi-protection for the SB19 page because of the increasing rate of vandalism this year, 2023. Hoping to grant my request. We appreciate your immediate action. Evotista07:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: May I request Indefinite Semi-protection for this page due to Persistent Disruptive Editing, High level of IP vandalism, and personal details being posted by anonymous IPs for this year alone. Kindly consider this request. Thank you. Evotista (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalisms right few seconds after previous protection expired. Request for longer and/or fixed protection. Riktetta (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There is now multiple people involved in the back and forth. Next stop: talk-page of the article. Lectonar (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Content dispute with unregistered user has led to repeated deletion of the relevant talk page discussion by the user. Blocking is not an option due to IP hopping. Ken Gallager (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Edit warring. 6 revisions at least recently about a death toll being added from a ex presidents speech which is not reliable. Trying to reach a consensus on talk page. Nocturnal781 (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Protection under the names of "Mount Lu" or "Lushan" would be appropriate instead of current article name because "Lu Mountain" is name given without consensus or discussion. Zinderboff (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High Levels of moves by user @Gweilo60 from the original article name of "Lushan Botanical Garden" without any/adequate discussion beforehand, a temporary move protection under the official name of the botanical garden on the official website (http://www.lsbg.cn/) Lushan Botanical Garden would be appreciated to prevent further vandalism. Zinderboff (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this article has been under pending changes protection for a little more than nine years. Its edit history so far this year is a disgrace and I hope the responding administrator strongly considers semiprotecting it. CityOfSilver18:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IP range from Malaysia is back again to continously change the count for acts awarded a first-place trophy from correct figure to incorrect figure. This was also the same reason on why the article was semi-protected previously as requested here. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)14:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Increase from pending changes protection to indefinite semi-protection; vandalism. Scroll through the most recent several hundred edits and you'll see that pretty much every change is either by an anonymous person or by another editor, usually a pending changes reviewer, undoing that anonymous person's change as vandalism. Minnoch, who was the heaviest person ever to live, is a constant target by kids inserting real peoples' names (schoolmates, their teachers, etc.) as vicious weight-based insults. It's practically already semiprotected since anonymous edits always get undone; making it official will just automate what reviewers are doing manually. CityOfSilver18:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas the article clearly sees some disruption, I also see some good IP edits, and it looks to me that at this point semi-protection would cause collateral damage. I would decline.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. the zoonil account is evidently spamming politically motivated image, now from different accounts RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – This article was originally created as a redirect. Multiples IPs and one indef blocked user are creating an unneeded article replacing the redirect. Multiple users have restored the redirect as conclusion is article not needed here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semiprotection for at least a year; slow-burning but consistent insertion of hateful errors. Ja'far al-Sadiq was one of the founding members of the Twelver sect, a group whose adherents number well over 100 million worldwide, of Shi'a Islam. By no honest definition was he a Sunni Muslim. Since roughly last August, anonymous editors have regularly targeted words like "Twelver" and "Shi'a," changing them to "Sunni" or just removing them altogether. This insertion of deliberate errors borne out of sect- or faith-based hatred got al-Sadiq put under pending changes protection by User:DatGuy a month ago. Since then, this article has gotten 11 anonymous edits. Of those, ten got quickly reverted because of the same stuff from before, one was an apparently good-faith change that still harmed part of the article's Arabic script, and zero were actually kept. If I'm being premature on this, so be it but to my mind, pretty much every anonymous edit over the last seven months shows semiprotection will just automate what PC1 reviewers are now doing by hand. CityOfSilver20:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Contentious BLP of cult leader with with history of sock puppetry from members. I believe the latest media attention warrants an individual English wiki bio page for the person. Will appreciate more admin eyes on this page thanks. Michi (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The page is officially managed by the user admin by including formal personal biography of Mr. Amarsaikhan who is the Deputy Prime Minister of Mongolia. Could you please protect this page in a way of avoiding editing or breaking the article anyone? Just an example: unfortunately, someone has deleted a lot of articles yesterday. Amarsaikhan Sainbuyan (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators here cannot action requests for the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia. Request at this page's equivalent at uk.wp. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 20:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow only auto confirmed extended confirmed editors Persistent disruptive editing – Newly created acounts are reverting other editors' edits and they are re adding lots of unsourced information. The vandals are saying (in their talk page) that they will revert it like that again. --Haoreima (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated addition of poor information including blacklisted sources, and changing of sourced material without discussions. >>Lil-unique1(talk) — 12:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism from conspiracy theorists. Google trends (tartaria) as well as the page views show increased interest. Kerubis (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The IP has been blocked for 48 hours. Feel free to appeal to me directly if they should return to the page. Bishonen | tålk17:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Continuous disruptive edits by IP users and other newly created accounts. They keep on doing edits without putting a reliable reference to support their claims so other users keep on undoing these disruptive edits/vandalism. May I ask if a protection can be increased for this page since they keep on coming back each and every time the protection for this page expires. This page had been protected twice but every time the protection expires, these newly created accounts or these IP users keep on coming back and doing unreferenced edits. Good day. Mr. Kenshin (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow only auto confirmed editors extended confirmed users Persistent disruptive editing – Newly created acounts of some users are reverting other editors' edits and they are re adding lots of unsourced information. The vandals are saying (in their talk page) that they will revert it like that again. --Haoreima (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Haoreima: 1. please do not refer to that user as "The vandals"; 2. Please link to a section directly (though WP:DIFFs are preferred) rather than to an entire talk page, leaving us to find the exact thing you're referring to; 3. That user is already autoconfirmed, so protecting it at the requested level would have no effect. Thanks. El_C14:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's been reverting other editors' edits without any explanation again and again. And that's what he is referring to in his speech. He's been warned multiple times by different editors now. I hope he doesn't commit such actions further. --Haoreima (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Unofficial reports of a trade, but IPs are changing the article as if the trade is official. requesting protection for 24 hours HappyBoi3892 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. If this is the sort of thing that happens every couple of weeks, then maybe it would be better taken to AN/I where a variety of remedies besides protection could be considered, and all the evidence laid out and discussed. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent vandalism – I asked for protection yesterday, it was rejected due to optimism that the vandalism would stop following a warning. It has not. This BLP of a neo-nazi is a magnet for vandalism and I doubt that will stop. Re-requesting protection for as long as anyone is willing to give. CT55555(talk) 00:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The request has been handled (declined in this case) and can be archived. Now it can not because the bot checks that the ((rfpp)) template was in the last edit. Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DFO, bad answer! Ymblanter, yes, that's my understanding, too, but I meant wrt it being confusing, as above, when a request concludes with done after being declined. El_C20:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this would indeed make a difference. On the other hand, when I see "requested immediate archiving", I think about privacy violations or death threats. Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: IP vandalism against sources (both Wikipedia-profiled journalists) critical of the subject. Criticism of ongoing criminal investigations against individuals following partnership between the NGO profiled, police, governments, etc. 86Sedan13:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not sure if it's vandalism, POV pushing, tendentious editing - but in any case, protection is worthwhile to quell the disruption. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: I would like the protection level to be reduced to "extended confirmed", and ditto for the talk page (as I am no longer an admin). Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Clear from edit history lots of back anf forth. Many ongoing talk but still an ongoing war in article space. Best lock this up and hope personal attacks on talk stop. Moxy-09:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: More LTA. I had requested page protection earlier this month, but wasn't done as the range had simply been blocked. They have millions of ranges and recently came back with yet another range. At this point, at least a year-long protection would be beneficial. Magitroopa (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism, I represent Filip himself and he asked me to revert and protect his page from defamation. I can provide the necessary information to confirm the validity. Tlustymen (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism from the same IP user under different accounts; adding a character that's not in the show, and would've been added by now if it was in the show. BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended protection: Persistent disruptive editing on a page covered by the general sanctions regime of WP:RUSUKR. Several edits ranging from unproductive to disruptive by non-ECP editors on a topic area restricted to ECP. Curbon7 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. First, while RUSUKR says at B that while ECP is preferred, it is not required. And second I'm not seeing a lot of disruption in recent months, and indeed it seems some of the IP editors are participating constructively. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Not seeing a lot of disruption in recent months" is an oxymoron here because the page was protected until Feb 27. Since unprotection, there were three instances ([44][45][46]) of editors under 500/30 which are at least disruptive-adjacent. Curbon7 (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing from multiple IPs originating from various countries since 2021 and prior. Vandalism, introducing factual errors, adding unsourced content, test edits, whatever you name it, this article has it all. With not much editing traffic from registered editor, I believe indefinite duration is appropriate. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)07:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Repeated possible BLP violations at Cameron Smith (rugby league, born 1983). Various IPs have been adding an ((About)) template to Adolf Hitler for the past month or so without any attempt to explain why. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to WP:BLUELOCK the page to stop the disruption. It's not clear if it's just a single IP hopper a group of people who are doing this, but it's unlikely going to be stopped with just user warnings. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Continuous persistent disruptive editing, namely the misgendering of the figure, from a certain IP user since November 2022 (page was already on protection once due to related activity) LWL12345 (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing – consistently over some months IP users adding same unsourced material which is reverted Silveresc (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct references to Sai as sharp weapons, per the revision made 02:08, 21 February 2023. The description of "Sai" as sharp-edged dagger weapons is incorrect and not in accordance with the visual evidence on the page or crossreferenced articles. The image of a "sharp sai" is a 3d rendered image and inaccurately furthers this problem, as the other "antique sai" images will attest. I also request the page be protected to prevent future changes without proper assessment for accuracy. Wjcollin (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism after de-protection. 4 only in last hours. Page should be protection-increased rather than just one week protected...Riktetta (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Previous long-term blocks, the last one went 6 months. Vandalism always returns when the protection expires. — Maile (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actively engaged with the current IP; I've invited them to self-revert their violation of 3RR. I'm waiting to see what their response is. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Multiple unsourced claims that he is 5'-3", 5'-8", 6'-2, 6'-4" etc. The source we list has him at 6'-0". Meters (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent Vandalism. Multiple people are vandalizing this page, i request a short pending changes protection Nagol0929 (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Talk page was salted for vandalism while the article was a redirect. The article has since been expanded and a talk page is necessary for discussion. – Rhain☔ (he/him) 08:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – This article is the target of sporadic but neverending POV pushing, vandalism and BLP violations from Chelsea FC fans who still haven't got over an incident from a Champions League semi-final 14 years ago. I realise the article is currently in "not enough recent activity" territory but this has gone on for many years and most of these edits come from IPs / new users, with few non-disruptive edits in between, so I am proposing indefinite semi-protection. Too involved to make the call myself. Thanks for consideration. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱09:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If not semi-protection then I suggest at least turning pending changes on - it's happened a couple of times, most recently yesterday, that I've gone to read this article independently of my watchlist and there's been some blatant POV in it that's gone unnoticed. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱09:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Image related disruption from the 41.115.x.x IP range has resumed after expiration of the last 2 week semiprotect. MrOllie (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Probably going to need temporary semi-protection on the article due to unsourced content, and recent vandalism (as it looks like an IP user tried to remove a huge portion of the article and adding in profanity and racism). Edwordo13 (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – This article has been under continuous attack which is disruptive by troll(s) possibly even Ponasenkov himself who want to update it, to show he is an expert on Napoleon. It is the same kind of information every time. It break NPOVs as he is not an expert on Napolean. Looking for permanent autoconfirmed protection. Previous temp protection finished a couple of months ago as its has failed to deter them. scope_creepTalk19:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Last protection was of two weeks and the disruptive edits are spaced out somewhat. If this continues after this protection ends, we can try an even longer period. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈20:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of ip vandalism, one ip started vandalising page, after they got reverted and warned on their talk page, seconds later appeared another one, obvious case of off wiki canvassing Theonewithreason (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Unprotected page is a favourite target of a sock who keeps coming back every few weeks/months. (Reversions visible in edit history) Uzek (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Unprotected page is a favourite target of a sock with history of coming back every few weeks months (reversions visible in edit history) Uzek (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pending changes:BLP policy violations – Unconfirmed accounts seem to be fighting, pending changes will help allow in helpful edits. Paris1127 (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I should have been more clear: protection is not required to prevent disruption because it was never required to prevent disruption. Therefore, I believe it should be unprotected because, from WP:PP, "pages are protected when a specific damaging event has been identified that can not be prevented through other means such as a block. Otherwise, Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors." (emphasis mine).HouseBlastertalk20:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the case for articles more than Wikipedia space, historical articles. The problem is that few people watch these pages, so vandalism can go unnoticed. To me, it's a balance of what is needed to accomodate free editing, but this is a page that isn't likely to be edited, and generally, we don't want it to be edited because it is a historical page on press releases. Since edits can be requested otherwise, I wouldn't unprotect, personally. "As many as possible" would seem to indicate that some won't be unprotected, according to risk, and risk isn't just about recent vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢10:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I would argue that if no vandalism (or disruptive editing of any kind) ever occurred before it was protected, protecting because “few people watch these pages, so vandalism can go unnoticed” is textbook WP:PREEMPTIVE protection. The fact that edit requests exist is no reason to leave a page protected: that logic could apply to any and every page. HouseBlastertalk00:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PREEMPTIVE isn't an inviolate hard rule. The argument given by Dennis Brown suggests that, rather than unprotecting the page, the policy needs an update to cover exception cases of historical pages that should not be edited, or at least say something about risk balance. I, too, don't feel comfortable about unprotecting historical pages that aren't being watched. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected The page has 31 watchers, and has never been vandalized prior to being indef protected 12 years ago. While I can't imagine many legit reasons that anyone would ever need to edit this page, I also don't see why this page would be considered so unusually important that it should deserve an exception to the normal protection policies. I mean, it's just an index page of old press releases. It's not even the press releases themselves; it's a glorified table of contents. The potential damage that could be caused here by the miniscule risk of vandalism is near-zero. With 31 watchers, I don't think that this page would be at any significant risk if it were unprotected. Simply being marked as historical is not a sufficient justification for protection. I don't see any problem with unprotecting this page. Feel free to revert if you believe there is a policy-based reason to indefinitely protect this page. —ScottyWong— 04:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High levels of vandalism seen recently. The contents of this public literary figure's page were deleted in full on 13 March, 2023, and replaced with that of another figure bearing the same name—Faruque/Faruk Ahmed—who happens to be a cricketer, and not an author. Banglabritain (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article is currently pending-changes protected but was semi-protected previously, ever since the expiry of the previous semi-protection, persistent vandalism prevailed again. AP 499D25 (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent IP WP:NOTFORUM violations. An IP user on a mission to preach their brand of global warming is actually caused by gravity! Request 1 month temporary protection in the hope they lose interest. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. People keep changing the name to sh**ting stars when the name is shooting stars Nagol0929 (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Persistent vandalism - not to be a stickler for people wanting to have a laugh and a joke around; honestly I'm all for it, but sometimes, locking a popular page for a week is enough to cool off the issue. Fed up of seeing that he plays for Manchester Utd. PeachyBum07 (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Downgrade move protection to template editors. Unnecessarily high protection that, in my opinion, was done preemptively. The admin who did it is no longer an admin but agrees with the downgrade. MClay1 (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indefinite protection is pretty rare, and generally reserved only for articles that are experiencing extreme disruption over a very long time period. As this page has only been protected once before, we can increase the duration of the protection each time to see if the disruption returns. —ScottyWong— 20:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: WikiEditor1234567123 vandalizes inscriptions in the Ingush language, which means that it contradicts our history, since the inscription should be officially in Ossetian and Russian. Elbrusoid1507 (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. There's a few different issues here: first, is that even if we were to 100% agree with your description of the state of the article in this request, page-protection is not a solution here, as that would keep everyone under a certain number of edits from editing the article (which, if it is going to affect WikiEditor1234567123, would necessarily affect you as well). Page protection is typically only appropriate for pages that are either a) being targeted disruptively by lots of brand new accounts or IPs or b) in an absolute state of chaos between multiple editors. Neither of those apply here, and it seems like the administrator intervention that you actually are seeking is sanctions against WikiEditor1234567123, not page-protection (although I recognize that an editor gave you incorrect advice at ANI due to misinterpreting your request for "protection", so this isn't quite your fault).
The second issue is that, as pointed out by Jéské above, your behavior at the page in question seems much worse than WikiEditor's, and will lead to sanctions against you if continued. The diffs and pages you have provided as evidence here and at ANI are not a sufficient case for sanctions against WikiEditor, and if you had been aware of the contentious topics rules (which apply for ethnic groups of the Northern Caucausus as part of WP:ARBEE) prior to the edits you made at Vladikavkaz, you would be facing a block or topic ban right now. So, take this as a warning to shape up and make sure you are always following Wikipedia's policies and guideline when engaging in contentious topics. signed, Rosguilltalk18:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Since the game series is getting a new iteration, there might be people who add information from "leakers" with unjustified reasons Bigboom97 (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Semi Protection: Persistent Vandalism — obviously the IP address is messing with the good interior picture because the photo by EmperorOfNYC was perfectly fine. 69.200.248.233 (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Unregistered users are constantly adding CS:GO to the list of games using the Source 2 engine, even though that is neither the case nor officially announced, but rather a highly speculative rumor. Arjab (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked – User vandalized their own unblock request, and is likely to keep doing so. Jalen Folf(talk)17:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked: 50.205.182.253 (talk·contribs) blocked by Ponyo. Full protection is almost never indefinitely applied to articles, and I don't think this rises to the required frequency for semi-protection either. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. And as per RW vandalism stats, the analysis ranges from moderate to high so protect the page until April 21st (the day after the show ends) — 9️⃣8️⃣🐯♒️ • (🆃🅰🅻🅺) 00:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection – Consistent vandalism amounting to an average of about 5 vandalist edits a month, usually all from different accounts or IP addresses so blocking will not be effective. — Treetoes023 (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism, especially in adding new statements and edits without properly justifying the source of the information. I also believe some of the vandalism might be targeted politically. PharaohWakanda (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: No disruptive edits from IPs for over three days. The last two IP edits (just before this report) are helpful additions. I'm not closing this request myself because I've nominated the page for deletion and the requester is a new account who has asserted in the AfD. BusterD (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Twice in the past fifteen days, a user (first under a registered account, more recently as an unregistered user) has been writing unsourced and potentially libelous content complaining about this video game developer and their products, specifically WRC Generations (2022). Edits in question include this, this (on the aforementioned game's article), and most recently this. –WPA (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The last 50 edits are almost all vandalism/reversions, with all of them coming from IPs. I think upping from Pending changes protection to semi protection would be better. Vandalism happens roughly every couple weeks or more. Soni (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Pending-changes protectection working as intended...remember the reverted versions do not go live. Disruption not heavy enough for the article to warrant semi-protection. Lectonar (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Prim[reply]
Understood, thanks. @Lectonar: do you have a rule of thumb/something to explain when you'd warrant semi protection for an article like this? (IP Only vandalism at the Pending-protection level. I reckon the protection should stop "working as intended" at a certain level of vandalism, I just don't know what that level would be. There might be more concrete policy at what is called "heavy disruption" but I cant find it. Soni (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Soni: Well, let me just quote a bit of policy: "Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism can be semi-protected. There are no explicit rules that determine the level of vandalism that is necessary to trigger semi-protection. Administrators should use their best judgment to determine if semi-protection is warranted." So it's really a bit within admin's discretion when to implement it; I would be less than candid not to mention that I prefer to solve disruption problems without resorting to protection. An example article that has been semi-protecteded is Indigenous peoples: we had different IPs and freshly made accounts disrupting the article in rather short spans of time, and it was subsequently protected. Keep in mind that rotecting an article should be the very rare exception, not the rule. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that everyone can edit, after all. Lectonar (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This is a high profile page which is subject to periodic vandal attacks which appear coordinated.. In recent weeks there has been an increase in vandal attacks from a number of unregistered accounts. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion would be to include a subheading with the language "Accusations Of Involvement In The Suicide Of Eden Knight", with the text included having language along the lines of
"Eden Knight, in a suicide note released publicly on twitter accused Pocalyko of being one of the parties involved in coercing her to return to her family Saudi Arabia which she claimed lead to the conditions that resulted in her suicide". The Twitlonger which contains her suicide note should be an adequate primary source for the claim by Wikipedia standards.
Besides publishing 'The Navigator' and their accused involvement with the Eden's death the subject of the page is not particularly notable, there has been at least one case where editors have discussed weather it would be better to consolidate the page with the one for 'The Navigator'. While it was decided that consolidation of the two pages was unnecessary I think if Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge the accusation and outcry surrounding it, which are undeniably significant events, at lest in respect to the subject of the page it is failing to be encyclopedic. 122.107.236.88 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion about how to put this in the article now. Until that discussion concludes, this is premature. (I advise every IP involved to read through the archives of Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput to see the problems we as a community are attempting to forestall.) —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 16:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Too big a magnet for disruption and unsourced additions; at need, edit requests can be used on the article talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism, with some edits claiming "Iraki victory" and other edits claiming "Iranian victory". The edits are neither constructive nor factual and have been ongoing for months with no sign of abating 2A01:E34:EC5D:61C0:9403:2F62:81FF:91F0 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Persistent sock-puppet edits. This is now an IP re-instating a banned sock-puppet's edit. This page was semi-protected for a while, but once the protection expired, the edits resumed. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection (or even temporary extended confirmed protection): Lots of IP addresses introducing and removing contentious material, very little talk page discussion. SnowFire (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: IP repeatedly removing sources and content, reverting multiple editors. ([47][48][49][50][51]). Going back some time, all warnings and notifications have just been blanked:
Reason: As soon as protection levels were immediately lifted, one persistent fresh account began adding dates of death without citations. There is already an edit notice, a talk page FAQ, and multiple invisible comments outlining against doing this as well as the explanation for such advice.
Reason: Current protests are creating vandalism on the page. As of March 14rth 2023, the complete introduction was modified with biased paragraphs claiming of a Congress-led dictatorship in the country, which was obviously made by an antigovberment group or leftist protesters. Just as the page in Spanish is protect, I request protection for the English version. Lenoir9898 (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. But FYI, Lenoir9898, what other language projects choose to do over there, usually has no bearing as to what we choose to do, over here. El_C04:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi protection: Changing IPs continually try to insert incorrect information despite multiple warnings. I'd say it's the same person as per WP:DUCK who changes IPs to avoid scrutiny. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP activity that is not competent or actual vandalism. Page has a history of similar activity and previous protection. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:WP:SILVERLOCK requested due repeated IP edits adding unsourced content to the lead of the article. This has been going on for about a week and my guess is that it's just fans of the subject who think they're being cool. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Long history of POV happening at this BLP, with suspected nationalist editing in display. There is the frequent removal of the subject's birthplace and heritage from the article despite this being sourced. I think protection would prevent immediate disruptive editing. Mar4d (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Overwhelming amount of IP vandalism (>1/3 of last 50 edits) since the page's year-long protection expiry this past February (another 1/4 of recent edits went towards reverting said vandalism). Liamyangll (talk to me!) 10:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Ongoing Vandalism, Topic is about the ethnic state for a ethnic group which is under continuous vandalism and disputed edit conflicts, needs increase in protection. Starkex (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Massive sock puppetry issue. Various accounts have been spamming the same nonsense since it was featured.Kumar Alardreept (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting immediate archiving... No worries, and sorry it sat long enough to go stale. (The bot should archive this now if no one else responds.) Courcelles (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Disruptive edits/unsourced contents has been added again since the last protection expired. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Requesting 7 days/168 hours of "pre-emptive protection" - significantly heightened anonymous IP vandalism attempts in the previous week (per banned user CC8200's talk page, a threat is being carried out on the page). ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Note this is not pre-emptive protection (something frowned on by policy) but a response to the article's history. True pre-emptive protection would be protection applied to an article without any recent disruption, only the anticipation of disruption. And that isn't the case here. Courcelles (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeclinedTalk:American Revolution is not protected. As such, you should describe your desired changes on that page and use ((Edit semi-protected)) to request an editor consider them. This page is only suitable for when both the article and the talk page are protected beyond your ability to edit them, which is not the case here. Courcelles (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Bold request for full protection. A group of editors have been trying to change a long standing edit with a major impact on the article without any consensus ( changing historian to biographer) . My repeated appeal to get a consensus on the talk page have been of no use. An temporary full protection and a neutral admin involvement would be ideal. The edit war has been of a low intensity with a span of almost a month and started with this edit - 1 . Razer(talk) 21:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of editing out information that some may not desire. Updated information includes better writing and explanation that benefits readers and researchers. 122.57.69.122 (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 6 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Geoff, this is the first time this page has been protected (also a page of relatively low activity, I note), so an indef duration isn't a realistic outcome. Though, it being a DAB page, makes more severe protection actions than normal more palatable, which I have therefore done. El_C22:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Thanks and I concur with your call on this one. I was a bit flabbergasted by the hijacking, and perhaps I over-reacted in making my request. All is well. Geoff | Who, me?22:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – The history of this page shows persistent disruptive edits by IP addresses, some of which are promotional, and some of which are to add poorly edited or incomprehensible material. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Demi is now using she/her along with they/them pronouns, and the page is using she/her for consistency. There is no longer any reason to keep the page from edited from reliable editors who can keep details up to date (compared to when Demi was using they/them and some editors were making errors), as it would be for any standard Wikipedia page. There are many things to update and it is a hassle having to request these changes or what sources be used to updates information on Demi's career and personal life. HaysonDage (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. That page has a long history of protection, and the disruption went far beyond pronoun fiddling. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Even though there was disruptive editing back in 2005 (where there were 2 options: full or none), I see no reason why this should still be fully protected. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring by persistent faith editor who demand sources and who ignore them once they are given. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}01:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: ECP for one year as a regular admin action. If anyone wants to change and make it a Contentious Topics action, please feel free, but this should stop the immediate problem. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Hi, in the previous 2 years there are many IP vandalism in that page, it is time wasting to the editors to watch and revert them. I suggest the protection of the page. Thank you! OrionNimrod (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. These disruptions are spread out over longer periods, and the article often goes without disruption over days. Let's see if pending-changes protection isn't enough for now. I have watchlisted. Lectonar (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Alright, this is the second time I'm requesting protection for this article. Going to need temporary semi-protection again due to recent disruptive editing. Edwordo13 (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism denying in fact Armenian genocide and the fact that an Ottoman Special Military Tribunal convicted Talaat and sentenced him to death in absentia for subverting the constitution, profiteering from the war, and organizing massacres against Greeks and Armenians. Jingiby (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: A user keeps editing this page to suggest that this phenomenon does not exist, referencing a single source to that effect, in contradiction to the body of literature on the subject. 166.181.85.97 (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Full protection as a blanket thing is not policy any more; admin who protected in 2008 is only sporadically active but I did ping on talk page with no reply yet. There's a pending edit request to add maintenance templates that could better be served by unprotecting the page. Lizthegrey (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bluntly speaking, even back in '08 indef full-prots weren't policy either. My guess is the prot was due to JarlaxleArtemis hitting it. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 01:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Dropped to EC, there’s no real reason for this to be touched often, but sysop only is too hard of a lockdown for this redirect. Courcelles (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection of at least two weeks: requested due to recent edits by IP, with edit summaries of "vandalism". After I removed the edits made, the IP subsequently readded them, which were later partially reverted by another user. The IP then "reverted vandalism" made in the article, including criticism regarding political & human rights in Morocco Mr. Lechkar (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Request semi protection due to edit warring by SPA IP 95.17.250.138 with a clear bias. Inserts autopublication (diff) repeatedly adds a source with one view on a conotroversial issue and removes another with the oposite one. Neither belong in that section. uses personal attacks falsely accusing of vandalism and edit per pay to continue edit warring after two notices in edit summary and my talk page. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Similar problem the page features constantly. We have a certain anon person, who is making live updates only for Sebastien Ogier's selected stats (2023 Rally Mexico currently ongoing). It's disrupive as Wikipedia is not a place for live stats, also while updating 5% of the page without any notice makes it harder for full page update after an event is completed. They are also unsourced as the references used in the article do not make live updates. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Never once has a IP or new user done a constructive edit here. This article is constantly being bombarded by disruptive edits, mainly to do with changing the numbers and result in the infobox. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent vandalism – This page is a battlefield for the edit warriors. One group is removing content and another is adding it here. It is very difficult for patrollers to handle it. [57] Sockpuppets are also involved.Admantine123 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection through end of the tournament (April 3): IPs are continually adding meaningless trivia or generally unconstructive edits; it would help editors if this were to be controlled. The Kip (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Although this request really seems like a pre-emptive request, which we always decline. But it doesn't look from the history like the article is being overwhelmed. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Similar reasons as above, IPs keep interfering with normal edits and adding un-cited/meaningless trivia. The Kip (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. If this is happening, it doesn't seem from the article history like editors are having any problems dealing with it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Radical ideological activists who now have incredible influence over almost every part of western society and its institutions have edited this site for their own political purposes. They prevent anyone disagreeing with their extreme views. I do not think their editing represents fairness or reality. It's shocking that Wikipedia has also submitted to these radical ideologues.. but it does remind me of a certain period in history (the 1930s). Boadicea23k (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Doesn't look like it's affecting the article too much. The IP that made that long string of edits today has stopped. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Request for semi protection. Unregistered users are insisting on inserting a photo into the lead in which the face of the subject of the biography is obscured by goggles, contrary to what a lead photo should be. A girl in Latvia (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Someone is having unproductive discussions on this talk page, attacking other editors and not listening to their responses. Too many different IPs involved to block. AP 499D25 (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Temporary semi-protection. Vandalism - there have been about four reverted edits over the past five hours or so. Mario Molina is the subject of today's Google Doodle in Mexico, the US, Brazil, India, and other countries, so this article is likely to attract additional vandalism over the next day. 73.185.239.90 (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: In the film, the box office numbers are being edited wrongly several times. You can see this in the revision history. This article definitely needs protection. Morekar (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent vandalism – Just see history of the page. It was again disrupted after i restored to better version. There is continuous edit warring by ips and users. Admantine123 (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Since 18:47, 18 March 2023, IP2003:C5:4F2E:E986:6890:A05D:FCE6:8F15 has changed/removed referenced information. A 3rr warning on their talk page has resulted in continued disruption.[59]Kansas Bear (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:Indefinite semi protection. Constant spam. Almost every edit made so far this year has been the addition of spam and its removal. Just from March we have [60][61][62][63][64][65][66] with basically every other edit made being either reverting spam or spam cleanup. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: BLP, we have what looks like the same person using different IP addresses to add the point that she has died recently, has been warned a few times. Maybe she has, but we have no reliable sources on this point. PatGallacher (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Continuous addition of un/poorly referenced material to this BLP of a professional wrestler. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(work / talk)03:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Examples include false claims of him being fired from various offices, changing his name to a Swahili insult, and vandalizing the page with insults. Carlp941 (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: A former director keeps making accusations about the administration of the Center, falsely alleging a “takeover” and using the page to advertise his new venture. I have tried to make neutral edits that neither erase his contributions to the center nor accede to his allegations (though his need to claim anointing by the founding director goes against neutrality in my view, and his new venture is not part of the center). These accusations of “takeover” are unfounded and at least one is (Redacted). This page should be locked so that only Center staff (I am not one) can edit this page. I have tried to make neutral fixes (and in one case erroneously hyper corrected), but a voice that is taking everything very personally keeps changing to a false view of circumstances. If I were you, I would contact current director (Redacted) and ensure that whoever retains editing control fixes the false allegations and has the page locked to prevent further errors. Thank you. KeeperOfSeals (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KeeperOfSeals: That is totally not how it works. You can't lock a page so that only the subject can edit it, because: A. Its not technically possible; and B. We don't do that sort of thing on Wikipedia. I'll take a look at the issue you have raised though. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 03:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. I have blocked both KeeperOfSeals and 2600:1700:5AC1:4C30:0:0:0:0/64 from editing the page indefinitely because we do not know yet what the outcome of the AfD will be. I am not foreseeing a keep, as while the article has an adundance of sources many of them are from the center itself, UK, or the Lawrence newspapers—nothing that, it would seem, establishes broad notability within the field of science fiction as a whole.
But certainly I could be wrong and someone could find and add sources. That would be much easier to do if the page were not being edit-warred over. If I semi'ed the page, it would basically give Keeper the upper hand at a time when the article's very future is in doubt, and given that Keeper's last edit forced the use of oversight on this very page (as well as making an impossible protection request), I do not feel that this sort of deference is merited right now. With a partial block on both, they can discuss their issues on the talk page or at the AfD without edit warring.
The protection will be a fairly short "indefinite" if the AfD is closed as delete, and thus the issues behind it won't matter. If the article is improved and kept, I would have no objection to the partial blocks being lifted should Keeper and the IP resolve their differences. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Persisent disruptive editing. several IPs keep removing the upcoming movies for several reasons. NSAandGCHQ (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. Several ranges by different admins. I don't see any indication yet that protection would be necessary and indeed there are some IPs editing constructively. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I answered in the IP's talk page. Fixing and correcting an article full of mistakes is considered "personal hatred" and "adjustment to a personal point of view", according to this IP.--Alienautic (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Cromwell is a major historical figure in British history subject to controversy (and thus no stranger to vandalism over the years), I would recommend making this page semi-protected indefinitely. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:Semi-protection - We have an IPv6 user who's been cramming what amounts to a treatise on race into the lede of the article and has had those edits reverted for various reasons (mainly being inappropriate for a lede) over the past few days. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 22:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: There is no reason for it to be extended-confirmed protected forever due to a drive-by vandalism attack. Maybe just semi or put it for the rest of the month. 63.92.64.177 (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. It's not "forever"; protection will expire in about 4 days from now. OhNoitsJamieTalk03:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Vandalism, especially from 2600:1700:5ac1:4c30:4d50:e524:219:22a7 and cmckit
Someone has also marked the page for deletion BECAUSE these users keep putting in self-promotional references and not allowing the current staff of the center to maintain a reliable, independent web presence. Please, admin, try blocking these users instead of deletion to allow the center staff to put in an appropriate, neutral entry with independent sources. Thank you.
23.112.95.243 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Why not engage in discussion on the talk page instead of creating instability in the article? ~Anachronist (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit-warring back and forth from a prior consensus with an editor recently attempting to just hide a chunk of lead while violating the 1RR. nableezy - 03:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC) 03:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @Nableezy: Someone is going to have to remember to restore ECP after it expires. I may not be around to do it. Ping me in the event it's needed. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – An article about a video game with in a retrofuturistic Soviet setting, created by a Russian studio, with links to the Putin regime. Has attracted a lot of IP users, POV pushing or downright vandalism. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK07:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. My user page is repeatedly being vandalized by new editors and IPS. If you could give my page protection, that would be wonderful. Waqar💬08:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. OP: be so kind and point out the abuse you see which has been done by autoconfirmed accounts. I went back some months, and see no clear-cut cases for it. Lectonar (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. The recent disruption is from one editor, and other than that there has not been enough disruptive activity. We don't protect a whole article because of one editor. The solution would be to block that account; however, nobody has made any attempt whatsoever to communicate with that editor. I just did so. If disruption persists, report at WP:AIV or WP:ANI. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Repeated removal of a sourced 'Anti-white racism' by IPs, the inclusion is long standing on the page. Discussions have been had on its inclusion in the infobox (happy to discuss further if need be), and IPs will continue to remove the sourced inclusion without reference to the sources, and will instead go down a line of argument that borders on WP:NOTFORUM. I think protections for verified (or something along those lines) is necessary. Alssa1 (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The page is full of misinformation and needs rectifying. It is also being used to defame someone based on lies. If it is not unlocked further action will be taken. 27.253.49.43 (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP, you can always use the talk page to request changes. Be specific about the changes you want, and cite sources to support your proposal. That's the only "further action" you can take. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The protection is no longer nessesary becuase the matter of the figure that is being discussed in the article is no longer of immense popularity. ImTh3TruthT3113r (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthremore, there is also lots of information that needs STRONGER sources, currently all sources bring used on the page have limited to no credibility. Sources are gias and misleading without providing adaquete supports to arguments. This leads the oage to have a false narrative on the person being discussed on the page. ImTh3TruthT3113r (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Your proposed edits were already rejected; why do you think we'd unprotect the page so you could make them anyway? OhNoitsJamieTalk15:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Repeated translation to Spanish by a new user who does not appear to understand the warnings (given now in both English and Spanish) that the content here needs to be in English. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!17:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent unconstructive edits are being done on article by multiple anonymous and new accounts. Kridha (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. @Super Dromaeosaurus: why did you remove my comment and decline for said request, and just inserted a new request with a new timestamp?. The content dispute lies in the fact that there seems to be disagreement about the the reading of the sources. Lectonar (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure that pages outside of the article namespace are not included in the list of pages that can be pre-emptively protected because they are part of a contentious topic. Besides, AfDs are not usually protected unless they are being heavily disrupted, which isn't happening in this case. The administrator that eventually closes the AfD should be able to easily weed out any SPA votes or whatever other shenanigans occur during the discussion. —ScottyWong— 23:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Persistent disruptive editing to the birth date from multiple IPs despite the content already sourced reliably in the body. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)00:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: It's getting pretty bad now after that press conference, constant number of IPs adding unsourced content that he has been sacked. Mwiqdoh (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with unprotecting it. If it's being used in only one place, then it could be merged into that place. @WOSlinker: You protected it. Any objection to unprotecting? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: In the past few days, has been edited by IPs and new editors, changing birthday, adding irrelevant info, changing langvar. Page just had its protection end Feb 28. Some of it was probably done in good faith (ie. the langvar), but the changing of langvar is extremely prominent on this page due to his notability as a soccer player in europe. Had a few other vandalism edits in that time period since as well RedPatch (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pending changes: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – highly controversial subject (assassin of Sunni caliph revered by some Shi'ites) and perennial target of unsourced changes/unexplained removals; not too much activity so PC seems appropriate. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)18:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Reason: Increase protection to at least autoconfirmed (indef) and maybe even Extended Confirmed from pending changes protection because of persistent vandalism from both registered accounts and IP addresses. Also, there might be some sockpuppetry going on in that article - two users, User:Mintbolas2 and User:Kafkabade have been vandalizing the articles by inserting Lithuanian text instead of English. Specifically, after Kafkablade got blocked for vandalism, Mintbolas2 started making the same type of edits as Kafkablade did 2 days later. Shadow of the Starlit Sky(talk)05:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Just looked at the edit filter log, and looks like there were recent attempts to blank the article and/or remove sourced content without explanation. Shadow of the Starlit Sky(talk)05:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Maybe so, but edit warring the addition of those CATs across multiple pages without an explanation falls short, in my view. El_C09:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of recent vandalism due to a protest that took place and was attended by a member of Pesutto's party whereby neo-nazi's attended (see here). Pesutto was not involved but as he is the leader of the party his article is receiving vandalism. I am requesting a 7 day protection. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Persistent addition of candidates from primary sources only. I've tried explaining the sourcing policies on the talk page, but there are some very animated new editors who want to add their favorite people to the article, including a colorful character who appears to be giving us the finger in this this picture added. 25stargeneral (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Government is trying to build fake narrative about Amritpal Singh and using 'fake news' to build claims which are totally bogus. As of now, most of state sponsor media reported information which does not appears until end of last week. This fake information shouldn't be backed to support any claim in the article Dilpreet Singhping 00:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Pages like this are a magnet for wikifiddlers - well intentioned or otherwise. In this case the various mains electricity frequencies keep getting changed without any regard to the established references that confirm each one. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. This can't be solved via protecting all pages...an rangeblock might help, otherwise it will have to be whack-a-mole... Lectonar (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed protectedindefinitely. to comply with the community mandate, particularly part B, "If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection" Courcelles (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Hi, in the past year it was many vandalism: the location of Mátra mounts was rewritten several times, however it locates in Hungary. The IP users also wrote "stolen" coat of arms by 1000 years old king. Thank you! OrionNimrod (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Current EW regarding BLP sensitive information in GENSEX CT area, requesting very short full protection (e.g. 1 day or so). — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection – The majority of recent edits to this page have been vandalism. Also, this page isn't one that should be edited by IP users or autoconfirmed users without discussion on the talk page first anyway. – Treetoes023 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Can we get a week of semi protection on Laura Robson career statistics. A couple of us have tried to stop a changing IP from adding original research to no avail. Maybe a week will help before other measures have to be tried. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – One user blocked (partially and temporarily); unsourced family information removed; talk page discussion in progress. Favonian (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: A similar thing is happening to this page as was happening to Talk:ChatGPT where non-autoconfirmed users (mostly IPs) are mistaking the talk page for the actual application and trying to chat with it. PopoDameron talk19:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Since the beginning of this month, there has been persistent, low-level edit warring between a named account with 9 edits and a dynamic IP address. The users revert each other every few days on average. I am requesting extended-confirmed protection for this page, as neither the parties involved have that many edits. Epicgenius (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The current Amritpal Singh article should be revised because it presents a one-sided and potentially biased view of the subject. The article primarily focuses on allegations against Amritpal Singh without providing a balanced perspective on his work as a Sikh rights activist and his efforts to combat drug abuse in Punjab. Updating the article with accurate and verifiable information about his positive contributions to society will create a more balanced and fair representation of Sandhu's life and work. 2601:85:C200:33B0:3C2E:3C:196A:7680 (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined The current protection level was applied recently and appears justified. Issues regarding specific statements and the potential addition of information that can be attributed to reliable sources may be discussed on the talk page. --Kinut/c02:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kinu: Or, in this case, at /Edit - Talk page is semiprotected, and /Edit has two separate requests more or less demanding specific statements be removed in an effort to tilt the article POV. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 03:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the sentence "He has also been reported to have been raising his own army and 'human bomb squads' consisting of brainwashed youth as suicide bombers idolising Dilawar Singh"
This is incorrect information and spreading false information. 2001:569:BE94:9400:3D9E:ACE0:BD10:6D98 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Since December 2021, several IPs have been making inaccurate claims regarding the channel's ownership and programming (claiming that Corus sold the channel to Bell Media for operation as a commercial-free premium channel that includes a block of preschool programming — none of that is true). WCQuidditch☎✎04:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: It connected to 26 million people religious sentiments and to edit this at any cost will create a misinformation in a particular religion Jobanbrar789 (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Please protect this page its really a sensible page because it directely connect to sikh religion roots and all the information of sikhism it have so nobody should edit some thing to vandalise it or it hurt sikh people sentiments 2605:B100:545:DE3E:8964:2874:8D6:A754 (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – There seems to be an ongoing and persistent campaign to add the film "Fat Guy’s Paradise". So far, no evidence has been presented that it ever existed. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. This page has been inappropriately recreated numerous times in both mainspace and draftspace, so the protection is not going to be lifted unless there's strong evidence that something has changed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Lectonar (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated addition of unsourced nonsense by IP editors, starting with an August 2021 addition by a now-indeffed editor. Article previously protected precisely because of the same nonsense edits. — kashmīrīTALK13:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the summary, please change
"He has been reported to have close links to Pakistan's ISI ..."
to
"According to Indian agencies, he has been reported ..."
Similarly please change the following sentence,
"He has also been reported to have been raising his own army and 'human bomb squads'
to
"According to unverified reports by Indian media, he has been reported ..."
The best thing would be to delete these claims from the biography, as these are tall claims without verification in a court of law, and Wikipedia readers should not be subject to them. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each." Surinderjeet (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an extraordinary amount of false information on that page. It needs to be unprotected immediately. Iitsrii01 (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because the page on Amritpal Singh is inflammatory and false. It is not backed up by any credible news outlet and serves risks of misinforming the public . Iitsrii01 (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:Indefinite semi protection Project space redirect to a page with legal implications (the content disclaimer) .The last 5 years of page history consist of the page being repeatedly vandalised by IP's and new editors and fixed. There is no good reason for newbies to be editing this page.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistently vandalism to date of birth by multiple IPs (originating from various parts of Europe, likely same person using VPNs to hop around) despite the date of birth already sourced reliably in the Early life section. This request was previously rejected for not being disruptive enough (puzzle) despite this disruptive behaviour still continuing with the latest one just today only. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)13:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question:IceWelder, why do you call those edits "vandalism"—have you reviewed WP:NOTVANDALISM? Also, why do you go to the IP/s talk page/s instead of the article talk page, that would keep everything in one place? El_C19:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I was unaware there were two other related pages when I wrote the above, requests which I've now merged into this one I first encountered. El_C19:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IceWelder, vandalism (i.e. defacement) and adding poorly-sourced content are not equivalent, so please be more precise with your reasoning next time. Also, I'd likely never would have found out about that central discussion, so please keep in mind that neither admins nor those IP/s are omniscient in that sense. Otherwise: Semi-protected for a period of one week all, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C20:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
India officially acceded to the Antarctic Treaty System on 1 August 1983. On 12 September 1983, the country became the fifteenth Consultative Member of the Antarctic Treaty Sakthíyvël (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Again, it's the sandbox, meant for experimentation, so they'd have to be something egregious to warrant protection. El_C19:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. It's the sandbox, meant for experimentation, so they'd have to be something egregious to warrant protection. El_C19:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. I'm wary of applying RUSUKR to any weapon system highlighted as having been used in the conflict. So at the very least, moderate level of disruption relating to #Russo-Ukrainian War would need to be demonstrated, which I'm not immediately seeing. Feel free to relist, though, if that changes or if I missed these (provide diffs with dates attached, please). El_C20:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Various IP addresses have been vandalizing the article non-stop since March 21 again. It was just semi-page protected from March 3 to 10 for a week. — YoungForever(talk)23:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am at the point where I am about ready to revert off further spurious requests for this page to be unprotected or edited on sight.
@Muboshgu: The talk page is semi-protected for related reasons (and will remain so for the next four hours), so that is/was not an option for DarthGill. Coming here would have been the appropriate thing to do, if DarthGill had an actual rationale instead of nationalist book-thumping.
In your defence, the talk page is due to come off protection in two and a half hours; I predict it will likely need reprotection if the drive-bys keep coming. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The trend can be explained partially by WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU (most FAQs are in collapsibles that mobile platforms can't properly show), but these requests almost all come from drive-bys who don't bother to stay and participate in discussions. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 20:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change (commonly called the "Don't Say Gay bill") to (referred to by critics as the "Don't Say Gay" bill) GunnerGJ (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – This article has been subject to multiple IPs adding unsourced content, original research, and non-neutral content for the past week. Almost all IP edits to this article from that time period has been reverted. I'm beginning to think there's possible collusion here (considering almost all of editors are Philippine-based IPs), especially concerning the topic of the article. Chlod (say hi!) 23:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The disruption has been going on as long as the article has existed, so we'll start with a somewhat longer duration than usual. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist not the latest IP, who added the rfc section, which one of the sock accounts/ips added less than 24 hours ago (and was reverted by me and another editor). given that the sock master is accessing vastly different IP addresses, it would a whack-a-mole situation on the IP blocking front. – robertsky (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent meme vandalism. Article's subject is noted in memes by the pejorative "Femboy", and the term is constantly being added to the article by IPs. It has been projected in several.occasions in the past, but I doubt there will be a time in the next few years when it will die out. We don't need this form of transitions in our articles. BilCat (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. I agree that ECP isn't justified, and neither is semiprotection at this time. Possibly shortly in the future, the article may see disruption if Trump gets indicted, but we don't apply protection pre-emptively. Please make a new request if the need arises. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This was one IP editor, who has not edited since he received a final warning hours ago. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The protection log is long enough, and the article history shows enough disruption long-term, to justify a longer period of protection this time. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Ip editors have targeted the page twice in the same manner by lifting up the content belonging to a previous election and added it to the next election page. The act was performed maliciously since they added the citations belonging to the previous elections and editors are expecting them to be good faith edits but after the verification off the citations they belong to a diff page in no relation to this page. 456legend(talk) 08:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by IP accounts. Non verified content is being added again and again. I requested for the protection of this article few days ago but it was declined. It's not possible for me to revert back the non constructive edits everytime. Kindly take some action. Thanks.
Kridha (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. At the time of the prior request, it wasn't as clear as it is now that the article is suffering from recent and frequent disruption. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Temporary semi-protection or greater, as page and talkpage are currently the focus of a campaign of vandalism by numerous vandal accounts controlled by a sock puppeteer obsessed with vandalizing that page. Mr Fink (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: there have been several attempts to vandalize the page and swear words towards school were written, I have fixed almost all of the vandalization so I request you to make the page protected like the beaconhouse school Wikipedia page is protected Bannanatroph (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. People seem to think that the talk page for a Chatbot is a chatbot itself ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I chose that length because the page had already been protected once in the recent past, and because virtually none of the recent IP edits to the page were legitimate. It seems to be a very attractive target for vandals, for whatever reason. However, if you believe that a shorter protection length is more applicable to this page, I won't be angry if you modify the protection. —ScottyWong— 17:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: In order to avoid disruptive and unconstructive edits in future that include adding unsourced materials along with content and committing vandalism. ⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ 📧 ✍️ 17:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Maybe this would be a good one for Pending revisions protection? Article consistently vandalized by an IP hopping anon who brags in their edit summaries about how they will continue to engage in the disruptive behavior. Most recent rounds have been going on about a month. Millahnna (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated linkspam efforts by various IP ranges and accounts. Domains vary and this is the only targeted page, so protection should probably be used over the spam blacklist. MrOllie (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above editor is literally refusing to respond to any comments on the talk page of the article and has violated the 3RR rule a number of times now. I recommend administrators look at the POV of the posted article, it is mostly OR and unverifiable claims presented as fact. Partisan editing is a cancer on Wikipedia. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second that this article is in need of semi-protection. The text is currently in a state of decay as the back-and-forth edits are occurring too rapidly to maintain content quality. ScienceMan123 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Repeated non-constructive edits by unregistered user; edit-warring without explanation or citations. This user is also being abusive in the Talk page. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is probably a drive by, and 1 day should be enough. If it resumes after protection expires, please re-report. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This is the second time I'm requesting temporary semi-protection due to disruptive editing and unsourced content added by a single IP. The user also violated the copyright policy for one of their edits. Edwordo13 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Because this was the site of the Srebrenica massacre, vandalism may occur, and it may be good to prevent possible vandalism. BenzoAid (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent promotional additions by multiple Rishikesh yoga schools seeking to advertise themselves on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: A lot of vandalism (especially in the infoboxes) by anonymous users, including by adding things which aren’t factual and were discussed on the talk page. Lexoomfie (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not seeing a problem with autoconfirmed accounts, so I think semi will do for now, but absolutely this page is a timesink of reverting the crap right now. Courcelles (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism from IP users lately. Page was last protected for this reason, and will most definitely continue if this isn't protected. BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BrickMaster02: Are you aware what full protection entails? Why would you want it used on the article? Please be so kind and read our protection policy if you haven't done so already, and perhaps rethink your request. Lectonar (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would the full protection be for? Full protection means that only administrators can edit it. For persistent IP vandalism, semi-protection is enough. Full protection is way too overkill. Pretty sure it will be denied almost immediately once an admin actually reads this. And, as Lectonar said, read the protection policy. BenzoAid (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Admins don't have to grant the protection the user requests. They can temporarily semi-protect it if they think the article needs semi. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654513:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – We're seeing an uptick of edits and talk page comments at this article, which is covered by community sanctions relating to crypto currency. This is apparently due to off-wiki canvassing ([81][82]) - I recommend a preemitive semiprotect, and if you wouldn't mind keeping in eye out on the talk page that would be helpful as well. MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Near daily reverts about budget happening by auto-confirmed editors, minimal discussion on talk page, asking for full protection to stop the reverting and force discussion to happen. Ravensfire (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Prince Of Roblox is a very prolific sock who racks up edits quickly; this may ultimately need EC. Ponyobons mots22:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Note that this protection will also prevent you from editing the article unless you create an account and reach autoconfirmed.. Ponyobons mots21:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:WP:GS/RUSUKR Offensive Guard is a project of Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs with the aim to form new assault brigades in the structure of National Guard, National Police and Border Guards. The project has begun in January 2023. It clearly plays a part in the war. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is one I likely would protect. The article was actually created last month, it existed for almost two decades as a redirect to a football term, so the history is a bit misleading, and as it now exists is pretty much entirely within the topic of the war. Courcelles (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the OP is to continue relisting until they get lucky with you, as opposed to unlucky with me, or unlucky with Scottywong earlier today (diff) — well, that is not an ideal situation, and is in fact quite unambiguously admin shopping. El_C17:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Courcelles At first I thought it was a bug as Article similar to this one were already restricted so I asked again and when this one was also declined I messaged ToBeFree to ask why it wasn't restricted.
@El C:@Courcelles: If disruption continues over the next few days, that is ample reason to reconsider, and hardly qualifies as "admin shopping". Situations change. There may not have been enough "recent activity" in the past couple of requests, but each new request must be examined on a case by case basis. How many times protection was requested in the past is irrelevant to me. If the article looks like it needs to be protected, I'll protect it, regardless of what has happened to requests in the past. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RE: if disruption continues — what disruption? As far as I can see there's been none. Relisting a request for this page multiple times daily with no changes whatsoever disruption-wise is WP:ADMINSHOP par excellence — no? El_C19:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No malice was inferred or implied, Uwdwadaf [etc.], but now you know that some requests do get declined, which isn't a bug but a a standard feature of this board. El_C19:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Apologies; I had glanced too quickly through the article history and saw what appeared to be unconstructive edits, which led to me replying the way I did. We're all on the same page here. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The Wikipedia page for Sunrisers Hyderabad is an important resource for fans and enthusiasts of the Indian Premier League (IPL) team. However, as a public platform, it is susceptible to unwanted changes and edits from individuals with malicious intent or those who simply do not have accurate information. To ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented on the page, it is essential to take measures to protect it from unwanted changes.
One way to safeguard the Sunrisers Hyderabad Wikipedia page is to implement strict access controls and edit restrictions. This can be done by assigning trusted editors or administrators who have a deep understanding of the team's history, players, and achievements to monitor and update the page regularly. They can also work collaboratively with other editors to ensure that the information presented on the page is accurate, well-researched, and up-to-date.
Another way to protect the Sunrisers Hyderabad Wikipedia page is to use advanced editing tools and software that can track changes and revert any unwanted edits quickly. This can include tools that use artificial intelligence (AI) to detect and flag edits that do not meet the platform's guidelines, as well as those that alert editors to any suspicious activity on the page.
Finally, it is essential to educate and raise awareness among the public about the importance of accurate and unbiased information on Wikipedia. By creating a culture of responsibility and respect for the platform, we can all work together to ensure that the Sunrisers Hyderabad Wikipedia page remains a valuable resource for fans and enthusiasts of the team for years to come. 122.50.206.222 (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of Vandalism, vagabond mb supporting editors just come to change atk to supergiants or sg but it will be changed after 4 may all lost patience 103.27.142.111 (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Due to the high level of vandalism by new users and anonymous IP addresses, there was a significant number of edits that had to be reverted in the month of March alone, causing disruptions to the article.
Comment: I removed the unnecessary WP:SCANDAL content (that looked repetitive anyway) which was probably causing disruption and mass removals. Now I think a block on the edit warring IP's would be enough. Uzek (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by introducing factual errors from multiple IPs originating from France. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)11:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the concern's over the block length, then maybe the block should be extended instead? The /64 hasn't been blocked either. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didn't look at the block beyond the fact that was 31 hours Is someone else made the blocks For what it's worth using my phone this way is not the best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by introducing factual errors from multiple IPs originating from France. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)11:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by introducing factual errors from multiple IPs originating from France. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)11:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by introducing factual errors from multiple IPs originating from France. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)11:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Some unregistered users tried to change the founder's surname and name. They added content that is not relevant and true. Please protect this article from such types of vandalism and let extended and autoconfirmed users edit it.. RuchikaIndia (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Different IPs are changing regularly specific unreleased film status. This protection would help such wild edits and would need to be reverted continuously. Aadirulez8 (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A partial range block would be the best solution here; may be one of the admins who can do such blocks better than I can would be willing to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Circular editing: IPs say they’ve read about the subject’s death on Twitter. Twitter users say they’ve read about his death on Wikipedia. Until an actual reliable source confirms the death, I’d prefer editors who wish to be FIRST to go to the talk page. IP only protection might do it, but established editors, on seeing a death date, are institutionalising it by switching the article to past tense, so something a bit harder might be useful. — Trey Maturin™21:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Only one previous protection (for a couple of days), so not a good candidate atm for lengthy protection not to mention indef. El_C23:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Ongoing vandalism changing "soccer" to "football" against WP:NCFA. This has been going on for a while and has not happened while page was protected. The minute protection expired, it happened again. Requesting permanent protection please. -- SuperJew (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would lock you out of the article. Given the changes you're trying to propose, it's better you visit the talk page. — Czello23:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Really just two batches of edits in the last couple of weeks. Seems like editors at the page can handle it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What level of protection is being requested? Only full protection would help, but as a newly created article, it would hinder updates to the article. Perhaps block the editors involved? --98.116.131.119 (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently letting the fire calm down before i have a chat with Elijah on discord and getting this settled this. I do apologize tho, i was fairly agitated at the time HavocPlayz (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. The protection should have been added off the bat given how heated things were gonna get given we had at minimum 3 violent tornadoes pending final ratings HavocPlayz (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
El C can we get an urgent page protection. Multiple new accounts (not IPs) are vandalising the page. It is so overwhelming now. At least 4-5 different new accounts. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Based on the recent flurry of outright vandalism from a large number of new accounts within the past hour. This is without comment on the previous issue between the two editors discussed above as this recent flurry of vandalism is a new development that was actively disruptive. @El C: please feel free to adjust the PP as appropriate. Aoidh (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's a recent event I shortened it to 6 hours so that there's still a cooling off period but it's not unduly preventing people from editing the article on this recent event with ongoing developments. Any admin please feel free to adjust further if needed, still getting the hang of appropriate timeframes. - Aoidh (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Some of the edits appear constructive, though, admittedly there are probably an equal number that aren't. The sheer volume of edits makes PC protection impractical. We'll try three days semi and if that doesn't help, we can go from there. Chetsford (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. There has been a bit of a content dispute happening in relation to the ideology section in the infobox. It has been going on for the past couple of months with new users unfamiliar with the WP:BRD process not taking the dispute to the talk page and just constantly reverting and re-reverting. //GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Sunrisers Hyderabad is a professional cricket team that represents the city of Hyderabad in the Indian Premier League (IPL). As with any popular sports team, the Sunrisers Hyderabad page on Wikipedia has been subject to both positive and negative edits over the years.
However, recent misinformation added to the page has caused concern among fans and the team management alike. In order to address this issue, the page has been temporarily locked to prevent further misinformation from being added.
The Sunrisers Hyderabad management and fans recognize the importance of accurate and up-to-date information about the team, and are therefore working with Wikipedia to unlock the page for editing by trusted individuals. This will enable the community to correct any inaccurate or misleading information that may have been added.
We encourage all fans of Sunrisers Hyderabad to join in this effort to maintain the accuracy of the team's Wikipedia page. By working together, we can ensure that the page remains a reliable source of information about this beloved cricket team. SingiriRoyal (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sunrisers Hyderabad is a professional cricket team that represents the city of Hyderabad in the Indian Premier League (IPL). As with any popular sports team, the Sunrisers Hyderabad page on Wikipedia has been subject to both positive and negative edits over the years.
However, recent misinformation added to the page has caused concern among fans and the team management alike. In order to address this issue, the page has been temporarily locked to prevent further misinformation from being added.
The Sunrisers Hyderabad management and fans recognize the importance of accurate and up-to-date information about the team, and are therefore working with Wikipedia to unlock the page for editing by trusted individuals. This will enable the community to correct any inaccurate or misleading information that may have been added.
We encourage all fans of Sunrisers Hyderabad to join in this effort to maintain the accuracy of the team's Wikipedia page. By working together, we can ensure that the page remains a reliable source of information about this beloved cricket team. SingiriRoyal (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Someone keeps adding troll comments to the page, through multiple IPs. Seems to be an LTA of some sort. AP 499D25 (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Several pro-Khailstani twitter handles have posted tweets encouraging people to edit this page to align with their POV. Earlier as well, due to persistent disruption, ECP had to be imposed. It is likely that the disruption will continue when ECP expires tomorrow. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: IP Vandalism. anonymous user keeps editing page with unrelated material or names next to globally recognized individuals. Basic protection ok Mhazinek (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CastJared, not every unexplained removal of content is a problem, as you might now see in the article's history. I guess I'll protect the page, but not because of the content removal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: (Protecting admin asked 2 days ago here.) This page was protected 13 years ago and nowadays it's edited somewhat infrequently. Over the past few months however, what appears to be 1 or 2 users with very volatile IPs have made quite a few valid edit requests (see the talk page). I think the page is worth unprotecting. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Engr. Smitty, please try explaining your concerns on the user's talk page and the article's talk page first. If these are ignored, blocking or protection become options. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This article has fallen far below FA standards due to rampant violation of WP:NPOV, and although it has been improved a great deal, the current protection level is impeding further progress. Jaydenwithay (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprotected – Please use an edit request to request specific changes to be made to the protected page. The article is protected due to the activities of a long-term pest. Favonian (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – This page is a bit of a magnet for brand new users removing content, adding PROMO content, adding original research. Most commonly it is IPs or brand new users with zero edits anywhere else. Could we limit the ability to edit to people who have more than zero experience of editing, this BLP about an anti-vax conspiracy theorist is a poor place for anyone to start editing. CT55555(talk) 23:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing by anonymous IPs, they are changing the ending date again and again. Yuugone (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article has recently received some media attention, and there has seemed to be an uptick in disruptive edits since then, so I figured I would submit the article for review. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: It seems that the user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mount_Barker_Waldorf&action=edit&redlink=1 is linked to the Mount Barker Waldorf School and is part of an effort of the school leadership or of someone on behalf of the school to remove unfavorable information of the school. As such, I would like to request protection of the page to ensure that information is not removed by the school in an effort to make it appear more favorable. CleanerCrew (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – Dispute with an editor about moving the page as consensus will need to be established on the talk page. – The Grid (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Over course of 2022 information was removed including references such as the nytimes which meets WP:RS 1keyhole (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm involved, but 1keyhole, there have been no edits since you last requested protection three months ago except your own reversion of a year's worth of editing by multiple editors today. Page protection should not be used to protect your prefered version of an article. - Bilby (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Repeated vandalism that has gone on for almost a year. As I wrote this request, the page was vandalized for the second time today. Yeehaw45 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This blocked editor is trying to appeal their block, but their talk page is being attacked by multiple IP/new editors adding fake "reviewed" responses to their open appeal request. Schazjmd(talk)18:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined@Critical49: There is not enough recent activity to justify protection. Please explain the problem on article talk and try to engage other editors in discussion. Ask for assistance at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined@JDDJS: A quick look does not show sufficiently recent changes to ethnicity nor WP:BLP problems. If you notify me with an example of a single BLP problem after this, or let me know that edit warring is ongoing, I will protect. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: IP addresses are consistently vandalising the page by removing the fact that the article's subject attended an anti-trans rally. Even though this fact has been widely reported, the vandalisers have been censoring the descriptor by instead labelling it as simply a "pro-women's rights event". RoadSmasher420 (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Jessica Nabongo's page stated that she was the first Black woman to travel to every country. It was discovered that Woni Spotts is the first. Multiple Wikipedia editors agreed and updated the page. In fact, Nabongo is not even second because she did not get a visa to visit Syria. She visited a nearby area in Israel. The page reflects the correct information with citations. Editors keep altering the page to say Nabongo is first and adding promotional material to sell her book. Universalsunset (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aadirulez8: I checked some recent IP edits and don't see anything obviously wrong. The article could be semi-protected due to lack of sources but I would want to see at least that several recent edits had been reverted with an explanation in the edit summary. Or, a brief explanation on article talk. Please identify some problems. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protectedindefinitely. This has gone on so long and, given the subject, will continue for as long as we can foresee, so just skipping any pretense that it will somehow go away after a year. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lately (for the past 30 minutes), registered users have been blanking the page and adding false, libelous information. I would recommend full protection. Seckends (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. PP just expired today and already had to deal with a couple of disruptive edits. I think indefinite protection might be warranted, or, if not, a long duration. PopoDameron talk00:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: There've been four instances of IP vandalism within 4 minutes. No sooner had I reverted the first three, the fourth happened. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – People with randoms IP's and recently registered accounts are continuously coming and vandalising content on the page. MRRaja001(talk)20:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Indefinite semi-protection requested. There is an unending procession of IPs and very new editors fiddling with the documented nationalities/ethnic groups that the term is applied to (mostly removing anything non-Nepali). Discussed many times on talk page but of course that doesn't matter with this editor group. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – lots of new user and IP attention for some reason. Removing sourced material, changing references to commercial sites etc. Gugrak (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Disruptive editing – Cellular IP4 and IP6 disruptive editing (edit-warring over unsourced/inadequately sourced edits for "future" film projects, also contrary to MOS (removal of valid red link)). Short duration protection needed to nudge the editor elsewhere. — Archer1234 (t·c) 12:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This page is being vandalized by the addition of non-reliable sources, manipulation of sources, and unverified controversial claims by politicians as facts. A controversy has erupted over this person on social media and some Twitter accounts are also encouraging their supporters to vandalize this page (example). I recommend temporary protection for this page. Mixmon (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This article has been consistently vandalized for over a year. Given its additional relevance in the topic of country music, I believe it should be protected for some time. Yeehaw45 (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs and new accounts repeatedly removing well sourced content about compliance issues with this company., and using misleading edit summaries to cover it. Gugrak (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This is a notable living person from Ghana he has an alias Kwaku Frimpong that is often passed of us his name and continually added to it even though it gets taken off anytime. Owula kpakpo (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have mentioned in the previous request, the reason for this is a controversy that has erupted in some social media platforms. Mixmon (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mixmon: Let me clarify. Yamazaki442 is autoconfirmed, with over 100 edits. This is one editor with whom you have a content dispute. I will not set the page protection to ECP for this. Please discuss your dispute on the talk page of the article. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Last contested edit was two weeks ago. BusterD (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Persistent target for disruptive IP editing. Looking at the edit history shows that most edits over the past few months have been IPs making changes that immediately get reverted (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Some are obvious vandalism, others may be attempts at good-faith article improvement but are held back by a severe case of WP:NOTLISTENING. Suggest long-term semi-protection since this goes back to at-least August 2022. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Incorrect information being persistently added stating that he is the first minister of Scotland. Would recommend only about a week or two until things have cooled down. Also vandalism calling him a "terrorist" and "Humza Yousaf humming baws". Again, doesn't need to be anything too much, just light protection to stop inaccuracies and vandals. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism: On Funimation, the IP has a persistent addition of altered content with mixing the Crunchyroll website both in the infobox and in the external links in the section below to two articles related to it, as well as adding photos for example: one in the offices of Sony Pictures Studios in Culver City, California and the other is located in the Brunel Building in Paddington, England through Crunchyroll UK and Ireland.
Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – Repeated undiscussed moves, I have asked the user to start a WP:RM which should resolve this in future, but protection is needed to prevent continued unilateral page moves. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Some crazy vandalism or edit-warring -- I'm not sure. It's two IP's deleting and then replacing hundreds of thousands of bytes of content. I think it should be temporarily protected until the article can be restored to a stable revision. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. A bit meh, as one IP was undoing the vandalism of the other IP...let's see if it calms down. Lectonar (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: This page was recently semi protected for one month due to an IP that was unwilling to discuss contentious changes. Within hours of the protection lifting, they have made the same changes as before. They are clearly unwilling to discuss the changes as evidenced by this diff on my talk page. Steelkamp (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: This page was recently semi protected for one month due to an IP that was unwilling to discuss contentious changes. Within hours of the protection lifting, they have made the same changes as before. They are clearly unwilling to discuss the changes as evidenced by this diff on my talk page. Steelkamp (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: This page was recently semi protected for one month due to an IP that was unwilling to discuss contentious changes. Within hours of the protection lifting, they have made the same changes as before. They are clearly unwilling to discuss the changes as evidenced by this diff on my talk page. Steelkamp (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: This page was recently semi protected for one month due to an IP that was unwilling to discuss contentious changes. Within hours of the protection lifting, they have made the same changes as before. They are clearly unwilling to discuss the changes as evidenced by this diff on my talk page. Steelkamp (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: This page was recently semi protected for one month due to an IP that was unwilling to discuss contentious changes. Within hours of the protection lifting, they have made the same changes as before. They are clearly unwilling to discuss the changes as evidenced by this diff on my talk page. Steelkamp (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism from IPs/new users has been reasonably low level but consistent with some constructive edits mixed in here and there, so Pending-changes protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)13:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated disruptive editing/vandalism from IP editors (claiming the top speed of the locomotive model is 118 mph, allegedly the speed hit by a Union Pacific train which became a runaway and derailed yesterday [107]). I'd imagine a week or so would be enough for the disruptive editors to get bored. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IPs continually adding and re-adding a contestant, who quit the game before it started, to a table, against consensus. And no communication from these IPs either in edit summaries or the talk page to explain their reasoning of adding this contestant. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – A single purpose IP user suspected of being previously banned for sockpuppetry is being disruptive and adding content that is not WP:POV, using non WP:RS sources (a local tabloid newspaper), or invented and not backed at all by the quoted sources when the links are checked. The page was previously semi protected [[108]] but the disruptive IP has returned once the protection expired.
Declined - I'd like to see the IP returning to persistance before reprotecting. Also, if reprotecting would happen in the future, it would certainly not be indefinite full protection. DatGuyTalkContribs16:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Recent disruptive editing by an unregistered editor using multiple IP addresses who kept adding an inaccurate and opinionated detail about a fictional character, and also removing an actual detail of another character. –WPA (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – [109] is an example of trolling/block evading by confirmed LTA and I only notice this due to me being mentioned in their edit summaries. Happens occasionally not frequently. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A persistent block evader has recently starting to vandalise the cast section by changing the villian's to a real-life name [110] and happens occasionally not frequently. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: In the news regarding a reporting signing. Page repeatedly being updated based on anonymous reports despite all sources stating it's "reported" or that he "intends to" sign with the Atlanta Falcons. People are jumping the gun instead of waiting for the team or player to officially confirm the signing. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – half of the edits i see are edits reverted, and if people keep vandalizing this page i feel like it should definitely be pending-changes protected considering a lot of the vandalism is done via new accounts and IPs. phrogge'sup?edits01:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: These 8 pages of this user's talk page archives were self-protected when the user was an admin. User is not currently an admin, has not been since 2012. Mike's other archive pages, 8, 10 and 11 are unprotected and not experiencing any vandalism. My personal interest in these pages is that I'd like to clean the lint errors, primarily the 139 high priority tidy font bug errors in user signatures appearing on these pages, but I'd take care of all the other lints within the the same edit, in an efficient and effective manner with minimal disturbance. These have some of the most WP:LINT errors per page with all but 4 and 7 appearing on Galobot's lintiest pages list. I left a note March 20th on MuZemike's (current) talk page stating my intentions (as I was unsure if the above stated requirement for RPPD "if the protecting admin is inactive or you have already asked them" meant as inactive as an editor, or as an admin; he is still actively editing but is not an admin). Since it's been a week and there has been no reply as of yet, I feel comfortable in proceeding with this request. Zinnober9 (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. No edits at this page for three days, and none by IP's for many months. @Fnaf 2021: I did notice the previous edit-warring at the page: an article on this topic would likely fail WP:NFF but if you really think this is an exception you might consider arguing your case at Talk:Cars (franchise). -- Euryalus (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Full protection temporarily until a decision at ANI is made whether to topic-ban the edit-warriors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Repeated addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content by anonymous or newly created accounts, which don't engage honestly with Talk page discussions. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Repeated addition of IP-hopper of unsourced or content not verified in sourcing given. Largely not discussing on talk page, refusing to stop reverting. I'd normally protect it myself, but I'm largely the one reverting the WP:BLP-violating content out of article, so I preferred to get an outsider to to help this time. Sergecross73msg me16:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism from 85.92.168.82. User was last blocked for the same reason, but went right back. BrickMaster02 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – by many different IPs, probably coming from this reddit thread: reddit.com/r/hegetsus/comments/125dyvs/doing_jesus_work_he_gets_us/je4vuau/. Hatman31 (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the article is deleted and thus not available to be edited by IPs, this makes no sense. I'm also not seeing a good case for SALTing the earth because it doesn't appear to have been re-created since the AfD almost two weeks ago. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 23:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite move protection: Highly visible page – Prefereably reverted to the consensus-based title first. User:Justanother2 has mo moved this highly visible, emotionally charged page without any discussion, 5 times, with no discussion at all. They have now been blocked 24, but it might help them to resist temptation if the page was protected from moving... SN5412913:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Frequent IP hijacks of the page to advertise some SEO service. Clear vandalism, and multiple IPs participated, so I recommend protection. DFlhb (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism – A single purpose IP user(s) suspected of being previously banned for sockpuppetry is being disruptive and adding content that is not WP:POV, using non WP:RS sources (a local tabloid newspaper), or invented and not backed at all by the quoted sources when the links are checked. The page was previously semi protected [[111]] but the disruptive IP has returned once the protection expired.
Semi-protected for a period of one day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't really want to give you a long term since that's essentially handing the dispute to you, and as reverting more than thric for a poor-quality source is justified only in BLP situations, I really want you to get this worked out on the talk page. Feel free to bring other editors in somehow, or work this out at RSN. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The page keeps getting edited by folks who add unrelated, and unverified information about the school. Given that this school is a famous school in Colombo, Sri Lanka, bad actors are interfering with the effort to keep this page clean with correct information with the relevant citations. Jaglak123 (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Followers of this person's New religious movement aren't happy about information of their leader's past convictions being on the article, and they're not afraid of misrepresenting sources. We've had a couple protections, and the SPAs (many of whom are block evading socks) always come back to disrupt when the protection expires. Please just give it an indef semiprotect. MrOllie (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]