This page contains a rolling archive of recent requests for page protection. This page is updated by a bot; please don't edit this page unless you are manually unarchiving a thread to continue a discussion. By default, any requests from the last 7 days can be viewed here, and older requests will be removed. Currently, no permanent archive of page protection requests is kept. To see older requests for page protection, you can search through the revision history of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – She was just named as OMB director-to-be in the Biden administration so the page is getting more (unwelcome) attention than usual. Considering that this was semi-ed not too long ago, perhaps a month or two would be appropriate?. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined I'm not clear what the BLP policy violations are. There are about four pages of edits just from today (though around 80% of them are by you) so I haven't been able to go through each and every edit but, from a robust sample, I haven't seen anything other than content disagreements. Again, though, given the sheer volume of edits I may have missed something. In any case, since you seem to be reverting everyone's edits it seems like the situation, if there is one, is under control. Chetsford (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-administrator comment I agree with Ymblanter because majority of distruptive editing and vandalism was done by IP users, so semi-protection needs to apply. Unless there are vandalism by autoconfirmed users, the protection can be extends. 36.76.227.95 (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Several IPs have tried to either change pronouns or remove the well-published "deadname" that this person had been notable prior to announcing their transition. Need semi prot. Masem (t) 03:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your diligence in reporting this. Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Given the nature of some of the edits, I don't think we can apply a level of protection that would cause the allegations contained within the edits to be disseminated to, and viewed by, the PC reviewers. For that reason I'm inclined to err on the side of caution and semi- this one. Chetsford (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin comment - There hasn't been any vandalism, the draft is promotional purposes only, and full protection doesn't even let you edit the page, semi-protection can let you edit the page though --a gd fan (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The cadence of questionable edits is such that it would be cumbersome for the PC reviewers to monitor. Chetsford (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotection: Has not been edited in a year, and no vandalism since 2018, and its not controversial. a gd fan (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a single constructive edit from anonymous IPs or unconfirmed editors in the article history. All of them are disruptive. There was no content-related activity when the article was unprotected before, only vandalism reversion. And naturally, protection has caused all activity to cease, because the only activity the article had was disruptive. That suggests that the only activity the article would experience after unprotection is more of the same disruption it experienced before. If anyone wants to make improvements, it is not hard to create an account and get autoconfirmed. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were two edits to the talk page in May 2019, both reverted as clear vandalism. There were two edits in 2018 and 2017 to rearrange talk page headers, and a bot edited the talk page in 2017. I haven't checked, but even the comments in 2014 and 2013 appear to have been nonsense. I can't see anything else. What I'm saying is that the article should stay protected until a couple of convincing edit requests are made at talk. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. All of the above; edit-requests are possible if anyone wants to contribute constructively. Lectonar (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined@FilmandTVFan28: On a technical level, if a blocked editor was making inappropriate edits on their talk page, the block would be altered to revoke their ability to edit that page. However, replacing block notices is not disallowed. There is some detail probably somewhere at WP:TPG that says what a blocked editor may not remove, but that relates to when they have an active unblock appeal. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It was previously semi-protected for a year, which expired in October. Since then it has seen a constant stream of vandalism, especially since this person has been in the news recently. Fuzheado | Talk13:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UnprotectedRyanli I cannot see an AfD for the article. It was speedy deleted per WP:A7 in April 2007. I'm not sure your draft establishes notability but normal procedures will need to be followed to investigate that. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined We do not protect articles from being reasonably tagged for deletion. Article had been improperly moved and was redirecting from mainspace to the Wikipedia talk space; because it is nowhere near ready for mainspace I moved it back to the draftspace and cleaned up the mess of redirects. GorillaWarfare(talk)20:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Show has been held today, high level of vandalism of people who don't agree with the results. JKOkay (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistant disruptive editing and a high level of IP vandalism. Repeated reversions and requests to reach a consensus in the talk page have been ignored. Grnrchst (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. A quick skim shows that the disruption is primarily coming from IPs and very new accounts, so I think semi-protection will be sufficient. If not, feel free to request an increase in the protection level here. GorillaWarfare(talk)20:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. I blocked the /64 range which was causing all of the recent disruption on that page. Please re-report or leave me a message on my talk page if disruption continues. -- LuK3(Talk)14:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – When looking at the history I didn't see a single productive edit from non-auto confirmed editors since pending changes protection was applied in April. Returning to indefinitie semi seems warranted, especially since unprotection wasn't intentional but the effect of a temporary full protection expiring. --Trialpears (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Ongoing content dispute during a merge proposal. Protection would hopefully encourage more discussion and prevent further warring. McMatter(talk)/(contrib)03:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note Even if there are arbitration enforcement of it, if it doesn't see any distruptive editing or vandalism by autoconfirmed users (the page currently is semi-protected), pages cannot be protected preemptively. The protection level cannot be changed unless there are vandalism or distruptive editing in the article, even if the article is an arbitration enforcement. 118.96.191.51 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Several editors, some of whom have declared that they are the subject, have re-written the article in a way that contravenes a dozen or so policies and guidlines, including cut/paste from the subject's website. I've left the appropriate messages on most of those editors' talk pages, but they don't take any notice of those and persist. At this moment, the article is in an unacceptable state, but I feel reverting again is pointless until the page is protected. Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent vandalism – Even after protection, the page is seeing disruption and vandalism. Like changing team names, data, figures. Adding stuff by fans as if this is social media. So, I request for upgradation of protection. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe13:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin comment:ArnabSaha, There is no vandalism in that page. It is more likely a content dispute, so I needs to be fully protected as temporary, as long as it needs a dispute resolution on the talk page. I see that in the history of this page in the past few days so this page cannot bé extend confirmed protected. 36.68.190.244 (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. The alternative would be full protection, but the edit warring isn't bad enough for that yet. MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There are several opened section on the talk page about the related issues. Better becoming full-protected for one week to reach a consensus. Wario-Man (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time.. I don't think it has quite reached the point of needing to lock the page. I posted a note on the talk page urging them to discuss the issues. If they won't, full protection may become necessary. MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Long-term problematic editing (removal of well-sourced content, for essentially misogynist reasons); this discussion records a dozen instances between January 2017 and April 2019, but the edits have continued since then, with five more episodes in the past two weeks (see recent edit history) by various IPs. JBL (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined (Non-administrator comment) Edit warring occurred on November 25, 2020 which resulted in the user being blocked because of it. History does not show any further edit warring. Also semi-protection would have no effect in an edit warring case. Next time warn the user and report to the edit warring noticeboard if needed. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?20:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, gave three month semi for the first article and one year pending changes to another one. I do not see an editing pattern which would justify indefinite protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page has been protected twice recently and the same unsourced content has been added after they have expired. I suggest protecting for a longer duration. ~ ItsJustLukastalk|Contribs00:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Slight vandalism by IP editors. Would normally not qualify probably but as it is Today's FA I feel that semi protection for at least a day is probably warranted AsarteaTalkContributions13:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Many vandals of various political persuasions have assailed the page off-and-on for months. Given this is a BLP page for a US politician, requesting longer protections. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 01:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection: Vandals harassing me. Impersonators returning. Thinking Oshwah is holy. Needs to stop. ~Destroyeraa🌀19:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected – One month. Try this for a while and see what happens. With full protection you could not edit your own talk page. If it turns out that, from now on, you still get talk page vandalism from registered accounts report them at WP:AIV and an admin will take care of them. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined The edit rate is high, but the unconstructive editing seems to be in the minority. On the balance, I don't think the level of disruption outweighs constructive contributions from IPs. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, and other admins can protect if they see fit. Airplaneman(talk)✈14:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism by several editors in the past 24 hours invoking the character's controversies in China, which is already properly covered in a section in the article. –WPA (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: I did a page swap per WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 9#Template:User Good Articles but was unable to leave protection in place. Original protection log entry said: 19:17, 10 January 2018 Primefac talk contribs protected Template:User Good Articles [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) (semi-protecting highly-visible templates in response to recent template-space vandalism). — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)07:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – After the block of the IP yesterday [4][5], the same IP hopper (disruptive IP range partially blocked) is vandalizing the page again, removing sourced content, adding unsourced content [6]. Older vand by IP [7], [8]. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin commentFylindfotberserk, I confirm that IP 122.177.5.90 is a same range as 122.177.228.240 so rangeblock needs to be applied to both users. I want to ping MelanieN and Ohnoitsjamie for that issue to impose a rangeblock for these IPs. I see this in edit history that edits by 2 IPs are similar. 118.96.191.51 (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Total semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by IP accounts (unidentified) traced from Turkey and Azerbaijan trying to disrupt the Wikipedia activities, promoting pan-Turkist and AKP propaganda, as well as hatred on Armenia, Greece, Iran, Russia and other countries that do not approve Turkish government's policies and rewriting history about Turkey's atrocities. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Noting that the most recent reverted edits were from an IP that geolocates to US. The amount of disruption/vandalism seems too great for PC to be effective. Given the contentiousness of the subject, this seems the best recourse. I will note that other suggested remedies are unlikely to be effective. --Deepfriedokra(talk)14:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Changed my mind. @ZaDoraemonzu: Pending changes seems to be doing the job. The assertions you make about, "IP accounts (unidentified) traced from Turkey and Azerbaijan trying to disrupt the Wikipedia activities, promoting pan-Turkist and AKP propaganda, as well as hatred on Armenia, Greece, Iran, Russia and other countries that do not approve Turkish government's policies and rewriting history about Turkey's atrocities," while emotionally charged, do not see reflective of the current situation. The most recent IP from Turkey edit was not as you portrayed here. Most recent reverts from an IP in the US look like an content dispute. --Deepfriedokra(talk)14:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not just temporary; it has been vandalised in a sustained manner for a very long time by multiple IPs and single-purpose accounts. I think a permanent autoconfirmed-only cover is needed. Caste is a touchy issue in India and this vandalism is unlikely to ever abate. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVIconverse | fings wot i hav dun05:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This is a content dispute between two experienced editors and is being discussed on the article talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lots of disruptive/vandalous edits from IP editors the past few weeks. Requesting indef because this page has been protected 8 times since August 2018. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?19:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – Lots of unsourced BLP info including a supposed WP:DOB repeatedly being added from a wave of IPs since September. Toddst1 (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This looks like a CoI editor and the additions are mostly copyright violations of this site. If the problem persists, I suggest you report it to ANI. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous editing of genres by non consistent users, normally IPs, often to add it being a Christmas film. It's the only thing they really edit, so it's no loss if they can't edit it for a while. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!14:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection (until the show has ended): the reason is because many users are vandalising the page by removing content [11] and this user User:42.60.30.242 despite many warnings and explanation about the font size should be 70 and not 60 as no one can read it properly he keeps doing the same thing again [12] please could you do this.
Declined Clearly still a high-risk target for disruptive editing (not just vandalism). I can't see any reason that this image needs to be unprotected. The image shouldn't require frequent editing, and any rare editing it requires can be done in the form of edit requests on the talk page. ‑Scottywong| [confess] ||01:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Given how controversial US politics still are, I think it would be a terrible idea to unprotect this template at this time. The nature of this template is such that it should require very infrequent updates. Making an edit request every few years is not too much to ask, for a template that is likely to attract disruptive edits. ‑Scottywong| [confess] ||01:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected I've fully unprotected this redirect since it has been fully protected for so long, and the threat of disruptive edits has almost certainly passed. Semi-protecting the page would likely be pre-emptive at this point, so I'd like to see if it can exist without protection first. ‑Scottywong| [chat] ||01:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: This article has had a recent history of both obvious vandalism, and edit warring over the lyrics being caused by IP accounts. -- Tytrox (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Can we semi for a few days until the IP / unconfirmed editor gets bored of adding the same unsourced promo & OR content?. -- a they/them | argue | contribs11:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, specifically the continued promotion of Jimmy Carter as a potential candidate against the consensus in the talk page, addition of potential candidates without reliable sources speculating runs, and removal of potential candidates with reliable sources speculating runs. Molandfreak(talk,contribs,email) 09:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – With the Flynn pardon, this article is getting a lot of malicious attention. I'd suggest that some of the reverted edits be revdel'ed, as well. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Frequent jokes, incorrect information and other intentional vandalism. This stayed in the article for a fortnight because an intermediary vandalism edit was reverted, this one overlooked. Other vandalism from November: [16][17][18]. — Bilorv (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. No edits to the article in about 24 hours. Full protection seems like overkill. Let's see if talk page discussions can take place without protection. ‑Scottywong| [confess] ||19:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotection: No reason to keep this page move-protected. It was apparently originally protected because Willy on Wheels hit it twice (and Grawp once). O.N.R.(talk)17:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from IP/new users and has been protected 10+ times since January 2013 so I am requesting indef semi-protection.
–Cupper52Talk to me!19:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi S0091, if you are requesting this because of me. No reason to worry, I'm no sockpuppet. I think I may have edited out sources by mistake so you were totally correct in reverting my edit. I'm sorry for the confusion! I'll be more careful from now on.Historian734 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Historian734: like I stated in my request, the issues go back at least a year and the article's history is a mess. I hope having the page protected with quell the disruption so if there are issues with content and sourcing, it can be worked out. S0091 (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP user keeps changing page statistics — mostly dates, without any explanation or mention of source. Same user (geolocated) often undoes his/her own changes. Not sure if this is experimentation or deliberate vandalism — either way it is disruptive. —JlACEer (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected indefinitely. Restored the indefinite semi-protection that was removed when the recent temporary full protection expired. Pending changes protection probably wouldn't work well on this page, because the edit rate is relatively high. ‑Scottywong| [confess] ||19:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Disruptive political editing by rotating northern Taiwan-based IPs: 1 (they were blocked); 2 and 3 are merely block evasion
Indefinite pending changes: Long term persistent addition of WP:PROMO/non-notable sites. While we are generally doing a good job of catching it, thinking Pending Changes may be helpful. S0091 (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined For now. The disruptive edits were made by a single user and have not returned in the ensuing days. If the problem returns, please feel free to request again. Kosack (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. For over a year, anons have made repeated BLP violations. Nothing good has ever comefrom anons editing it in at least ten months. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Hasn't been edited in more than a week, with only two disruptive edits this month and even less before that. Kosack (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The disruption was a little light to begin with and it's coming up on 48 hours without another edit. Please feel free to renominate if it starts up again. Kosack (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection - Persistent vandalism by User:ImTheIP, using non-neutral language. Just discovered today (11.25.20) although vandalism occurred since September 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worlduse (talk • contribs) 19:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Previously protected for the same reason. Persistent changing of the subject's pronouns to be feminine across multiple IPs, despite no indication of the subject identifying as a woman outside of their Twitter bio. (It seems the bio is possibly intended as satire.). Perryprog (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Article has never required protection before, so skipping straight to indefinite protection is unwarranted. Kosack (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. One editor with a variety of similar IPs, one IP blocked yesterday but just carrying on with more IPs. FDW777 (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Hello. The couple of lines (about facts, not opinions) added are being widely covered with detail by most of the major international news portals about space, physics, and astronomy (at least 6 reliable secondary sources are included - DailyMaily is excluded according to Wikipedia consensus (although it's the UK news portal with more circulation by far).
A couple of editors refuse to include this content (couple of lines) on the grounds that everything in Wikipedia must be peer-reviewed by a journal. Consensus about adding those couple of lines was reached in the TalkPage if enough secondary sources were found, without the need of peer-reviewed. Moreover, there are much content just in this WOW! Signal article that even has no citation or comes from a source not peer-reviewed, including youtube videos. For all these reasons I request this article to be temporarily protected. Thank you. ExoEditor (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Sockpuppetry from Si Thu Moe Min and Mone Sein Lr - as well as other users. I have attempted to get this article protected before, and this time this should be done for serious. It could be either semi-protection or ECP, though I'm strongly preferring ECP due to history of this article as well as the this is about a conflict. SMB99thxmy edits!11:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Since the removal of temporary protection, page has been changed another 10 times. Discussion with anonymous IPs seems pointless as they are from 10 different (though very similar!) IPs. Have tried to discuss on talk page. Discussion was immediately deleted by same IP. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection or pending changes: Article just came off semi-protection today, and the same pattern of vandalism that got the article semi-protected twice before immediately started up again. This article is going to need some kind of longer-term protection, because the vandal(s) hitting this article don't look to be going away. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: This article has been victim to sockpuppetry and IP vandalism for years. Everytime it gets protected, the IPs return to just vandalise it again, typically by adding in false information to the programming list. It appears to me that the only option is an indefinite protection. If not, at least six months. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is way too much protection. Temporary ext’d confirmed is the most IMO. Indefinite is way to much. ~Destroyeraa🌀23:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration enforcement is for use on articles reasonably construed as belonging to the Arab–Israeli conflict. I’m a bit uncertain how these articles might belong to the Arab-Israeli conflict. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While there is disruption (which, I might add, isn't heavy for any of those article to begin with), it does almost exclusively come from IPs or new accounts. So, if we would protect at all, pending-changes or semi-protection should be enough. I don't see a need for even that atm, though. No need to use a hammer where other venues are still open. Lectonar (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection - Persistent vandalism/edit-warring by IP editors who are either using non-neutral language in the controversy section or are deleting it seemingly for political purposes.Waqeem (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection - short term. Someone using an IP and two user accounts (one of them blocked) made several strange vandalism edits to the article in the last 12 hours. --mfb (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unregistered user keep vandalising the article, if there's any admin around please help to ban this user Ano666nymous. Even after told off by LizardJr8 in the user talk page, Ano666nymous continue to disobey and continue to vandalism the page. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 04:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Protection: A bunch of IP addresses repeatedly wrote vague (or deceptive) edit summaries for their edits that weren't constructive in the first place. Furthermore, almost no one noticed that one of IP editors deliberately removed hatnotes one month ago. I recently reinserted it. Well, the last IP edit was early this monthlast week, but frequent reverts concern me. George Ho (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC); standing corrected, 04:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.} An edit war from a week ago that's stopped isn't enough to justify protection. If it starts up again, make another report. — Wug·a·po·des05:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Persistent addition of unsourced content and disruptive editing mostly by IPs and new accounts. Started as soon as the previous one expired, asking for an indef since this is not going to go away anytime soon. Gotitbro (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin comment: Varavour, Distruptive editing, vandalism, and edit warring i believe was held mostly by IP and new account that has not yet autoconfirmed, particularly IPv6 range when they remove or adding unsourced content. I see it in that edit history. 36.68.190.244 (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection: Persistent IP and sock account vandalism listing characters without proper citation. Hellboy42 (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Disruptive additions/poor source understanding by IPs and new accounts. Likely to continue as seen by the article's history, article is covered by WP:ARBIPA sanctions, asking for a mid-term semi here. Gotitbro (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Folks - IPs are consistently reverting the date of birth without sourcing the same. I am not able to protect anymore since I have to go to sleep shortly. Please provide temporary protection.
Folks, I just woke up and see that the vandals have been at it again! What would it take to provide some form of temporary protection? I am unable to continuously monitor this page. Ktin (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin comment Adding or deleting a copyvio by multiple users is actually a content dispute. So it needs to undergo dispute resolution on talk page. 110.137.165.46 (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin comment: I see the article has very low vandalism, with mere 50 edits were conducted since 2018. So I think this article is more likely pending changes instead. 110.137.165.46 (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notebuidhe, This page cannot be ECP even due to arbitration enforcement of it, because the distruptive editing only happens at one IP range (96.65.1.xx) and one user which is not yet autoconfirmed. IMO, the page would be likely indef semi-protection instead as preemptive action to prevent further distruptive behavior. 36.68.185.109 (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not doneI'm not seeing the kind of ongoing disruption that would warrant indefinite protection, and the immediate issue appears to have been resolved by a block. GorillaWarfare(talk)17:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism by unregistered users constantly reverting edits by senior users, request of either temporary semi-protection or for the article to only allow edits from registered users. RM-Taylor (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: The subject of this article (Annie Lederman) recently posted a screenshot of a joke edit on this page to her Instagram account (@annielederman) with a caption encouraging similar vandalism. At least one IP user has since made a similar joke edit. It would probably be a good idea to semi-protect this page until things blow over. warmly, ezlev.talk02:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Declined There have been two disruptive users, both now blocked, in November. Besides that the article hasn't been touched since July. If it continues to be a sockpuppetry target, I have no qualms about it being protected, but I'm not seeing the need at this current moment. GorillaWarfare(talk)20:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite extended protection: I am planning to use this to substitute my signature, so it would be really bad is someone vandalized this. Best regards, 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 03:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin comment: 4thfile4thrank, When you create this page, I don't believe there are persistent vandalism from any IP users for now. As you know, if it doesn't see any vandalism or distruptive editing happened in a user page, articles, or talk pages, pages cannot be protected preemptively. Let see if there are vandalism from IP users after you create the page. 36.68.185.109 (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@36.68.185.109: There is none, but user pages can be protected at request, and there is no reason for anyone to edit my signature, as it is a signature. Best regards, 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 04:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)\[reply]
Comment: it probably doesn't matter, but it looks like something odd has happened to this entry as it now mixes references to two different places. Thanks for sorting it, though. DBaK (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move protection: Recently been in an AfD that ended with no consensus. An editor moved this page to another title just on his own. Another editor requested reversion at the RMT. Though I've reverted the undiscussed move. This article should be move protected, and move should be only done by a page mover/admin after a valid RM discussion. Thank you. ─ The Aafī on Mobile(talk)20:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary extended protection: Constant reversions by a single-purpose user, SeonaMillar, for over 5 months. They continue to make edits to the lead paragraph without engaging in the ongoing Talk discussion on the topic, and content isn't written from a NPOV. Should be noted that the constructive edits of the single-purpose user have been accepted and added to the relevant section on the page, but they keep duplicating the content into the lead paragraph. Extended discussion on Talk page. ScepticalChymist (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Nominations where just announced so there is an influx of disruptive editing — RealFakeKimT18:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – It's in a cycle of abuse from a sequence of new-registered accounts. Account adds obscenity, gets blocked, starts new account, starts again. Text needs revdel. How best to deal with this?. DBaK (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite pending changes protection Persistent vandalism - Pages have been persistently targeted for nearly a year by a Seoul based dynamic IP, blocking the range for several months did not deter them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Divisive political topic that has recently had several news articles reporting on it. Multiple edits after months of inactivity and several are vandalism. LexiTehGallade (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple IP-only and unregistered users have been vandalizing page due to a recent death of one of the contestant deaths, which is not notable to the show itself. Request protection. SanAnMan (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Yes, I believe ChessEric's page should be protected for at least two days. Also, the vandal has taken to impersonating me, sadly. ~Destroyeraa🌀20:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I've gone with a fairly long semiprotection to see if that stems the disruption there. If it's not sufficient, we can look into bumping up the protection level; if/when disruption resumes after the 3 months and it appears to have been sufficient, we can look into extending it. GorillaWarfare(talk)17:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous change of sourced song language by IPs and new accounts. Goes back far long, as can be seen from the articles history, a mid-term semi here should be apt. Gotitbro (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unregistered user keep vandalising the article by either deleting certain parts randomly or including unsourced information that wasn't reported anywhere. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 06:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated addition of "the table" under credits. This vandalism has been ongoing for many months and this article has been protected in the past for this very reason. Robvanvee06:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]