Talk:Hannibal Brooks

message: In 2012, a reference to a fictional event was added to this article which described the film as 'Based on the true story of Olga the elephant rescued from Vienna Zoo in 1944.' This event never happened, there is no evidence of it available on the Web that doesn't reference this article and it has caused confusion on a public internet forum. I am trying to edit this information off of the page but it keeps getting reverted.
86.161.112.189 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olga the Elephant 

message: "Just to be clear the story of Olga the Elephant is fictional, the Tutor has this story in his opening lecture every year when going over how to reference research papers, with glee. Needless to say none of his students reference Wikipedia anymore, and everytime we see someone do so, we start giggling."https://qr.ae/TWTRlx
GalantFan (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You may well be correct about the Olga story. I've looked, and can't find anything online that predates 2012, and that doesn't look like its come straight from Wikipedia. The cycling book isn't much of a ref- I'm sure its a very well researched book as per cycling routes etc, but..its not a specialist film book, and its unlikely they factchecked every bit of trivia in there. I would leave it out of the article, anyway, unless someone can find something better. Curdle (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quora contributor admits that Olga the Elephant is a hoax to troll Wikipedia 

message: === :Hannibal Brooks, persistent annual vandalism ===
* 
The Hannibal Brooks page needs to be semi-protected against anonymous IP edits because this has been going on since 2012 by college professors and students attempting to prove that Wikipedia is unreliable. I think it needs to be permanent because it is clear that the professor is going to continue encouraging his students to vandalize this page every year.
Quora contributor admits that Olga the Elephant is a hoax to troll Wikipedia 
"Just to be clear the story of Olga the Elephant is fictional, the Tutor has this story in his opening lecture every year when going over how to reference research papers, with glee. Needless to say none of his students reference Wikipedia anymore, and everytime we see someone do so, we start giggling."https://qr.ae/TWTRlx
It has been discovered that the multiple anonymous IP edits are part of a concentrated attack on Wikipedia itself, to cause disrepute to Wikipedia, which have been organized and encouraged by a tutor at Robert Gordon University in the UK, who has been telling his students for several years that Wiki is an unreliable source and encouraging them to vandalize Wiki to prove it. See:https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Wikipedia-dismissed-as-an-unreliable-source/answer/Cai-Esson?ch=10&share=161cecfd&srid=n1aP3
If you will follow the "contribs" links of these anonymous IPs and their WhoIs info, you will see that they all come from the same little area of the UK, and none of them have ever contributed anything but to vandalize this article by reposting the exact same fake information, over and over again since 2012.
GalantFan (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection log shows that the page has only been protected twice before - once in February 2018 and this time - each time for 3 days. There needs to be a lot stronger history of need for protection before we implement protection indefinitely. The vandalism seems to comes in occasional spurts, as it did in February 2018 and again in April this year, and it can be protected when that happens. We are not going to permanently ban all editing by new or anonymous users when vandalism happens so rarely. It looks as some fake changes were added right after the February protection expired, and were not discovered until you deleted them more than a year later. That suggests that the protection during a “spurt” needs to be longer than three days - maybe a week or two - and I have extended this protection to be for a week. It also suggests we need more eyes on this page. Basically, since this is known to be a problem article, what it needs is for more editors to put it on their watchlists. I have done that and I suggest others do the same. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

message: * 
The Hannibal Brooks page needs to be semi-protected against anonymous IP edits because this has been going on since 2012 by college professors and students attempting to prove that Wikipedia is unreliable. I think it needs to be permanent because it is clear that the professor is going to continue encouraging his students to vandalize this page every year.
Quora contributor admits that Olga the Elephant is a hoax to troll Wikipedia 
"Just to be clear the story of Olga the Elephant is fictional, the Tutor has this story in his opening lecture every year when going over how to reference research papers, with glee. Needless to say none of his students reference Wikipedia anymore, and everytime we see someone do so, we start giggling."https://qr.ae/TWTRlx
It has been discovered that the multiple anonymous IP edits are part of a concentrated attack on Wikipedia itself, to cause disrepute to Wikipedia, which have been organized and encouraged by a tutor at Robert Gordon University in the UK, who has been telling his students for several years that Wiki is an unreliable source and encouraging them to vandalize Wiki to prove it. See:https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Wikipedia-dismissed-as-an-unreliable-source/answer/Cai-Esson?ch=10&share=161cecfd&srid=n1aP3
If you will follow the "contribs" links of these anonymous IPs and their WhoIs info, you will see that they all come from the same little area of the UK, and none of them have ever contributed anything but to vandalize this article by reposting the exact same fake information, over and over again since 2012.
GalantFan (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection log shows that the page has only been protected twice before - once in February 2018 and this time - each time for 3 days. There needs to be a lot stronger history of need for protection before we implement protection indefinitely. The vandalism seems to comes in occasional spurts, as it did in February 2018 and again in April this year, and it can be protected when that happens. We are not going to permanently ban all editing by new or anonymous users when vandalism happens so rarely. It looks as some fake changes were added right after the February protection expired, and were not discovered until you deleted them more than a year later. That suggests that the protection during a “spurt” needs to be longer than three days - maybe a week or two - and I have extended this protection to be for a week. It also suggests we need more eyes on this page. Basically, since this is known to be a problem article, what it needs is for more editors to put it on their watchlists. I have done that and I suggest others do the same. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Hannibal Brooks]], persistent annual vandalism