Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase
Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
| 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
| |
Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election
- Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Indefinite semi-protection: Arbitration enforcement (there is no arbitration enforcement option for semi protection) (WP:AP2). Aydenholtonvlogs (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Bhola Shankar
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IP editor pushing version with poor sources and poor writing. Ravensfire (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
User(s) blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
User:Dthomsen8
Indefinite full protection: Deceased Wikipedian user. signed, 64andtim (chat) 14:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Delwar Hossain Sayeedi
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- These contents deserve to be in the lead that summarizes the article as per WP:MOS but you are removing them to retain a lead that goes with your POV. LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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)- 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)
- Thanks for pointing that out, the semi protection template has been restored. LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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.
- These contents deserve to be in the lead that summarizes the article as per WP:MOS but you are removing them to retain a lead that goes with your POV. LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Imperialism
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Moxy-
15:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Megalonyx
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Joshua D. Wright
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Multiple IPs and 2 new accounts violate WP:PUBLICFIGURE BLP policy since August 11 - Altenmann >talk 15:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Sean Tuohy
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. Rockchalk717 15:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
User talk:38.25.15.6
Semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- No need to protect, just remove TPA @Taking Out The Trash SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)