Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase
| Requests for page protection | |
|---|---|
|
You are currently viewing the subpage "Current requests for increase in protection level". Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
| |
Reason: There has been an edit war with an IP editor who was trying to rewrite the plot and making Mike and Sulley out to be the real villains. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
User(s) blocked. /64 blocked 3 months. El_C 01:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Someone keeps on editing the motto to a unsourced claim, "We Horse". This has been going on for months, so a short term protection will not do justice. The IP changes, so AIV will not work. A permanent, or at least a protection for the next 6 months should be fine. Semi protection would be good, as it won't even allow him to edit without a account. If they get a account and vandalize I'l bring it to AIV. Cheers! Lectrician2 (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Not even active enough for pending changes. Three total edits in December, none in November, just one in October. This isn't a good candidate for administrative intervention at this time. @Lectrician2: courtesy ping. El_C 01:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Indefinite extended protection: prevent this stuff from happening, additionally, not much reason for a non ec editor to edit this policy page – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi AssumeGoodWraith, this would be a rather severe precedent for very few cases a year. Unlikely to happen without a discussion at WP:AN, either before, or afterwards.
Requesting immediate archiving... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – From Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Global_cooling: Persistent tendentious profringe editing by a suspected sockpuppeteer. No autoconfirmed accounts are suspected to be involved, but some of them clearly met the age requirement at time of last edit. Some of the suspicious edits date back as early as February. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done yet, declined as a content dispute by Daniel before. I'm currently waiting for the result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pi Variant. Please add any available evidence to the SPI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Reason: Warring edits, unsourced information, vandalism 2601:58B:4202:4760:D22:2EA8:D3B6:626D (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Awful BLP violations... Daniel (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Alka Nupur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Alka Nupur Varshney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Repeated cut&paste moves by new users. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Reason: Indefinite full protection - enforcement of AfD decision, has been repeatedly recreated, has previously been co-ordinated on Facebook group dedicated to the subject - for further reading, please see ANI archive and user talk convo, plus the current ANI discussion which led to blocking of one editor. I imagine there will be more coming, based off the external canvassing seen prior. Requesting rather than just doing myself, I don't think I'm technically involved, but better to be safe than sorry... Daniel (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Reason: A user who has admitted they were involved in an old legal dispute with the article subject has been adding improperly sourced information about the case that may potentially violate BLP and COI policies. I removed it over a week ago, and it has been added back by the user threatening legal action towards Wikipedia if removed again. For that reason, I am not willing to remove it. ToQ100gou (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Declined will be looking into the content to see what is a BLP violation here and what isn't. Daniel (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Reason: Disruptive editing. Because the editor has put bad words in the title name, you already know how long this should be protected for. But if the disruptive editing was not bad and it didn't get cuss words put in it, I would be fine with for a while. But for this and F9 since they have bad words, AVeganKid (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)