Reason: Recent death with high level of IP vandalism. I am requesting protection to combat this, I believe extended-protection may be needed as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: user Okiehistory and now his Sockpuppet K4.5x2 continue to vandalize the page, they are the BLP subject himself and now doing ban-evasion. Okiehistory was already banned from this page before, his sockpuppet needs to be added to the list BestOkieHistory (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. A few disruptive edits recently as seen in page history Jh15s (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – There are certain users who keep reverting changes which have caused this article to contain a lot of academic boosterism and are insisting on changes which harm's this article's neutrality. Wozal (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long-term IP troll keeps adding a troll edit "rail, meaning "rail"" and will return to restore it again and again no matter how many times they are reverted. Also refer to this article's surprisingly extensive protection log. Every IP edit since at least April has been non-constructive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There was one user on 1 August and another on 31 July. There has been no apparently promotional material added for months. Indefinite would also be overkill. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done reluctantly, without prejudice to re-reportinf. There was two users on 1 August and one on 28 July, with the last disruption coming eight hours ago. It seems like quite a lot of the material is supported by experienced users anyway, so semi-protection would not be effective in that respect. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – Already vandalized multiple times since it was released that she's presiding over Trump's DC trial. Paris1127 (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days. , after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. He’s an admin, and should be able to adjust as he sees fit. So just short enough to stop this. Courcelles (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Consistent disruptive edits by LTA User:Jinnifer using numerous IP addresses. User keeps making the same edit repeatedly despite blocks of their numerous sock accounts.[1][2][3][[4][5][6] Many of these accounts are obviously the same editor due to them editing other identical pages edited by proven Jinnifer accounts. NJZombie (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Recent edit showed that she is a member of China Communist Party approximately 30 minutes ago. When I noticed the edits, I quickly undo the edits to the previous published version to ensure information is accurately displayed to readers. 69.123.217.153 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. @ThisIsSeanJ: These appear to be good faith edits although obviously lacking in citations. Please discuss the issues with the other editor on their user talk page or the article talk page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Editing war - user changing the artist's name and occupation and photo and will not leave new updates in place. LibsinLA (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Disruptive IP changes over long period. The text in the picture doesn't mention any ethnicity (it just says "Dancer from Shamakhi" and painter's name/century), and Shamakhi dancers weren't a single group. Requesting protection because of long perdiod IP disruption and WP:GS/AA. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Haughton Brit's IPs have been following me to numerous pages since his block in April. [7]. See In particular, I have blocked the 2601:547:b03::/49 (block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) IPrange for a month since almost all edits from that range since May 7 are by HaughtonBrit. The same IP range is making disruptive edits here. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of information vandalism and false information addition many times daily by unknown and unofficial users Mzehsanijan (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzehsanijan Looks like you are requesting an article from the Persian Wikipedia, which we don't here in the English Wikipedia have authority with. ToadetteEdit(chat)/(logs)17:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High Level IP Vandalism. I cross checked everything, the subject is not even mentioned in the sources provided that I removed. Looks like someone is trying to clear the record of the company (Peloton) by targeting the subject. Some sources even mentioned the subject positively but it was written biasedly. I thought to highlight the issue, thanks FreeBirdie54 (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks. There are multiple IPs, looks like a same person is doing this with different IPs so kindly block them as well and lock the page as well, so at least autoconfirmed users can edit only. Thanks again FreeBirdie54 (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: a user of the name Damage868 keeps removing cited and undisputed facts outlined in my contribution, which he deleted several times acts of edit war (most recently today/on the 2nd of August); please reinstate my contribution and protect it Websurfer868 (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @Jaellee:It looks like possibly premature edits lacking a source that are being made in good faith rather than clear vandalism. The level of disruption is sufficient to justify temporarily protecting the article. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. @FMSky: It looks like a single editor, please consider warning on the user talk page and adding an inline comment or two as initial steps. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"career has included multiple online controversies, including a widely publicized feud with fellow beauty YouTuber Tati Westbrook in 2019 and his sexting with underage boys in 2021."
I think it should be updated:
"career has included controversies, including a widely publicized feud with fellow beauty YouTuber Tati Westbrook in 2019, and in 2021 his sexting with teenagers later revealed as underage."
At least one of the teens admitted lying about being 18, which is very common for teens do. As currently vaguely written it implies he was seeking underage boys when he has been steadfast he was sexting 18+ teenagers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:ce95:57b0:2186:e197:d322:fe8 (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent disruptive editing from multiple IP users; adding that the show has ended, when it hasn't been a full year yet since the last new episode aired. Users have cited unreliable forums and the creator's unverified social media account, and will continue to do so unless this gets protected until the end of October. BrickMaster02 (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just today's flareup and no one's edited in 12 hours. I did add a CTOPS notice to the talk page though. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Requesting semi-protection. Numerous IP/unconfirmed users are inserting unsourced claims the subject has died. There are Twitter/X posts about his death but nothing so far in reliable sources. A short period of semi protection would be useful while we await a reliable source. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This is one of the actors that have contradicting birth years online. According to the Associated Press(which is considered reliable) he turned 58 last fall. Which would make his birth year 1964. However various editors keep changing it to 1967 while either ignoring the cited source or even outright removing it. Kcj5062 (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow only extended confirmed users : Persistent removal of sourced contents and addition of highly biased one sided contents, by newly created accounts (which have become autoconfirmed users), resulting to persistent edit war, between multiple people. --Haoreima (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – More than two years of IP-hopping attempts to change eye colour from sourced "blue" to "green". Talk page thread, and IP warnings ineffective. Meters (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse long term semi-protection, ideally extended-confirmed protection, owing to the fact that the IP has vowed to continue edit warring once their block is over.[19][20][21] — Czello(music)12:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
diffs: 1 (accusation of edit warring when all prior edits were reverted by different people), 2 (taking the discussion to the talk page, with no intention of actual discussion)
was previously asked by czello to try to achieve consensus (here), but they do the same every time: say the claim is true with the equivalent of "source: trust me dude", place the burden of disproof on the previously sourced claim, and go back to edit warring
Semi protection: persistent promotion and advertising from IPs and sockpuppets which has been going on at least 2 years Ertoe (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Persistent long-time vandalism by multiple IPs to her name by changing from "Moon Ga-young" (matching article name) to "Mun Ka-young" since 2021. And among others like adding unsourced materials, MOS violations, etc. Just by looking at the article's history, majority consists of non-constructive editing as supposed to the reverse. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)13:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – I requested protection yesterday on a WP:GS/AA article and explained the reason of IP disruption [22]. The article wasn't protected and the disruption continued, to the point of edit-warring and IP likely making an account to do the same WP:JDLI revert [23], [24], [25]. I'm asking for this article to be protected to avoid wasting community time, clearly the IP doesn't listen to any rationale and just adds their original research. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Disruption from IP and one autoconfirmed editors, by adding content to the lead against an RfC consensus. Disruption started shortly after the last round of protection expired. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Long-term disruptive editing of the main page and talk page by an IP editor who has continually attempted to mass-edit the list, remove sources & add unsourced editions. This has been going on since last year at least. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under Related Words, under Denotational Extensions, where it mentions Arabs and Native Americans, please remove the words "non-white". The reasoning for this is Arabs and other people from the Middle East and North Africa are legally considered white in the United States. 2600:100C:A112:99FE:A966:FC8C:5B08:3EC0 (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. The instructions above are clear that a request must be made on the article talk page before making it here. That was not done. This request is not actionable. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
THE PAGE IS ABOUT ONGOING Religious RIOTS IN THE Nuh district of Haryana district of India, any one can use the page to popllute the minds of citizens against each other.: High level of IP vandalism. 160.202.36.130 (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I see the Michigan IPs that know about WP:DUCK, I'll just block the lot, since they're all the same person, if it recurs. Acroterion(talk) 12:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)::And blocked, an IPv6 range and an IPv4 address, who clearly have been here before, at least enough to form a faulty understanding of WP bluelinked guidelines. Acroterion(talk)12:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the IP's comments, they appear to have been trying a little breaching experiment, and got the result they appear to have been aiming for. I gather it proves something to them about WP's awfulness ... Acroterion(talk)12:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent long-term attempts to add COI/PROMO/refspam to article by IPs and evidently COIed account; no engagement on talk page. Past attempts have been spread out, requesting now since there have been a couple attempts in the last few days. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed protection: The article is still seeing cases of disruptive editing and vandalism from IP users almost every other day. Requesting further extended confirmed protection. HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent addition over several weeks of the same incorrect edit by IPs in the 149.76.88 range, changing "American former entrepreneur" to "former American entrepreneur". Sundayclose (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is allowed, but I’m going to reiterate the call for full protection, as it’s an auto confirmed user committing the violations/additions of poorly-sourced content. The Kip (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Previous protection has expired and the same vandalism that necessitated protection in the first place has started up again. PeachyBum07 (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: To prevent attempts to create an article here. See the target of this redirect for more information and also note this was on the title blacklist before I created it. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 01:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. This page can only be created by administrators and other users with the 'tboverride' userright due to the title blacklist. Furthermore, this page has never been created to begin with. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This page was indefinitely protected by Jimbo Wales in 2011. I doubt there is still a problem, especially after an AFD closed with a result to merge it. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – long protection history and current 2 year semi protection started in April before he declared his candidacy for President. Will120 (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. The biggest problem seems to be the OP's edit-warring. Favonian (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Unexplained removal of information regarding the schools history which suggests malicious intent and potential edit warring. Also, recent vandalism of school motto. Nightshade2000 (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Repeated vandalism, see history of the page. Not that it seems to me like a topic that should've left unprotected. It has been protected numerous times, I think it's time for indefinite protection. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Previous protection expired and same old vandalism is occuring. BLP policy violations DashDashUnderscore (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Repeated vandalism - IP users keep deleting updated content of the article over and over again (although the last warning has already been given). Casper18 (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – IPs repeatedly making unsourced claims of a marriage to Morgan Rielly. The couple may possibly have married, but apparently they value their privacy and have made no announcement. No reliable sources found that have reported the marriage. No response to IP talk page warnings, or to explanations on articles' talk pages and IP talk pages. Meters (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – IPs repeatedly making unsourced claims of a marriage to Tessa Virtue. The couple may possibly have married, but apparently they value their privacy and have made no announcement. No reliable sources found that have reported the marriage. No response to IP talk page warnings, or to explanations on articles' talk pages and IP talk pages. Meters (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent reverted edit is from the 28th. The most recent soapboxy comment came from an autoconfirmed account (which I've left a CT alert). So I tend against semiing at this time. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – previously protected two times for the same reason. sock is back after the protection expired. Requesting for a longer term for this round of protection, i.e. multi-year or infinite block. This article is about a TV show that was broadcasted more than a decade ago, and there hasn't been much constructive edits from anonymous or newly registered editors in recent years. – robertsky (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing by IP hopper with addition/replacement of sources with sources considered as unreliable per WP:KO/RS#UR. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)06:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Repeated public relations editing. First, role account User:Bostonhospital started making edits to manage article like it was their domain, then once that account was warned, PR edits started to be noticed from institution registered IPs. Graywalls (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. @Graywalls: Thanks for your edits but I think what you removed was added last February. Also, while it should have been removed, it wasn't sufficiently bad to override the fact that procedure is to leave articles open unless there are current problems. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(you are adding a vertical bar to the left end).
This will clear all the syntax errors reported for this page.
Page was selfprotected by the user, who is pretty much gone (3 edits in the last 5 years, last edit August 29, 2022), so unlikely to get a reply if I were to ask (but happy to do so if needed).
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IPs in what look like one range (i don't understand how IPs & ranges work) keep adding the PP template and making minor but silly changes to a long-standing fairly stable version. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello08:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: kindly protect this page against all edits except those by admins. The page is currently being vandalized and we need to prevent further damage. Mkd8421 (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the article has been the target of vandalism and harassment, and the protection is necessary to protect the article from further abuse and This page is about a living person and is therefore subject to the biographies of living persons policy. Mkd8421 (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection:User:CommonsDelinker is a global bot that removes deleted files and updates filenames that have been renamed. This user page gets a few edits now and then when there actually should be no reason to edit it. The problem is partly vandalim but also good-faith automatic notification edits by gadgets or userscripts. Jonteemil (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Continued vandalism since 2021-2022 (especially on India's spending) by what seems to be the same user on multiple IPs. Since not many people are looking at this page their previous bad faith edits stayed in for more than a year. Edonie (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There has been a rise of vandalism in the last few hours due to the match between Arsenal and Manchester City in the community shield. Fats40boy11 (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
kindly i request you guys to protect the page from high vendalism some editors are malafidely removing sources again and again plz check and protect page for 7days or less according to your guidelines. Johnftx1291 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow only extended confirmed users: The page has been targeted for various edits, like addition of unreliable sources and unverified facts, multiple times, by multiple users (especially newly created accounts or recently active accounts and socks), despite being reverted. It's becoming a zone of edit warring between multiple people. --Haoreima (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The most recent editor to have heavily disrupted this page was blocked indef for sockpuppetry a few days ago, and the one editor (who seems to be a sock of that editor, actually) who disrupted since has not returned to it as of this writing.
Reason: An IP is claiming that archive.org violates the copyright on one of his pages, the IP has made five edits undoing reverts. Jeb9489 (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Persistent back-and-forth, mostly with TCM advocates trying to remove references to pseudoscience from lead. GnocchiFan (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lots of vandalism that mainly seems to have started today. Reaso for RPP is the amount of homophobic slurs. Accounts and ips involved. Can I request someone takes a look to see if rev/dels are needed please?. Knitsey (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
probably does not need it. Uptick was caused by streamers Hasanabi and AustinShow showing the page on stream, it seems to have died down now. Some rev are legit as some incorrect information was pointed out by the two. MsKyoshi (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that history, a prot for a few hours may still be justified. Good on them for pointing editors towards statements that needed corrected, but people do need to remember the Law of Unintended Consequences is a thing. —Jéské Courianov^_^vSource assessment notes23:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User is no longer an admin, and has in the past, requested access to similar pages themselves. My personal interest is to address the WP:LINT syntax errors within the Welcome page, and (optionally) address the image syntax errors on the Icons page. Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Protecting admin (Nandesuka) no longer active. I'd like to address the WP:LINT errors (1 fostered, 3 obsolete). Extended confirmed or lower would be fine, whatever is appropriate. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Self protected (2007) by inactive user (last edit May 25, 2021). My personal interest is to address the multiple WP:LINT errors. Extended confirmed would be fine. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: There have been a significant number of WP:POV violations from un-named users, as well as a users named Ilsebeckenpower (blocked) and possibly Achmad Rachmani (though this user has a significant edit history. Could it be a purchased account?) Anyway, it is hard to know what edits are correct and which are self-promotional. Suggest this page is locked for 30 days ant kept at this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wim_Hof&oldid=1169168228Switfoot (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: Please reassess. The articles vandalisms and unsourced additions are not limited to that user alone, as can be seen by another vandal that has appeared on the page, especially the problem of WP:CASTE additions is very apparent. Gotitbro (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am wanting to edit a page on Onam. I have no history of vandalism. I have an account which is called Lolmylifeatgmail. I just want to write the correct dates for Onam in kerala rather than to just say august-September.
Semi-protection/Edit Protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing- There's been a lot of issues with content (most of which cited) being removed, including voice actors and segment names, and erroneous changes to the episode guide. (For context, The first half of Season 2 (27-39) was erroneously lumped with the rest of Season 1 (1-26) on Wikipedia, when it is actually part of Season 2 (27-52), TV Guides are currently the only source, as HBI has since scrubbed Season 2A from TV since 2026, which was the cause of the episode confusion in the following years . SB7252006 (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: High level of genre warring by IP and new users. A RoC concerning the genre is currently happening on the article’s talk page but at least on user is ignoring that and attempting to force the change. NJZombie (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism: several IP users, whom I assume are all used by the blocked user LKF 2006, keep adding films to this list, several of which aren't even geared towards adults (i.e., The Iron Giant and The Secret of NIMH). At this point, indefinite protection is need, otherwise, they'll just keep vandalizing the article. TheVHSArtist (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So that range is blocked, but there are more IP edits uninvolved. Can you explain why they should be considered disruptive. My issue is that the page itself is almost entirely unsourced, so it's hard to know which edits are disruptive. This edit of yours also added unsourced content. I'm NOT saying it was disruptive, just that it's hard to tell as an uninvolved admin without more info. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Saw the page and had large levals of vandalism, I removed it and I put on on WikiProject Military History, think a higher leval of protection will stop vandalism and make the WiikiProject easier. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Article has been subject to continual edit warring from autoconfirmed users after semi-protection, applying WP:ARBIPA unfortunately seems necessary so this article can start to progress towards NPOV. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pending changes protection: Throughout 2023 there have been sporadic instances of some serious BLP violations. About 20 instances since the last temporary protection measure expired in February 2023. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Persistent disruptive addition of poorly-sourced original research. Unlikely to stop. GnocchiFan (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. A couple of weeks ago, yes, protection (semi, actually) would have been a good idea, but not lately. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – This might be a bit more of an IAR situation, but I feel sorry for this BLP (a forced prodigy who has to live with endless attention about his childhood), and I don't think that leaving this poorly watched (but not low-traffic) article open to unregistered editors is the best we can do. There's been an IP editing the article and arguing on the talk page for weeks now, and it is both time consuming and boring to re-re-re-explain that when a magazine says "Reader's Digest said" that he has an IQ that is statistically impossible, that's not the same thing as the magazine saying that it's true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. That's not a "random" redirect...it's the scientific name (which unfortunately isn't the common name), but there is no need to edit it, so why unprotect? If someone comes up with an article which could replace the redirect, unprotection is just a click away. Lectonar (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdrqaz: it shouldn't have been protected in the first place :) (although there was vandalims/disruption), but when the page was protected...these were other times (as far as I remember). I just don't see the need to unprotect now because, well, there is no need for it, assuming no one wants to write an article. Smacks a bit like WP:BUREAUCRACY to me. And, for the record, I wouldn't resist unprotection. Lectonar (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that if we both agree that the original protection was unwarranted, forcing someone (who wants to replace the redirect or refine the redirect categories) request again seems to be even more cumbersome than dealing with it now, given that the request is in front of us already. Unprotected, Sdrqaz (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both the article and talk page were protected.
Libs of TikTok is a very controversial social media account because of their homophobia, and the article has been repeatedly edited by people denying the claims, some users using political claims that it’s “woke” or “far-left” in their edit summaries, which most likely played a part in getting both the article and talk page protected.
Outside of Wikipedia, the account has found itself in the news for some of their posts; for example here and here.
Do you think people with those sorts of views will be put off by yet another template? There are three about punishments for contentious topics, and another to check the FAQs without posting. Talk page protection has already been done to filter IPs and new users, do you think another template will put off semi-regular users from disruptive posting? Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of these templates isn’t solely to put off users from making these edits (because you’re right; they probably won’t). It is also useful to remind those same editors and others to keep a neutral point of view and discuss any changes that may be contrary to what the article is presenting. Also, pages with these tags are added to the controversial issues category, which can let others know “this page might need a little more patrolling.”
If we go by your logic, we should just get rid of such templates entirely.
Reason: High levels of edit-warring and poor quality edits from unregistered and new users. There have been nearly 100 edits in the past week, many from users with a handful of total edits. This page is marked as covering a contentious topic, as it is related to post-1992 politics of the United States. Exobiotic💬✒️14:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IPs (likely the same person, but using a wide address range) making subtle change to the notation of the stylization mention at the start of the article (using commas over long-established parentheses), with several editors disagreeing with the change, including me. IPs have not communicated at all on the talk page about their reverted change. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This was better than blocking because a rangeblock that would have covered the IPs would also have caused some collateral damage. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. They haven't edited the article in a week. Since they seem to be on the static IP, it might be better to block them, but they would need more (and, again, fresher) warnings than they have so far gotten. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continued addition by unregistered users of unsourced material. There are six citations, none of which contain the information added. Sciencefish (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Other than recent flareup, last disruptive editing was over a year ago. (I have added a CTOPS notice to the talk page though). Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm the only regular editor who watches the article and I have a lot of pages on my watchlist, so I miss a lot. However, if the powers that be decide that it's better to risk bad edits sticking in the article, so be it. (t · c) buidhe21:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I'm looking at this is less "blatant BLP violations" and more "Arguing over what the definition of 'is' is". I will say it again; this appears to be a content dispute and admins will not put their thumb on the scale if they protect the page. —Jéské Courianov^_^vSource assessment notes23:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm sympathetic to your view and very much appreciate the report. While the page has been protected a number of times, it's never been protected for any extended period, so I'm disinclined to indef at this time. I did however semi-protect for the year. BusterD (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Angry IPs rewriting the lead to describe the group as terrorists or criminals or rude names, again, in response to this week's news. Belbury (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow only extended confirmed users: The page has been targeted for various edits, like addition of personally desired facts, multiple times, by newly created accounts (seems to be block evasion of past blocked users), despite being reverted multiple times by many editors (including 2 administrators). It's becoming a zone of edit warring between multiple people. --Haoreima (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Persistent vandalism of speaker amount, this is regular and there is virtually no other non auto-confirmed edits. TylerBurden (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Disruption doesn't rise to a level where semi-protection would be needed. I have watchlisted to boot. Lectonar (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Protection from non-admins- Please protect my user page. A user is continuously vandalising my user page. Seems he has gone mad. He is taking out his frustration on my user page. Shaan SenguptaTalk12:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protectedindefinitely. Initially I thought this a stale request, but upon looking at the page history since the recent one-year semi-protection period expired and at the extensive number of logged & escalating semi-protection efforts, I have chosen to semi-protect this page indefinitely. It's time. BusterD (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pending-changes protected for a period of X, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let's try a period of pending changes, since the number of disagreeable edits is usually low. Feel invited to ask me directly if this situation escalates. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – The month's long, ongoing addition of names of people accused of crimes, data on ethnicity that is not reported in reliable sources is a BLP nightmare. Pleading for some protection against IP edits here, when admin interventions expire, they keep coming back. I don't think this is going to stop. CT55555(talk) 16:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Hi, I hope you are well. I have been working alongside the Secretary General of the EUBC, Ria Ramnarine to edit the European Boxing Confederation (EUBC) page. After editing, a user by the name of Pelmeen10, reverted the edits. I want it restored back and for the page to be protected. This a matter of utmost importance as I am liaising with the EUBC legal team and the Secretary General of the EUBC. I hope this can be resolved. Thank you. Rman1998 (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. The most recent IP edit was more than 24 hours ago. On reading through page history, certainly IPs have been making edits but most of those changes cannot be considered vandalism, IMHO. Considering the current nature of the subject, the page should expect lots of interest. When you see a pattern or several incidents of disruption, please come back to report, but I'm not seeing enough disruptive edits to deprive IP editors their chance to contribute constructively at this time. BusterD (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. No disruptive edits in over ten days? We don't normally protect pages because they might one day become a target of vandalism. We normally reserve protection to pages 1) under active attack right now, or 2) which have long been a target of active attack. BusterD (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: I resolved that I would not request WP:GS/RUSUKR protection for this unless it started getting nonconstructive edits from autoconfirmed users. That has transpired, so I am now requesting indef ECP. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – I believe I have recently submitted that this page be protected and it was denied - however, the disruptive activity from IP users has continued despite attempted talk page discussion/resolution. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Requesting URGENT page protection. Recently created article about a child created in the context of a reported (emphasis on reported) death of them. There has been no confirmation on the death and the history of the child's well-being has been allegedly used for publicity in the past. WMrapids (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – After a recent attack on my userpage, I think it's best that it be semi-protected to prevent any further retaliatory attacks. ZLEAT\C00:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Hello esteemed administrators and community members,
The ongoing debate regarding the Terminology employed within the Sunscreen page, notably the comparison between Mineral and Petrochemical versus Inorganic Compounds and Organic Compounds, has sparked significant discussion and requires clarity.
Terminology - Mineral and Petrochemical versus Inorganic and Organic Compounds:
At the crux of the issue is the intrinsic nature and understanding of substances. It's imperative to note that while everything at its core is chemical in nature, the descriptors we employ can guide public perception and understanding. "Petrochemical" is a term frequently encountered in sunscreen studies, alluding to compounds derived from fossil fuels. This term not only points to their origin but also hints at their nature as organic compounds, given the carbon-based structure inherent to petroleum derivatives. This could potentially confuse consumers, as the term 'organic' in chemistry refers to carbon-based compounds, which is vastly different from the popular understanding of 'organic' in consumer products.
Conversely, the term "mineral" resonates more intuitively with both laypeople and scientists. Minerals are inherently inorganic, meaning they are devoid of carbon. Using this term provides a dual benefit: it aligns with layman understanding while offering precision for those with a scientific background.
Significance of "Organic" & Global Regulatory Standards:
The term "organic," especially in the context of cosmetics and personal care products, holds a specific connotation for the general public. When consumers purchase products labeled as "organic," they anticipate items free from synthetic pesticides, herbicides, petrochemicals, and other such ingredients. However, this popular understanding contrasts starkly with the technical definition of "organic compounds," which denotes carbon-based molecules – precisely the kind of compounds some consumers might be looking to avoid. This dichotomy underscores the essential need for clear and accurate communication. Regulatory bodies like the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) and equivalent entities globally have set standards to protect consumers from such ambiguities. These standards dictate that products marketed as "organic" must adhere to stringent guidelines. Hence, for Wikipedia, it becomes paramount as a leading source of information to mirror these conventions, ensuring readers are not misled and that the platform aligns with the very clarity and transparency that regulatory bodies seek to establish.
FDA GRASE Classification:
Highlighting the significance of the FDA's GRASE (Generally Recognized As Safe and Effective) classification is imperative. It's worth noting that only two UV filters currently fall under the GRASE category by the FDA. This classification doesn't explicitly label other filters as harmful, but it certainly underscores the FDA's current perspective. Given Wikipedia's stature as a trusted information source, it's crucial that such details are presented transparently and accurately to avoid potential liabilities and misinformation.
Given the above discussions, I'd like to suggest a re-evaluation of the terminology used on the Sunscreen page, ensuring clarity, precision, and alignment with both scientific and consumer understandings. It's also essential to ensure the content remains protected against potential vandalism, which might mislead or confuse readers. I urge the esteemed community and administrators to consider this perspective and collaborate towards refining the content.
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. @DemocratGreen: This is not the right place to seek out help resolving a content dispute. Please read the header for this page before making any other future requests for page protection. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @BusterD: I'm removing the pending changes protection and adding a temporary semi-protection to see if that works better. The level of activity seems to have only blown up recently. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Might probably work better with a range block, but protection will do the trick for now. Lectonar (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism in order to unsourced defamation by probably sockpuppet. Need to be semi-protected from IP's at least? Masckarpone (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Looks like the IPs who would really, really like to switch the official URL to point to their fork have noticed that the last protection has expired and are edit warring their spam link in again. MrOllie (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Disruptive editing by an IP user. Requesting protection in hopes that they'll be drawn to the article talk page, where a discussion is taking place. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotection: Been 5 years since protection, the wii is now mostly irrelevant in the gaming scene, best to reduce protection to keep in line with wikipedia being a free website. Doubt that there will be substantial disruption. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, even today I am seeing references to it in popular streaming shows, particularly animated ones from Asia. @Ferret: you protected it last, what do you think? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist No. I do not support unprotecting, nor do I believe Grandmaster Huon has the experience to judge whether a topic faces the kinds of issues we see on Wikipedia. (I'm separately aware of them and their recent unblock and issues since). -- ferret (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent vandalism – IP trolling on article that falls under WP:GS/RUSUKR. They are also restoring personal attacks on the talk page though it might be possible to just block them. Mellk (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Unless I'm missing something the edit warring seems to have stopped about a day ago. Feel free to re-request attention if edit warring or other disruption resumes. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)22:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This article has recently been a repeated target of vandalism, with edits misgendering the subject, probably due to recent news articles about how Zoe's new movie was banned in some places due to transphobia. Ekmz (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Request ungrade to Extended Confirmed protection; page has been subject to repeated disruptive editing by sockpuppet accounts who have gamed the system in order to accrue 10 edits so as to be able to access this page. Bgsu98(Talk)03:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm not sure whether 1 month will really solve the problem given the extensive history of unsourced changes to that article, but let's start there. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Details with references have been edited out in the past by anonymous users. Misinformation was introduced. Djkatoch (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. One instance yesterday; before that, almost 2 weeks without edits at all even after last protection ended. Lectonar (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, what in the name of heck does a Create Protection have to do beyond this point? Within a decade of its creation, multiple users attempted to expand and improve the article. Furthermore, it has never been nominated for deletion.102.157.219.237 (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: user giman began editing this page with a negative slat on the history on 23 Jun 2023 of this year. Efforts to balance the historical perspective are being constantly undone. Request editor moderation OR removal of this entry completely from Wikipedia. Jensterd (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. @Jensterd: This can' be solved via page protection; as I can see you already engaged User Giman, and you should go on from there. The talk-page of the article would be a good starting point. Keep in mind though that Wikipedia relies on published sources to verify statements, please see: Wikipedia:Verifiability. Lectonar (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Semi-Protection persistent disruption from non-autoconfirmed users the last few days as a result of a recent political controversy, just needed until it falls out of the news cycle. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second request, I only get error messages when I try to ask on talk page not allowing any comment there
Introduction may be npov violation
"His career has included multiple online controversies, including a widely publicized feud with fellow beauty YouTuber Tati Westbrook in 2019 and his sexting with underage boys in 2021."
I think should be updated to:
"His career has included controversies, including a 2019 widely publicized feud with fellow beauty YouTuber Tati Westbrook, and in 2021 his sexting with teenagers later revealed to be underage."
Hi, as I said I only get error messages when I try to ask on talk page not allowing any comment there. I can’t post there at all. Any help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:ce95:57b0:8d47:82ba:54b8:29e5 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What error message are you seeing, exactly?
I'd say your proposed version is problematic as it doesn't quite agree with the body text. The lead summary can't be stating Charle's position as if it were factual, it must summarize what the body text says. The fact is that the boys were underage. What the subject of the article personally says about it isn't really relevant for the lead section of the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the message is always something like “unexpected error” and won’t let me make any post or start a thread.
The wording might not be perfect but even the BBC stated ‘there were two incidents - one last year and one more recently - where he came to be aware that the person he was exchanging messages with was underage.’ So Wikipedia implying he was seeking out children is misleading and painting him for violence or worse 2602:306:CE95:57B0:8D47:82BA:54B8:29E5 (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done This request is one week old, but in favour to an oppose, the edit won't be done. Why remove 'multiple online?' Generally, try to make the request on the talk page again and if any errors appear, please seek assistance at least on the Village Pump. ToadetteEdit(chat)/(logs)09:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Due to it being a school children are known to vandalize such pages for fun such as happened multiple time on the pages for Our Own English and Indian High School and some others to prevent vandalism i request some level of protection to be added Hoshya george harvey (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing/subtle vandalism by IP user. Looks to be the same person with a dynamic IP, so posting to their talk page wouldn't be useful and they aren't reading or leaving edit summaries. Spagooder (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Recently protected due to IP edit warring; extended-confirmed accounts have picked up the edit war despite active discussion on talk page. Potentially BLP-violating content being repeatedly restored. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn - everyone's behaving since I made this request, and the talk page is being productive. A few more admins watchlisting this could be helpful, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Subject to suspicious activity, particularly socipuppetry and possibly meatpuppetry. IPs which haven't been around for years have suddenly re-appeared, trying to influence the consensus. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A large amount of edits to this page have been unconstructive. People keep attempting to promote their own Minecraft server (or vandalise), and that won't change anytime soon. SWinxy (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent unsourced claims of her death. Given the amount of edits by random users, this is either true or a case of mistaken identity. My attempts to verify her death online have so far been fruitless. BilCat (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi protection: Please restore the indefinite semi protection that was removed following a short extended confirmed protection that has since expired. M.Bitton (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirm protection: Ever since the page got unprotected IPs started making disruptive edits, protect page for a long time. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The last one-year protection expired in June. Reinstating. The IP has been repeatedly blocked for a variety of reasons, re-blocked for 6 months. Acroterion(talk)13:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Requesting a longer temporary protection as article's history shows that edits made by IPs and newly registered users are mostly vandalism and/or disruptive editing. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)13:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despite edit warnings @Captain1212: is consistently involved in disruptive editing and violating Wikipedia's BLP policy by adding unsourced content. War Wounded (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: There is currently a discussion on the Facebook page dedicated to Tater Tot about potentially edit warring the page as individuals are not happy about deletions of edits which don't comply with Wikipedia policies - I suggest protecting the page to registered accounts only as a precaution. Ladysif (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – An IPv6 editor keeps changing the year span of a voice actor's time voicing the character without providing a proper explanation or reliable source. Also, one of their previous edits had an edit summary that ended with "do not change this again". –WPA (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It also looks one block and several warnings were issued to the users vandalizing the article. If they resume, please report to WP:AIV. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. These look like good faith edits from a single user. I warned them on their user talk page about using references and edit summaries. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All pages indefinitely semi-protected and indefinitely pending protected simultaneously
I'm inclined to remove PCP from all of them. I find that PCP creates more burden for regular editors than the protection is worth. However, I believe the reason is that if semiprotection were removed, then pending would still be there. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree the fact that many pages above need pending changes reset, some of them do actually need a downgrade. Meanwhile, I suppose that some others no longer need any type of protection. I am not certain what the heck those articles would be thus they ® up to the admins to figure them out. I think that several pages need to be discussed first regarding the next edit- and move-protection situation before any action is taken.197.0.93.65 (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: I'd like to see open discourse with the admin's on the first paragraph. The admin's on that page are not engaging with any rebuttal's and because of this I'd like to see them removed as admin's on the page. Reaching conclusion A, B, or C is fine. Ignoring arguments that have a different conclusion from your own is unacceptable. Cmsmith93 (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprotectedThat's an argument for continuing protection - you need to find consensus. Also, while administrators may be participating in discussions on the talkpage, they aren't necessarily doing so in that capacity. Anyone may discuss on the talkpage. Not everybody is an administrator. Acroterion(talk)02:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IP editor disputes the characterization of Logitech as 'swiss-american' or 'american-swiss' or any variation other than "Swiss". I am finalizing the beginning of a discussion on the talk page in order to come to consensus, but this IP editor is 3RR'ing relentlessly. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.19:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Chronic BLP issues and vandalism, including long term abuse on changing birthplace to Belarus. Has been protected several times before. TylerBurden (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – same reason as what caused the last protection to be applied - image vandalism to the infobox from the valid one to nonsense random images such as today's IP editing. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated addition of deleted information. I have brought this up at RPP before and been told to warn IP users - this has been done, and doesn't seem to work. Also seem to be a number of IP users re-adding the same material to this page - possible sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry? In either case, this page needs protecting. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Seddon: Thanks. The bot message above appears when you use the ((done)) template here instead of the ((RFPP)) template. The options for RFPP are collapsed in the "RFPP administrator notation templates" box above the edit window when you edit this page. Cheers.
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Severe disruption by an unregistered user that keeps adding commentary into this page after being reverted by multiple editors and communicated on article talk page. MikeAllen09:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. IP range parblocked from the article and its talk page for 2 weeks. If disruption starts on other pages I will block sitewide. Protection does not appear to be necessary otherwise. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'll leave it to you to try to sort out what's going on. If edit-warring continues under semiprotection I'll probably just start blocking instead. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Calling something a "mega cringe fest" is unencyclopedic and the removal is warranted, even if a source uses those words. Discuss on the talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Other than the blocked IP, there has not been enough disruptive activity to justify protecting this page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense bureaucracy. User's talk posts were highly inappropriate; the page was deleted but I've also revoked access (I don't know if blocked users can create their own talk pages, but with this user I'm not waiting to find out). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: The page was already deleted and it looked like the abusive user had moved on when I responded. Characterizing my response as "nonsense bureaucracy" is a bit much when I've been trying to work through the backlog here for the last 4 hours. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Quinlan: my apologies, and thank you for taking the time to work through the backlog, but you ought to have said that in the first place, rather than declining with no explanation other than directing the user to a template which directs them to ask a different admin, which does read to me as bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Quinlan: this has been attempted. The editor who is adding the contentious material in question has not demonstrated they understand the concept of a consensus, and reverts to their version after individual responses on the talk page. dannymusiceditoroops23:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you say it isn't. I believe you, but then what do you want me to do when they continue to push a version which is skewed to their point of view? Just leave it? Revert it under the definition of vandalism? I always learned that the old version stays, but it doesn't work when they keep pressing beyond 3RR. That's why I brought this here, so we would be forced to use other resolutions. dannymusiceditoroops00:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - most of the edit's seem to be good faith. It's an active page on a current event and unless the good faith nature changes or I've missed something, seems that leaving the page unprotected for now makes sense. Seddontalk21:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Repeatedly created in draft space and article space. Please ECP-protect in article space so that only established editors can create. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism is not frequent, but every edit made by IPs or new editors for several years have been vandalism. It gets tiring checking every time there's a change. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @Chetsford: Sorry, we both changed the protection during the same minute. If you want, remove my protection but I couldn't see any useful edits. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: On average, once a month, sometimes more often, an IP user sets up a new topic in which he requests to add information about Malevich's Ukrainianness, each time the answer is the same: "provide sources", which never happens. This situation has been going on for more than a year and results in littering the t/p. I think the exclusion of IP addresses will help keep things in order. Marcelus (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Page has been full protected since 2014 and contains syntax errors (fostered content, obsolete tags) that I'd address. User has been blocked since 2012.
If this page is not eligible for lowering, I can make an X to Y request for these errors instead. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Nearly constant vandalism for the last year, IP and recent account deleting sourced content and adding controversial/non-neutral statements, without ever taking the time to discuss the issues. Coco (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. From the look of the history of the article there is a lot of content disputes happening. 1keyhole (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Persistent editing against consensus by two or three IP users, and now a newly registered user. (All appear to be inserting material in same vein as block-evading socks that have been active on LGBT-related articles, long-term). AukusRuckus (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Increasing vandalism from a variety of IPs. I suspect a recent event has drawn more attention to the page of this sports figure. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bullshit page. It provides bias towards the author's political opinion. We need facts. The first paragraph is a lie. I'm sure the rest is bullshit. That is can't be edited makes it history. I have video of several illegalities and the police let the people in. That means the police are traitors or the people are not.
Reason: I want to update the credits on my page so they are correct, and put the credits into a table format. There is no contentious or controversial activity.
that's all I have tried to do. Nothing controversial or contentious. 152.37.110.220 (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. The subject of an article, or the subject's associates, should not be editing it, particularly for substantive changes. It is protected specifically for that reason. Make an edit request on Talk:Ali Cook. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: i think protection level should be decreased to add more data to the page as the data seems to be irrelevant so that addition of data to the page seems correct Openharmoir (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotection: Unless I'm missing something, all this template does is generate the documentation for ((User-multi)). Its only transclusions listed are the <50 template pages where it's being used as documentation. ((u|Sdkb))talk21:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The article has had only 2 time-set protection occasions, looking at the protection log. Compare this with Thailand's protection log, there are like 13+ time-set protection attempts before it was decided it was disruptive long enough to apply indefinite semi-protection, which is a lot more than this page, which has only seen 2 protection occurrences. Other countries' articles with indefinite semi protection also have many more trials of time-set protection as reading in the logs (Colombia, Bulgaria, Iraq, Serbia, Czech Republic, ...etc) before an indefinite semi-protection is warranted. I discussed with the admin about 3 months ago at the admin's talk page (see "Unprotection" section). This article needs more trials and periods of unprotection to see if disruption is really that bad. 14.191.33.160 (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a persuasive argument what-so-ever. Administrators are not obligated to do escalating protection lengths if/when it becomes blatantly clear that the disruption is going to just reoccur once the protection is over. —Jéské Courianov^_^vSource assessment notes16:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "blatantly clear" that the disruption is going to just reoccur. The disruption only occured when the topic is highly searched. 14.191.33.160 (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprotected – Please use an edit request to request specific changes to be made to the protected page.
Yes, it is "blatantly clear". I had unprotected this in March, and disruption resumed to the point where it had to be reprotected again the same month. This experiment has already been tried, and failed. Therefore it is now indef-semiprotected. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the unprotection was during the time when the topic is highly searched, so there is a lot of disruption during that particular period. The experiment is way too thin to say anything. 14.191.33.160 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – She is in the news because of a lawsuit filed against her by Michael Oher who was initially said to have been adopted by her but he alleges this didn't happen. This is causing IPs to edit the page to reflect what are at this point just allegations as fact. Rockchalk71719:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – He has reportedly agreed to contract with the Patriots and has tweeted he intends to sign with the team, however there is no confirmation he has actually signed as is required per policy. Rockchalk71721:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP and new users NPOV edits. The subject has died recently, and so many editors who are biased towards him have cleaned up the article making it look positive for the subject, without including any objective information. I've reverted many NPOV edits so far but I'm sure they'll again act up. Needs to be protected for some weeks IMO. X (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Former article from 2018 being restored as-is by IP (and their named socks) without any talk page discussion or change in content. Nate•(chatter)19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – He has reportedly agreed to a contract with a new team. This has not been confirmed by the new team yet and IPs have been editing the page to reflect the transaction. Rockchalk71700:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The definition of forced pregnancy that was originally on this page and on others is "Forced pregnancy is the practice of forcing a woman or girl to become pregnant or remain pregnant against her will..." I am part of an abortion debate circle and unfortunately "pro life activists" keep editing this page to take out the part that says forced pregnancy is forcing someone to remain pregnant against their will. This is clearly false. I would appreciate if this page was locked from being edited because it is very useful when it comes to advocating for anti-forced birth policies. Thank you. 2601:200:C100:5760:54E7:5C79:4EED:3618 (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – It would seem that the unconstructive edits continue at this list page almost as soon as the protection expires. ♥Melody♥ 01:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Some users keeps on coming here changing the ownership to Nashville SC because this team got eliminated by them in the quarter-finals. Kaseng55 (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add edits regarding her early life, education, the ironing board, and late life. Claudiaf3137 (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page is not protected; the reason the last request was declined is because it (1) didn't clearly specify what needed to be changed (in a "change X to Y" format) instead being what appeared to be a wholesale rewrite of the article, and (2) was practically impenetrablebecause of that. A shorter, clearer request that seeks to change only portions of the page will be a lot more successful. —Jéské Courianov^_^vSource assessment notes03:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – This page isn't currently protected. @Claudiaf3137: Please ask on the talk page for that article which isn't currently protected (see the instructions at the top of this section). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In info box, the section President of Cuba should be edited to position established with himself as predecessor President of the Council of State, respectively, in the section President of the Council of State and Council of Ministers with current President of the Council of State Esteban Lazo Hernández as successor. 2A02:2F04:B007:6800:884:D3D:55DC:F5F2 (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – This page isn't currently protected. Please ask on the talk page for that article which isn't currently protected (see the instructions at the top of this section). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change the information under the topic " Large population ". India has now become the World's most populous country and the Data there is still Outdated. 223.226.25.80 (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – This page isn't currently protected. @223.226.25.80: Please ask on the talk page for that article which isn't currently protected (see the instructions at the top of this section). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Unusual to have to request protection for a draft, but I think the circumstances merit it. In brief, the draft describes a hoax/non-existent 'movie' (citing sources backing this up). A series of new accounts keep replacing the content with material presenting the movie as real. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WP:ARBEE noted but not logged — not enough disruptive activity for that atm (I don't ordinarily invoke/log a sanction regime unless the protection is at least 3 months). El_C12:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 months (all), after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This is some prolific disruption across multiple pages, though I stopped at Aug for a total of 10. El_C12:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Page recently semiprotected due to BLP edit-warring; edit-warring has been picked up by multiple extended-confirmed accounts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of vandalism due to the subject being a football referee. Recently involved in a controversial decision. Page is not protected at all, causing IP and non-registered vandalism. Bnwkr (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because ....... . 99.57.198.71 (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The article is completely inaccurate, highly biased and far from objective. The fact that it's locked is indicative of censorship.
Please remove protection so the page can be properly updated, or COMPLETELY remove the page.[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I see there is already a BLPN discussion ongoing, and that's good, but some of the accounts involved in restoring the contentious material are extended-confirmed, so I went straight to full protection. If necessary please use ((edit protected)) on the talk page, or request lowering of the protection level here if warranted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – He is in this regarding an alleged fake adoption of former NFL player Michael Oher. This has triggered multiple IPs making disruptive and problematic edits to the page. Rockchalk71715:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Frequent removal of deletion templates, by both an account and an IP. The account had received a 4th warning for afd template removal (by me)[31], and now the IP performed the removal. [32] I think after one template removal, the page had been moved to draft by another editor and was immediately re-created as well. [33]. The account is probably block-able at this point, but I was waiting for them to take action after a true "4th" warning before requesting block. —siroχo16:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The users, who used by Bulgarian IPs is no longer who used a vandalising/hoaxes editing with replacement of Classic FM TV on 27 April 87.120.165.125 (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection: The page has been semi-protected recently at my request. Unfortunately, even after the semi-protection, biased users came back and removed factual statements regarding the subject. The page had lots and lots of NPOV issues, which I removed, but still, a lot of copy editing is required. On top of all that, it's really extra work for other editors to revert new disrupting edits (in the case of this page, it's mostly me who's housekeeping it). So, to spare me and others the extra workload of reverting bogus edits, I'd request the page to be extended-confirmed temporarily. Recently a relatively inexperienced editor has started to revert my constructive edits without proper justification. I feel like this page has become really prone to an impending edit war, all the more reason to extend its protection. X (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, User:Xkalponik is actually introducing his own bias by specifically removing all the sourced contents that criticizes the trial of the subject and reverting all the other editors who disagree with them. I would rather suggest temporarily blocking Xkalponik from editing the article. LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my reply to you on my talk page: I have not reverted edits by all other users. Re-check the edit history, you'd notice there have been constructive edits by several users, which I did not revert, even I brought back constructive edits by other users myself, again, because they were "constructive." This is a fact, that you seemed to have altered, and I put your assertions and accuracy into question. I explicitly said, I did not remove those entirely, but I rewrote those in the latter sections in an objective manner. I even added new sources along with new lines that describe the claims better. And I removed and rewrote factual error claims. Those were comments by his supporters, and sources reported that saying, X and Y commented/opinionated "this and that." These do not constitute facts, but comments, which can be added in the controversy/reaction section. "specifically removing all the sourced contents that criticizes the trial of the subject", is another factually errored assumption by you. Look closely, I myself even added content and sources that critiqued the trial. X (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I urged you to not start an edit war, which you now have started, but I'm not willing to participate in it. I'm not questioning whether or not that content deserves to be on the lead or not. The line from lead, which I assume you're brawling about is: "Several international observers condemned the verdict and suggested the charges to be politically motivated and a case of mistaken identity." This is a factually errored statement. Several groups critiqued the trial and did not "suggest" the charges to be politically motivated. They mentioned that the trial was not up to international standards, and several Bangladeshi supporter groups of the subject have accused the trial to be "politically motivated and a case of mistaken identity." There's a huge difference there. The fact that the trial was controversial, can be on the lead, and several groups, namely Human Rights Watch and Amnesty raised concerns over the fairness of the trial process, can also stay on the lead, cause they're facts, but the earlier statement is not. Anyway, I'm adding that latter line into the lead. Please do not continue the edit war furthermore. It's really unwarranted now. Anyway, you've ignored all the previous points I addressed. And now you've drifted away towards what should and should not be on the lead. But before, you were throwing false and incorrect assumptions at me. X (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User @LucrativeOffer even have removed the semi protection and multiple issues templates. I'm not going to participate in this brawl any further before an administrative action. X (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined but talk page access revoked. @Taking Out The Trash: semiprotecting the page prevents all IP and non-confirmed editors from editing the page, and will not likely be granted unless there is widespread vandalism from multiple sources. For a blocked user abusing their own talk page, please post a request to revoke talk page access (which is a block, not a protection level) at WP:ANI. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Drive by disruptions by new editors who refuse to engage in Talk page discussions (or any discussion at all) and continue edit warring at an intermittent pace. Asking for a temporary PP so a stable moratorium for discussion can be established. Gotitbro (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: IP vandal (?) who refuses to engage on talk page and has been reverted repeatedly over many days and by many editors. The revision about 17kb is the good one. GreenC00:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – It seems she is leaving WWE[34] but IP users continuously add unsourced/unconfirmed stuff to the article, plus BLP violation and vandalism like [35][36][37]. The article needs 1 week semi-protection for confirming news from reliable sources about her departure and the related details. Mann Mann (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lectonar: I didn't realize the pending-changes protection was added right before I semi-protected the article, but the level of disruption seems substantial and relentless since the page was unprotected. If you want to undo my change or revise it, feel free. I'm looking some more at the page history now. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lectonar: I see 26 reversions since the page was unprotected June 8th, but only 8 in the preceding 2 years while it was semi-protected. Prior to that, it was protected several times with some hidden edits as well. I suspect pending-changes will produce at least as many disruptive edits (I've seen cases where disruptive edits actually increase in number with pending-changes turned on). If you think pending changes is the better option, we can try it out and see how it goes. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Quinlan: I have seen the oppsite...pending-changes protection produces frustration with the vandals, as the edit does not go "live" immediately (so I do not see real disruption there, it's just one more click to revert), so people tend to give up. Anyway, in cases like these I use pending-changes protection for some months; I watchlist, and try to evaluate if the the article needs semi-protection. Lectonar (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am correcting a tracked syntax error on Wikipedia called the Tidy Font bug and this page has three occurrences of this error in the following signature. Due to changes with MediaWiki in 2018, any link written in the format of <font color>[link]</font> with the color stated outside the link does not display the intended colors and instead defaults to standard blue for most browsers.
This change will fix three of the remaining nineteen Tidy Font errors within Userspace.
Full disclosure, I made a Protected Edit request here in May which Xaosflux declined on the basis that it was a PE Request. Xaosflux has no objection to the change requested, only the method used to ask for this change per this conversation.
Came back to it the other week after fixing easier issues when I asked Versa on their talk page. Have had no response, so proceeding here.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Australia is currently in the FIFA Women’s World Cup Semifinals and Kerr is one of the leading players/is subject to a lot of media coverage and therefore attracting a lot of unwanted attention and publicity to the Wikipedia article. James(T • C) • 11:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: I request Administrators to semi protect merca city lower shabelle region Somalia page Wikipedia to avoid vandalism and dispute editing.. Hassancadde (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because ....... . Vishal Kandassamy (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
But, Lahore was conquered by the Indian Subcontinent rulers and their forces in 1043 CE later after defeating and killing the Ghanzavids.[reply]
Yes, autoconfirmed users can edit, but IPs and new user can't, and so need to request an edit on the talk page. Nevertheless, there was a recent content dispute between you and other autoconfirmed edits which probably ended up in a discussion on the talk page. ToadetteEdit(chat)/(logs)11:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, we are deciding on consensus at the moment - when the new edit is made I wanted to avoid anybody making reverts and making the page unstable. Do you have any advice if that happens? Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Last content-changing edit was more than a week ago, and talk-page discussion is still (somewhat) ongoing. If disruption becomes disruptive, feel free to make a new request. We can't protect single sections, btw. Lectonar (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Two suspected SP are doing disruptive editing on this page, checkusers are informed. As this page is protected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Jammu_and_Kashmir_airstrikes#In_media the official film page should be protected too to prevent vandalism. The SPs are editing wrong information which has nothing to do with the film and or no added in the news or any notable websites. They are adding information from their own. NatRepo (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: One user, (Frank Anchor), has been "edit-warring" on this page and reverting all edits and does make any attempt to reach a consensus on multiple occasions. In particular, he constantly reverts or deletes edits concerning the Washington Commander bringing sideline benches into Cowboys Stadium. Multiple editors have added the same material back to which he repeatedly reverted. Furthermore, when approached for dialogue he is not addressing any of the points of why his edits were reverted on multiple occasions. The Cowboys-Washington rivalry page is for highlighting events or games that are meaningful to the rivalry itself. The topic he keeps reverting from multiple editors is the event where the Cowboys brought benches with their team logo into FedEx field, to which the Washington head coach responded, "That's part of the gamesmanship." And then, the Washington team responded by bringing their own hot seat benches with their logos into a temperature-controlled stadium. That is clearly a pertinent event for the rivalry. Multiple news sources, Wikipedia editors, and the head coach have spoken specifically about this event. His statement of "this is standard practice across the league" has no stated source behind it and is not relevant to this particular incident. While this does not meet the 24-hour window of edit-warring, the intent to continually push his own agenda on this page without collaboration or consensus is very apparent. Giphmedia (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Disruption by several non extended confirmed users over long period and still continues, just take a look at the article history [38] - requesting protection per WP:GS/AA, the article falls under this guideline and a protection is needed. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Persistent disruption including vandalism, article has been repeatedly protected and disruption has continued each time once it has expired, so requesting indef for now. TylerBurden (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: IP editors - who may be the same editor, or a group - have on four or five occasions amended the introduction to the article to delete a description of the subject as a "retired Welsh Anglican bishop", which I would have thought an entirely uncontroversial description, and entirely supported by the various sources which are cited in the main text of the Article. On the earlier occasions no reason was given. On the last occasion when I reverted the edit, I directed a warning to the last editor, and asked for an explanation of why the description was repeatedly being deleted. All that appeared on the Talk page was "The words are confusing. More than one description accurately." I do not understand the meaning of this, and it does not seem to be a bona fide attempt to engage with my request for a discussion. As the deletions have all been made by editors identified by IP, semi-protection would seem adequate. Ntmr (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another experienced user had reverted the page to my last edit, and the same IP user has already amended the entry to a less specific description! Ntmr (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: there is also a lot of disruption involved by IPs who have yet to participate in in any discussion, all coming from the same geolocation (in what appears to be a concerted attempt at forcing a POV despite the established consensus on the talk page). M.Bitton (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does non-stop edit-warring (and possible sockpuppetry) not count as sufficient disruptive editing? Three different editors have now reverted these edits 6 times today, and the IPs are still persisting ([45]), even after the registered editor engaged in discussion on the talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Multiple IPs are adding unsourced additions to this article, claiming sources aren't needed for their claims. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Years long (plural), rather. I protected it for 2 years, 2 years ago. I rarely if ever bother going beyond that, so indef. El_C20:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article was previously protected for four days because of consistent vandalism focusing on snakes. Now that the page has been unprotected, this vandalism has immediately resumed. ser!(chat to me - see my edits)21:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Experienced at least three periods of vandalism this year beginning in March, with vandalism still persisting. B3251 (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection:Arbitration enforcement – Semi-protection isn't stopping the edit warring over perceived "political" statements in the article by autoconfirmed editors not joining in the talk page discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Prone to being unstable and prone to edit war. Please see recent edit war, consensus for recent change on talk page and threat to revert recent changes. Richie wright1980 (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent unexplained edits by the 2001:44c8:44 IP range; since this issue has been going on for months now, it may warrant a range block for this article. Yeeno (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: See my request (yesterday) for semi-protection (declined). Two further amendments by IP user(s) since then, deleting description as "retired Welsh Anglican bishop" which should be uncontentious. Ntmr (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Normally I am loath to protect articles in cases such as this, as they are usally well watch, and reliable sources will pick up on it rather quickly...but here, there is too much uncertainty. Things might change quickly, though, so if another admin wants to unprotect before the protection expires, feel free. Lectonar (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case it isn't obvious, a profanity-filled English-language nursery rhyme is unlikely to be spoken regularly in the Vatican. The claim is, of course, unsourced. Lkb335 (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:Eryk Wdowiak was edit warring towards his preferred version of the page, culminating in a block on August 10th. Now an IP editor is pushing very similar edits, having already violated 3RR. Disruptive editing looks likely to continue without page protection. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. This article is very controversial and is subject to vandalism and disruptive editing persistently Abo Yemen✉16:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: I'm trying to improve this article with citations but there is one user who keeps undoing everyone's edits in the history. The article has a lot of inaccuracies, and the edits I'm making all have citations that he undoes because he doesn't agree with it and doesn't bother to check the citations for accuracy. WhistlersDog (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Recurring vandalism in which references to other albums are replaced with links to Macho Man Randy Savage's Be a Man. I've only ever seen the vandalism perpetrated by IPs, so semiprotection is probably all that's needed here. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Digital Marketing
Computerized showcasing alludes to the creation and dispersal of content through computerized media channels (sites, presentation pages Nimra waseem (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise to my previous request earlier this week, I'm addressing Tidy font errors and had no response from Versageek for earlier's archive 2 request. Due to changes with MediaWiki in 2018, any link written in the format of <font color>[link]</font> with the color stated outside the link does not display the intended colors and instead defaults to standard blue for most browsers.
The following three changes will correct five of the remaining sixteen Tidy font errors in Userspace.
Likewise to my request above, Tidy font errors and no user response to recent request for similar issues. Due to changes with MediaWiki in 2018, any link written in the format of <font color>[link]</font> with the color stated outside the link does not display the intended colors and instead defaults to standard blue for most browsers.
The following changes will address the other eleven of the remaining sixteen Tidy Font errors in Userspace.
[[User:Deon555|Deon555]]<sup><font color="purple">[[User_talk:Deon555|'''talk''']]</font></sup><sub><font color="brown">I'm [[User_talk:Deon555/Back|BACK!]]</font></sub>
to
[[User:Deon555|Deon555]]<sup>[[User_talk:Deon555|<b style="color:purple">talk</b>]]</sup><sub><span style="color:brown">I'm [[User_talk:Deon555/Back|<span style="color:brown">BACK!</span>]]</span></sub>
one case of:
[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Installing Japanese character sets|?]]</sup> · <small><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|投稿]]</font> · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small>
to
[[User:Nihonjoe|<span style="color:darkgreen">日本穣</span>]]<sup>[[Help:Installing Japanese character sets|?]]</sup> · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<span style="color:blue">投稿</span>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small>
Reason: It is a clear case of vandalism. Linking some edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Also, I didn't mention in my previous request but I meant increasing the protection level to extended-confirmed protection or at least semi-protection (indefinite, if possible). — 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™💬07:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Vandalized by new and/or unregistered users, already having many reverted edits the last few days, probably because of current events of Messi transfer. Chiserc (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple different IPs adding unsourced info and vandalizing the page. It was protected until yesterday and now the vandals are back. ULPS(talk • contribs)15:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: An IP user persistently changes the release dates without sources. This has been happening for a long time and the page has been protected before. Bowling is life (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Main page DYK, vandalized with g5 template which was up for five minutes, should probably have semi just for today. Lallint16:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: In previous seasons the changes made to the page were not in line with the official organiser of the competition (SANZAAR). Team names were also changed, and not the official name used by SANZAAR. MarioBayo (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There is considerable evidence of COI in previous and current editing of this article, with IPs using WP:PROMO that likely only insiders could know. Opening a discussion on the talk page, but only one user name is associated with the disputed content and sources. Three users have been notified about COI. Zefr (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I submitted this request earlier before I realised his transfer was confirmed, I'm not really sure now if protecting it is necessary. PeachyBum07 (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The page is constantly being vandalized by unknown editors and hence I would prefer making this page semi-protected. MSincccc (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The page has only been protected once (for 10 days), so this is as long as I'm able to justify barring anything especially egregious. @MSincccc: courtesy ping. El_C13:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism back again after previous protection expired in 9 August 2023. Article has also been persistently vandalized since the article was named Loona (band) then moved Loona (group) then to current Loona which as per logs, article has been protected for 8 times.[50][51][52]. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)10:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
===Articles...</nowiki> Ignore that. Bot keeps adding that mess within my pre brackets for some reason despite my attempts. My request is a simple, add one vertical bar (alone on the one single blank line) above the "eq eq eq Articles I created line eq eq eq" and below the "width... collapse" line. Nothing else. Zinnober9 (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Some sort of YouTube competition to get a date of closure (varying between 31 Aug, 1 Sep and 30 Sep) into the article. Protection from IPs and brand new editors until at least 2 September would be helpful. Thanks. — Trey Maturin™11:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Counterproductive Edits/Edit War: A few users (Hoffmand002, IP Users 12.180.167.23 and 107.217.40.7) continue to make erroneous and counterproductive edits to the Crashbox page (Rearranging segments, renaming segments, misordering episodes; in spite of various sources listed). I have contacted all of them concerning the edits, but they continue to edit the pages with the false info regardless. SB7252006 (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read this request and there is any automated comment jargon between the | and the ===ite my attempts. My request is a simple, add one vertical bar (alone on the one single blank line) above the "eq eq eq Articles I created line eq eq eq" and below the "width... collapse" line. Nothing else. Zinnober9 (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by Hungarian dynamic IPv6 addresses. They have added almost all Hungarian TV channels that are not part of the "TV2 Group" to the list of sister channels. LDM2003talk to me!08:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Hi there. I am currently completely rewriting this page as I am part of the Guild of Copy Editors, and this is what we do! This page is currently full of paragraphs of biassed, dramatic and completely unsourced content that I am overwriting. Please reference versions of the article before I started re-writing it. I want to prevent the article when I leave it being reverted back to its unreadable state. This article was previously often cited as the worst on the English Wikipedia, and I do not want this legacy to remain here.
Kind regards,
JacobTheRox. JacobTheRox (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Semi-protection. Repeated efforts from multiple IP addresses to change the numbers for the dog's weight, without sourcing. -- Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:Semi-protection, ideally temporary - With all other viable targets for misguided outrage now protected, we're getting chaff on the talk page. At present it's just a single IP, but Google's malicious incompetence has consistently proven to be an issue simply because Google refuses to do a fucking thing about it and people are (deliberately, IMNSHO) searching the string specifically to be outraged. —Jéské Courianov^_^vSource assessment notes15:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The number of disruptive edits on these pages is disconcerting, but it's premature to protect this page. Most of the abuse seems to be directed at pages that are just one step, maybe two, from the Google search in question. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Requesting temporary semi-protection as the subject has reportedly recently died and multiple IP addresses are editing the page with disregard for the rules. Bnwkr (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Maybe just once we could have a major final like this without puerile nonsense from the peanut gallery... firefly ( t · c ) 12:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprotected. No valid reason to remove protection that was just applied today, and no attempt was made to contact the protecting administrator. Make an edit request on the talk page if you really think it's "important information", and your request needs to be backed up by citations to reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Disruptive editing by IPs spamming with tabloids and fraud content, fully ignoring all the reliable sources of the article and its material. Fragrant Peony (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: There has been a high level of Vandalism and Untrue statements/facts posted about Mr Hayward. Mr Hayward has come out on Social Media condemning these issues and has felt very hurt - there are vandals out there who are there to defame and post ludicrous things which aren't true or backed up.
Hi there Shako18! The most recent edit to this article sure smells like hoax vandalism. Either that or Mr. Hayward holds some pretty unorthodox views on Islam!
What are the other instances of vandalism and untrue statements? Could you kindly post information on the specifics to Talk:Joel Hayward for the community's awareness?
Also, are Mr. Hayward's social media statements public? I'm curious how you're aware of this. By any chance are you Joel Hayward himself or someone close to him? If yes, you should review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest rules & guidelines and refrain from further edits. Thanks! Struct (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: I'd like access to these 15 pages to address the Tidy Font bug errors and other WP:LINT found within, as I have with similar past requests. Each of these pages was selfprotected by the former admin, so asking the protecting admin prior to this request is not needed. I have Extended Confirmed access, so that or lower is fine, whatever is appropriate for each.
If I have overlooked anything that would be an issue, or you feel that any page needs to be temporarily lowered to Extended Confirmed and returned to Full after I've addressed all Lint issues, that is fine (temporaries would be addressed first, and I'd let you know when finished if any). Happy to discuss anything if you have further questions. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – The talkpage for a developer of mobile microtransaction games, it attracts nothing but spam requests for microtransaction currency and support requests. Some requests include various personal details, such as account numbers, which is furtherly problematic. CMD (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nevertheless, CMD, article talk pages rarely get indef protected. My sense is that this one ultimately will not be, but regardless, it has only been protected twice before (in 2021 and 2022, for the same length as this third protection). For a lengthy protection, not to mention indef, it'll take at the very least several more granted protection requests, and with greater frequency than yearly'ish. El_C11:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: A bunch of IP vandals keeps on adding a hoax "weekend edition" on this article since the semi protection expired last August 19. - WayKurat (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 4 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I guess I'll double it yet again (hopefully, 3rd time the charm). El_C10:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider adding additional information about the risks of using ChatGPT that is emerging from research. See: Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., Peden, A. E., Cole-Hunter, T., Costantini, A., Haghani, M., Rod, J. E., ... & Reniers, G. (2023). The risks of using ChatGPT to obtain common safety-related information and advice. Safety Science, 167, 106244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106244 DrOscarO3P (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two issues I see. You are not asking for a "Change X to Y" request, and you appear to have written the article you are trying to reference, a WP:COI and promotional issue. Zinnober9 (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Shu Qi was born in 1974. She said so ([55]), and she must know best. Some fans of that ageless and timeless beauty don't agree, though, and insist on having her born two years later, in 1976. I suggest the article be semi-protected because I am tired of fighting back. Thank you! Edelseider (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Is it possible to request full protection of this talk page? Kahtar is me, a secondary account i only use for semi-automated edits, the talk page is a redirect to mine (user talk:LindsayH), and no one should be editing it. Thank you. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello17:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know if this is a good idea. Editing your talk page interrupts an AWB task, so we’re you to be accidentally making a semiautomatic mess, editing that talk page would be the optimal way a non-admin could get your attention… Courcelles (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping; well, i see your point, however, when i am pinged or messaged on my talk page (LindsayH, not Kahtar), i respond as soon as it is seen, which has never yet been an issue. The most recent i remember is this one, in which case i responded within the hour. The issue is that Kahtar doesn't edit every day, though LindsayH almost inevitablly does, and looks at the watchlist/notifications, so catches anything on user_talk:LindsayH, whereas user_talk:Kahtar can go days without being checked. Seems to me that anyone having an issue with an edit would want to tell me on the page with is going to get the better/quicker response. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello18:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, looking at the talk-page to be protected...I don't even see much attempts to contact you there over the years (5 attempts before redirection was done, and only the bot afterwards). Furthermore, the full protection would also prevent YOU from editing it (which might be necessary someday?). On a sidenote: why is the second account for semi-automated edits even needed? This whole kittencaboodle strikes me as a bit (over-)complicated, but perhaps I am too old :). Anyway, overall I wouldn't protect: not enough activity on said talk-page, and possible technical repercussions. Just my 2 cents. Lectonar (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Lectonar; it was simply in order to be sure i see any messages because i never look at the page. As you point (or Courcelles) point out, however, it does prevent me from continuing with AWB before it's checked, so consider this withdrawn. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello17:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give a heads up, I already apologized for my behavior. I’ve recently reed his talk page message and now I understand what he meant now. So there’s o need to protect the article. I just misunderstood 2607:FB91:21C0:8D57:E4FB:D430:798F:5879 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – I use this template all the time as a member of the guild myself. People are constantly adding and removing things. This is often changing the meaning of the template, and is without community consensus. JacobTheRox (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: So far, three newly-registered editors have changed sourced information; the first supposedly done at the request of Ms. Shannon herself. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Repeated attempts to add sponsor names by editors/IP with a clear (and undeclared) conflict of interest (one of the IPs stated on my talk page that getting the sponsored name onto Wikipedia was to "thank the sponsors"). Number5717:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Long pattern of new accounts adding promotional non-notable examples to the list across many years. Indefinite semi-protection would save a good amount of editor time over the years to come. BrigadierG (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The page was protected several times before. The same IP editor (apparently from Philippines), who doesn't listen to any arguments on the talk page, persistently inserts nonsense like January 28: The first episode of Winx Club airs on Rai 2. or Italy wins 2006 FIFA World Cup. or November 8: Activision release Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. or A Twitter post insults the most left groups in the United States as extremist and labels them as "Social Justice Warriors". etc etc. Article requires permanent protection. Artem.G (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: I'd like access to these 20 pages to address the Tidy Font bug errors and other WP:LINT found within, as I have with similar past requests. Each of these pages was selfprotected by the former admin, so asking the protecting admin prior to this request is not needed. I have Extended Confirmed access, so that or lower is fine, whatever is appropriate for each.
If I have overlooked anything that would be an issue, or you feel that any page needs to be temporarily lowered to Extended Confirmed and returned to Full after I've addressed all Lint issues, that is fine (temporaries would be addressed first, and I'd let you know when finished if any). Happy to discuss anything if you have further questions. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. It needs to be protected to stay a redirect. Lectonar (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. I don't see any attempt on the article's talk page to hash out the dispute about Georgia the U.S. state vs. Georgia the country. This disagreement covers the majority of the edits since the previous protection lapsed. Joyous!Noise!18:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Persistent vandalism from a number of IPs and newly registered users to the lead of this article. The article is about a football competition which was recently held and received wide media attention hence the rise in vandalism on the article. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The same IP editor that pushes nonsense to Timeline of the 21st century adds here entries like Release date of Disney's Lady and the Tramp., Rock and roll musicians Ritchie Valens, Buddy Holly and The Big Bopper die in a plane crash. The page should be indefinitely protected, because the editor do not understand reverts and persistentely adds more and more entries. Artem.G (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: There have been recent edits to this article talking about the flag of Northern Cyprus. Tensions between Cyprus and Turkey have always been high due to the illegal occupation of the north of the island. Northern Cyprus is not an internationally recognised country and mentions of the flag in this article are offensive and fuel tension.
Please lock the article to prevent further abuse 86.18.83.46 (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: IP vandalism. May be not a case of disruptive editing to justify page protection but it is an article about a national team that we're aiming to make a good article and these kind of vandals are so irritating. So I'm urging to the reviewing administrator to protect the page (indefinitely, if possible). — 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™💬14:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Allyriana000: The article is indefinitely semi-protected per WP:GS/PAGEANT. It's not easy to see which edits would justify an increase to WP:ECP. Perhaps add a new section at article talk with diffs of a couple of recent edits and briefly explain what is wrong with them. Then reply here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Or range block 2001:56A:F9B5:8800:0:0:0:0/64 from editing this article, the IP range that has been doing the vandalism (falsifying content for a chart position in the article) across the last eight months. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further back in the page history, I'm seeing that said IP range has been doing this for almost two years, dating back to December 2021 (at least). MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: A strong influx of disruptive edits from fresh accounts/anonymous users, including inappropriate links and generally unsuitable information. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Kuki people are the main target of the ongoing 2023 Manipur violence, which is serious ethnic violence that has gone on for over 100 days. The issues are going to be troubled for the foreseeable future. Perhaps ECP under ARBIPA/Contentious topics regime is also warranted. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pending changes protection: Lot of experimental Ip edits without proper structure and table, seems disruptive, the page needs a minimum protection to deal with this Drat8sub (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pending changes protection: Eperimental edits by ips, disruptive, structure and table of the article has been disrupted. Drat8sub (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. 1 helpful IP, 2 disruptive IPs...editing frequncy not very high. I have watchlisted. Lectonar (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:Extended confirmed or semi-protection: Large level of vandalism and unconstructive editing. Extended-confirmed protection or at least semi protection. WindowsWorld (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite pending changes protection: Persistent Vandalism. This article is subject to constant vandalism by somali ips claiming that the island is claimed by somalia although the prime minister of somalia clearly denounced these claims Abo Yemen✉14:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you need help resolving a disagreement, please make use of one of several options for dispute resolution such as mediation or getting a third opinion. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The article needs extended confirmed protection. As soon as Ymblanter's extended confirmed access ran out, two anonyms and two newbies performed a sheer vandalism in the article, adding controversial facts with no sources cited (1, 2, 3, 4). For now, only the most blatant edit has been reverted. ELindas (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the extensive history of protection, Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Also six months of pending changes after protection expires. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)19:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism. Reverts appear to be happening far too often. Previous protection (semi) expired 11/2022. Page is currently ECP move protected. A y d o h 8 ( t a l k ) 03:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I was about to request this myself then noticed it had already been done. Has been receiving unconstructive IP edits that have sometimes taken a little bit of time to be noticed/reverted. A smart kitten (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Page has experienced persistent utilization of a localized governmental source, which presents a bias favoring the assertion that the insurgency has concluded, despite the ongoing nature of the attacks in Sinai.
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing and deletions of sourced content by various newcomers and anon IPs, over a wide range of time in this article. The page has been an avenue of back & forth editwarring by new-comers & anon IPs for over a year. (Some samples: 1,2,3)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The article's already indefinitely EC protected; if people are doing this (not obvious from the history), I think full protection is a bit of a blunderbuss here—limiting editing to just administrators at this moment would cause more problems than it could possibly solve. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done as I don't think pre-emptive protection is a good idea, however I've added the page to my watchlist, and feel free to re-report if disruption materialises. firefly ( t · c ) 11:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefly: Well, I've seen an awful lot of soapboxing and forum-y comments from hit and run IPs, SPAs and such on the talk page lately though. #prodraxisconnect15:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection Over the past few days, an IP editor has been making a change to wording that I’ve challenged and given supporting reason for doing so via edit summary. IP editor repeatedly reverts with no explanation or discussion. NJZombie (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. @NJZombie: As it is the same IP every time, talking to them directly might be a good starting point. Wikipedia editing is not what one would call intutitive, and if they edit via mobile, they might not even easily see the edit summaries. If they stay mum, warn and go to AIV. Lectonar (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The page was protected for a month to protect against a consistent vandal with a dynamic IP; immediately after the protection expired, the vandal was back at it. (I'll continue to report the vandal's IPs over at AIV, but I think further protection would also be beneficial.) Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 14:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: A vague video of a T-10 being used by the Russian Armed Forces has been going around on twitter, which has caused people to go to the T-10 wikipedia page and changing the service-life data. It's mostly anonymous changes that either cite the unreliable video as a source, or no source at all. DukeLeotheFirst (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: There's a high level of IP vandalism going on that is meant to make people think that Jonathan Taylor is no longer an Indianapolis Colt. I would recommend semi protection for the time being. RevMSWIE500 (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Repeated edit warring by anonymous user putting in unsourced or very poorly sourced irrelevant and/or contentious personal material to this professional BLP Tvoz/talk19:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Repeated nationalism-inspired edit wars and disruptive edits involving IP users over the order of the name Telugu-Kannada vs Kannada-Telugu. Glennznl (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Then remove it, as seems to have been done. It does not appear to have been overwhelming the article over the last few days. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – An IP editor is repeatedly restoring an OR version of the article that follows their own opinion, removing the cited sources that contradict it. They were asked by User:Freshacconci not to reinstate the changes until they can achieve consensus, but they argued with Freshacconci and continued to reinstate the change whenever they were reverted. They are now reverting the copyedits that I made during the GA process as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Persistent BLP violations by IP adding unsourced non-notable roles to short description, Infobox, and lead. And also changing instrumentals in the Infobox to "Solo list" (whatever that even means). —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)07:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Severe fancruft additions replaced by informative notes, ignored by multiple anonymous editors restoring without explanation. -- Alex_21TALK01:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The last protection period was for six months. I think it's worth it to try again, however, if this fails — and I suspect it might — more durable protection will be required. Chetsford (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined User seems to have stopped for now, no one else has yet responded to your AN post, and I really wonder why the account was blocked but not the IP if they are the same person (which I don't doubt). Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Addition of unsourced content. Looks like the long-term abuser Vote (X) for Change might be back. These new edits match the pattern for previous edits to this page. Would like confirmation before reverting under WP:BMB though.(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.). SSSB (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. Requester alleges unsourced content then makes an allegation entirely unbacked by evidence. He's either too lazy or too stingy to ask the Ministry of Justice for a copy of the cited source. 81.141.44.156 (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into this a bit more closely, requester says in his edit summary he's reverting because the sources are "not in the public domain." That's not a valid reason - if it was no document which came into existence less than 70 years ago could be cited. He's also a liar because he reverted before posting here. There's more than a whiff of WP:UPE about this. 81.141.44.156 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The page is extremely political and subject to different opinions and biases. There are heated conversations in the talk page over various topics, which is of course a good thing. However, the page is often the target of guest users changing various points, such as power rankings, without citations or discussion. Due to the controversial nature of the term, and the history of POV pushing on the page, I think that a change to Semi-protection to help with Wikipedia:Neutral point of viewGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Numerous IPs have vandalized her account with unconfirmed and unreliable sources alleging her passing. I suggest Semi-protection would be appropriate for this situation 73.133.32.76 (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Please protect my page as many people wishing to change submitting incorrect details. So my details submitted here should be genuine. So Im requesting you to enable protection to my account. Thank You Waseem0088 (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Newly registered users making large scale unexplained and unreferenced changes. I would request to allow extended confirmed users. Because many new users are registering and getting autoconfirmed within days and are pushing POV since this is an election article. Shaan SenguptaTalk08:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent addition of Louis Tomlinson as a cast member. I think there is something on Tiktok/Reddit etc as he visited the set and the Larries are all excited. Knitsey (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: For months (see my interventions in the article and in the talk:Trajan page) there has been high level of vandalism and disruption. Edit wars have been waged without consensus and openly against the consensus we twice reached on the talk
page. Even more importantly the disruption has been caused by socks of User:JamesOredan, an user permanently blocked for having 28 (!) socks pushing this weird Spanish suprematist agenda, in this article it was most notably User:Venezia Friulano. Venezia too has now been blocked, but immediately after this two IP users (numbers, not usernames) are again making the same edits Venezia made (obviously these are some IPs of Venezia/James, they even use the same language) again with no consensus, again pushing for the same agenda. Basically all wikipedia rules have been violated for a long time. I am constantly restoring the article but I think it's time for protection towards them. Barjimoa (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Subject of a slow-brewing nationalistic edit war by IPs and new users POV-pushing to deny or assert the subject's historical Khmer influence. Paul_012 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can copy and paste diffs one by one if needed. Please do. All I'm seeing is an account doing a few innocuous wikilinks which are being reverted, but I might be missing something. If you can just provide diffs to three disruptive edits it may help me understand. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can request a range block at SPI? I don't feel comfortable protecting a page over a wikilink or a comma (particularly a grammatically correct one). However, I'll strike my decline in case someone else wants to protect the page. I may just not be understanding what's going on here. Chetsford (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake by confusing Semi with ECP (I should have asked for Semi), however, this is not a content dispute, instead it's an absolutely undue piping to make a point in both of these articles, and it could very-well be a block or ban evasion. ౪ Santa ౪99°18:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither a block or ban evasion - I am simply not interested in making an account, and I have that right. I would appreciate it if you did not try to make such implications in the future. It does not do you justice. 93.87.123.180 (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Numerous IPs and newly-registered users have been POV-pushing on this page regularly for years. Thus, I request a permanent extended confirmed protection. Veverve (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the level of recent disruption is sufficient to justify protection. If the abuse resumes as bad as it was previously, we can consider a new page protection request. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Basically WP:POVPUSHING by WP:FTN extremists. Or if you want to be more charitable, content dispute that isn't about to go away until you force people to use the talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}19:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: After several videos by YouTuber Reckless Ben, his fans have been insisting on adding links to his YouTube videos to support highly controversial claims. It was already protected On August 3 for this, but more videos have led to continued brigading. --Xanzzibar (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Disruptive pronoun changes and removals, and some content blanking issues from newly created accounts and 1 IP editor over the last few days. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: I'd like access to these 20 pages to address the Tidy Font bug errors and other WP:LINT found within, as I have with similar recent requests. Each of these pages was either selfprotected by the former admin, or the protecting admin no longer admin, so asking the protecting admin prior to this request is not needed. I have Extended Confirmed access, so that or lower is fine, whatever is appropriate for each.
If I have overlooked anything that would be an issue, or you feel that any page needs to be temporarily lowered to Extended Confirmed and returned to Full after I've addressed all Lint issues, that is fine (temporaries would be addressed first, and I'd let you know when finished if any). Happy to discuss anything if you have further questions. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the admin who locked this page has been absent from Wikipedia for almost a year, so I can't exactly contact them to unlock this page. AHI-3000 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected I'm not particularly familiar with TFD, so don't be shocked if this ends up there. But, well, that's TFD and we're at RFPP. So unprotected. Courcelles (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Why should it be regulated with such protection in the first place? He is a young actor who has acted in many films and television series, and has no legal or social problems at all. It would be better if the protection was reduced, so that not only admins can edit, but users with credit too. Thank You. Bayu Oktarino (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This page is full of lies, the admin of this page isn’t even a part of GAG and their sources for the lies are just a couple of tweets by conspiracy theorists. GAG should have the right to edit their own page but they can’t because of the creators hateful view of them. 216.194.34.186 (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: I'd like access to these 30 pages to address the Tidy Font bug errors and other WP:LINT found within, as I have with similar recent requests. Each of these pages was either selfprotected by the former admin, or the protecting admin no longer admin, so asking the protecting admin prior to this request is not needed. I have Extended Confirmed access, so that or lower is fine, whatever is appropriate for each.
If I have overlooked anything that would be an issue, or you feel that any page needs to be temporarily lowered to Extended Confirmed and returned to Full after I've addressed all Lint issues, that is fine (temporaries would be addressed first, and I'd let you know when finished if any). Happy to discuss anything if you have further questions. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is inaccurate: "a crowd of attendees of the inauguration walked into the United States Capitol Building"? What inauguration? The one two weeks later? "Walked"? The fact that it was an attack is in the article name!
This watered-down text shows up in the YouTube disclaimer on Jan 6-related videos before expanding it and needs to be fixed ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GJ80303 (talk • contribs)
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – There have been recent news reports about the arrest of a thinly-anonymized individual (very likely the subject of this article) for the sexual assault of a child in the Belgian news media. Per WP:BLPN#Anthony Liekens 2 and also an earlier BLPN thread, we just do not have the sourcing to include this material in the article. It appears likely that we will have a steady stream of well-intentioned people who read the coverage and decide it should be in the article anyway. I suggest that protection until the media coverage passes would be helpful. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Current content dispute between the paragraph about ONPASSIVE's pyramid scheme involvement. Several attempts have been made by users 103.183.203.82 and KasEdits to delete the paragraph without explanation/citations for deletion. Justanotherinternetguy ε=ε=ε=ε=┌(; ̄▽ ̄)┘ --> talk13:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Account of a living person/biography. Former politician/prominent attorney. It should be protected to prevent vandalism, edit warring, or other disruptive edits. Rachel.gilliland23 (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. I would like to highlight that the article itself had been facing an ongoing series of vandalism since 25 August, as a result of the editors in question who are repeatedly changing the information, most possibly because of the anger of many fans over the elimination of Chanelle, one of the K-pop reality show's most popular trainees, and it was also concerning that they contained edits that not only spread misinformation but also amounted to insults of the show's judges (especially Lee Hyun) and some other trainees who still remained on the show, and the changing of the show's title from R U Next to R U Rigged. It is understandable should people be upset that their fan favorite was eliminated, but nonetheless it is unfathomable for people to spread misinformation just because of them wanting to vent their anger (or put up allegations of the show being rigged and judges being biased). I request for a protection of the article for the maximum period of time as permissible by Wikipedia standards to curb such blatant disregard for editor etiquette and conduct and also for the sake of deterrence. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My deep gratitude and thanks for the swift countermeasure, Firefangledfeathers. Happy editing to you NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Given the speed that the disruptive edits picked up so soon after the last round of already long protection, I feel a year is warranted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This article needs temporary semi-protection due to disruptive edits made by IP which I reverted because it does not appear from their sources, but IP forced back without explanation and to discuss it. - Jjpachano (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - this disruption is the work of one editor, who I have blocked for 2 weeks, since they're disruptively restoring their reverted edits with no explanation, and they have been unresponsive on top of what can normally be explained by the technical difficulty of communicating with IPv6 editors. Maybe this will get their attention. If you could, Jjpachano, please have a look at Special:Contributions/2001:4451:912:6600:0:0:0:0/64 for any other edits they've made which may need to be corrected or reverted. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: IP and new user vandalism. It was protected a few weeks ago and even when semi-protected it continued to be vandalised. Now the protection is lifted and it's getting regular NPOV and unconstructive edits, which are subsequently reverted by multiple users, including me. To save us the extra work, this page should stay protected for a considerable amount of time. X (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Seems to be a flash-in-the-pan dispute between two editors, who have been warned or blocked accordingly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a dispute here about a questionable attendance statistic, as well as some straight-up vandalism. I personally would decline to protect since that would give an editorial advantage to the couple of experienced editors reverting every change and refusing to discuss, but I'm one of the ones that was reverted so I'm not going to do anything here. It is very plainly a content dispute, though, notwithstanding a few vandal edits in the midst of things. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I haven't seen any reliable sources have questioned the attendance figure (although admittedly, Meltzer is probably still stuck in London because Heathrow ATC collapsed earlier), and there are plenty of reliable sources for the number of tickets distributed. What I have seen, though, is drive-by editing and then people posting on social media about "the real numbers" for clout, so it's clear disruptive editing. Sceptre (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Note that you requested protection for Cult of Personality, which is a redirect. It has basically no edits and definitely no disruptive edits, so I assumed you meant to request protection for its target, cult of personality. That article had one editor make a couple of questionable edits 3 days ago, that's not enough to warrant protection. If you meant to request for some other page, please make a new request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Repeated addition of unsourced material (including disclosure of sensitive and unpublished information which names an individual) by a new editor who fails to engage on their talk page. The information should also be considered for revision deletion. Dormskirk (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: There is a bit of vandalism & uncited information which is leading to an edit war I can't deal with. Semi protection or pending changes protection for a short time would be of great benefit. ❤HistoryTheorist❤23:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – A couple of editors are edit-warring over whether to include a bit of unsourced information, and I hope that making the article uneditable by either of them will force them to the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Indian political alliance article. High level of IP vandalism. IP vandals changing our removing content at will. Playing with number stats. Shaan SenguptaTalk02:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Being a high profile football player attracts lots of vandalism and disruption, has been repeatedly protected in the past with regular vandalism continuing. TylerBurden (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: It is being vandalized because of the spread of information on various social media platforms about his death. However, there is still no reliable source for this information, and Mike Enriquez's agency has not yet confirmed it. Acrom12 (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Persistent edits regarding official attendance of a recent wrestling match. IP and single purpose accounts mostly. Requesting protection for a short period until it dies down. Equine-man (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Allow Extended confirmed users only indefinitely - Continuous nonstop edit warring and disruptive vandalising edits by multiple newly created accounts (for the past few months), whose edits were reverted by multiple editors, resulting the article into an edit warring ground. --Haoreima (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection: Persistent vandalism – The article has continuously been reverted from its original content, once more after the page protection period ended. The responsible party remains an anonymous user. To prevent additional instances of vandalism and maintain the integrity of the information provided, pageExtended confirmed protection is highly necessary. Your kind consideration in this matter is greatly valued. Arthur Hirai (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Allow Extended confirmed users only indefinitely - Persistent vandalism by numerous newly created accounts (from time to time, for many months), whose edits getting reverted by multiple people, resulting the article into an edit warring ground. --Haoreima (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There hasn't actually been a lot of this in the last two months, even if they amount to the only edits to the article during that time. I have added a CTOPS notice to the talk page, though, just in case this becomes more serious later. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page with increased traffic because of publication on Instagram account "Depths of wiki" has resulted in edit warring from IP editors. Bedivere (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made way too many reverts from several anonymous users, all apparently coming from that page. I will stop for now (things to do IRL) but please take action. Bedivere (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined The IP edits, while persistent, aren't exactly vandalism. I think this is more of a content dispute. I would suggest starting a discussion on the talk page to gauge consensus about where the record-breaking name should be placed in the article. Joyous!Noise!17:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Highly visible template that is used by several automated tools (e.g. twinkle) and which substituted onto basically every AFD nomination. This should have some level of protection. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is the template you think it is, it has only one transclusion. It has never been edited even once since it was created. Pinging Enterprisey and Ahunt who were both involved in this template's creation - should this be protected? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector It's a substitution only template, It's not supposed to have any transclusions. It was created following the suggestion here [74] that we create a version of the deletion sorting template that accepts multiple topics. It has been used in the deletion sorting script since this edit [75] it has been used in twinkle since this pull request [76] etc. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The article has been persistently vandalized by an anonymous user who repeatedly changes the original dates without providing credible sources. Due to the persistent changes to the original content by the user, and considering all factors, it is advisable to implement page protection in order to prevent further instances of vandalism and ensure the integrity of the information remains intact. Thank you. Arthur Hirai (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Page is getting constantly vandalised, the person that is doing this has same geolocation as previous blocked ip`s, but they keep re-emerging adding names that have nothing to do with sources Theonewithreason (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That might not be long enough, it looks like they've been trying to make this edit since July 1st, but let's start with 2 weeks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary pending changes/semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Perhaps a block might best be in order, but there is a ton of editing by one IP. They might try to IP surf, though ❤HistoryTheorist❤01:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent disruptive editing by IP editors in the last 2 months. The article has been temporarily protected 8 times till now. Requesting for indefinite duration. Jeraxmoira (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request that the text 'Five people died either shortly before, during, or following the event: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, and three died of natural causes.' Be removed from opening paragraph as extraneous information.
I would like request that same information be removed from 'casualties and criminal charges' box as misinformation. How can one simultaneously die from drug overdose, natural causes, and/or as a result of this attack?. 47.7.222.121 (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected. @QuicoleJR: Actually there was one disruptive edit from an IP address in the past year, as well as a couple the edit filter caught, but I agree, it no longer warrants protection. I find PCP to be an annoyance anyway. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The page keeps being vandalised with false facts and impossible figures in response to a tweet mocking its low ratings. SauceBB (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Persistent editing against consensus by two or three IP users (or just one person on a range), and a newly registered user. (These appear to be making similar edits to recent block-evading sock at Capital punishment for homosexuality, now semi-protected, and in same vein as earlier socks that have been active on LGBT-related articles, long-term). AukusRuckus (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:PRAM and WP:RAILROAD this request should be denied they are just trying to eliminate opposing viewpoints. Anything this user sees as an opinion they disagree with, they try to use templating and using mod actions to quell discussion by locking conversations. WP:BULLY should not be allowed and neither should Aukusruckus' empty allegations against users he dislikes. I'm being civil but he has not reciprocated, this action is unnecessary and deplorable. I urge you to throw it out and reject it. 104.152.222.44 (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. While this pretty clearly comes under CTOPS as GENSEX, since it has not yet had to be protected before and the disruption is relatively recent, I'm treating it as an ordinary administrative action so it's not going to be logged. However, I have added a CTOPS notice to the talk page (as well as to that of the capital punishment article), so next time, if there is one, will be different.
It should be noted regarding the IP's tantrum above that a) that IP never added anything to the article yet felt compelled to come here ... OK, it's probably on a dynamic range, and b) the edits added by the IP on the same range failed to include sources.
If, as claimed, it is likely a sock of a blocked user, we need to get all the known IPs it's used and see if we can calculate a range for blocking. For now, that's beyond the scope of this page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yes, there was less, and more recent, disruption than there has been on the 2000-2009 list article. But, as the same gang of IPs seem to be involved, I am protecting for the same length of time (although in isolation I would have only blocked for a couple of weeks). Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Lots of gibberish and NOTFORUM being added at the moment, protect it (at least autoconfirmed) for a couple days... -sche (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My protection will end in half an hour. It would be nice if some other admins could keep an eye on what happens when it expires and re-protect if necessary. I am both involved and busy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Also seeing productive edits from new accounts and IPs; there would be collateral damage. Some disruption is expected on a topic that's in the news. No prejudice against future requests if disruption becomes more frequent or more egregious. Vanamonde (Talk)16:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Single user; warn them and then handle via AIV/ANEW as appropriate. From here this appears to be a content dispute (even if one editor is wrong); semi-protection is not justifiable. Vanamonde (Talk)16:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Long-term IP edits adding unsourced material about the BLP has been going on for years now requiring cleanup most times. Might be worth considering permanent semi-protection, but at least a longer-term one would be helpful here. KoA (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Persistent addition of unsourced content/disruptive editing, especially in the lead. Someone will repetitively fix the issue, and explain the reasoning yet IPs insist on adding the same unsourced info on a daily basis. PeachyBum07 (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection: Persistent vandalism – Page protection recently expired last week, and an IP user went back to vandalize the article. Seems highly unlikely that this page will ever be left alone without protection. BrickMaster02 (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Team has announced a new coach will begin on October 1st. Current coach will coach next 3 matches still until then. Several IPs are already changing it to new coach, when should remain as is until Oct 1st. Hidden message in code explaining this is being ignored RedPatch (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question:@RedPatch: Could you perhaps add a note to the infobox such as replacing "interim" with "interim until October 1, 2023", adding the next coach underneath with "(starting October 1, 2023)", or perhaps both? I would prefer to avoid semi-protecting this page until October 1st which seems inevitable without making the change visible. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: We have no sources on the Pittsburgh Steelers signing him yet, there should be a lock on editing until confirmed. ParXivalRPT (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no current sources to confirm he has been officially signed as a Pittsburgh Steeler, yet his page has multiple references to him being one that I would not want to waste my time undoing if it will be confirmed soon. As an admin, I respect your judgement, but I wanted to share where I'm coming from. ParXivalRPT (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: An IP vandal has begun to add large sections of Japanese text to the top of the article for no discernible reason. TheKip05:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent disruptive editing – As an editor, editing caste articles for last three years, i believe that this protection should apply on this article as it is very difficult to revert it to last best version when typos are fixed on a distorted version by some editors. This is a contentious caste article and need proper patrolling as we can see from its history of disruptive editing. Admantine123 (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The autoconfirmed protection are nothing. Any vandal account achieves that status after 4 days with few edits and they remove sourced content, which is not tracked by patrollers. This is happening on this article for a long time. Pending change protection at least keeps articles traceable. Moreover, can you tell me why this edit [77] was not reverted back, when it was done half months ago.? -Admantine123 (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. I think there's a good-faith misunderstanding here: pending-changes is actually a lower level of protection than autoconfirmed, so it wouldn't be helpful in this case. If you want a higher level of protection (e.g. extended-confirmed), feel free to make a request at WP:RFPP/I. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Recently, an IP user has been attempting to corrupt this page, including repeatedly adding false information to this page. Therefore, I request page protection. SatoshiDX (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Also, be so kind as to not use edit-summaries in Korean; there are people here who can read it, but this is the English language Wikipedia, after all. Lectonar (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page has now been protected two times due to being targeted by a sockfarm, and now as soon as the second protection ended, the page has started being targeted again. May be worth semi protecting for a much longer period. ser!(chat to me - see my edits)10:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Requesting extended confirmed protection. I think it's sufficient because there has been prolonged edit warring and disruptive editing. It doesn't look like it's gonna stop. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page has now been protected three times due to being targeted by a sockfarm, and now as soon as the third protection ended, the page has started being targeted again. May be worth semi protecting for a much longer period. ser!(chat to me - see my edits)10:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection:BLP policy violations – There is consensus not to include the personal details of Tom Scott on the page. This has been routinely violated for a while now, and needs to be rectified. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This already has pending changes protection; I'm not seeing enough of an increase in reverted changes to merit additional protection at this time. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: As I previously requested on August 28, the article really needs semi-protection due to continuously disruptive edits made by IP. If the article continuously not protected, this could be violate WP:DIS, also affected Partas. - Jjpachano (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. One of the /64s doing the disruption has been blocked, yes, but one of the other ones has a lot of other activity on it besides these edits, so semi-ing is better. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page has now been protected three times due to being targeted by a sockfarm, and now as soon as the third protection ended, the page has started being targeted again. May be worth semi protecting for a much longer period. ser!(chat to me - see my edits)10:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]