Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gfoley4 (talk | contribs) at 02:35, 5 November 2023 (→‎Fortnight: semi-protected for 5 years). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

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".
Return to Requests for page protection.

Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level

MBC NEWS NOW

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by multiple IP range originating from South Korea in which they kept removing the redirect with content that they copy-paste from other articles in which the hatnote was also dated 2012/14 hence this is clearly not their own creation otherwise the dates in the hatnote made zero sense. This is the same person that previously vandalized other articles with the same described behaviour where I also requested indefinite RPP for.[1] Also note that, one of the IP (211.251.53.225) was blocked previously for this disruptive behaviour, which has since expired and they has since hopped to another range. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Jewel (2023)

Reason: High level of vandalism on the page in recent days. There is also an active edit war taking place on there. Zippo9310 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Jones

Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Several IPs keep adding information about Mac Jones' comparison to Tom Brady throwing pick sixes. The editors who revert the IPs say this article is about Mac Jones himself, and I agree with them. I think this page needs to be protected until the edit warring stops. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection would suffice; ECP or full protection is not needed to deal with IP vandalism. lizthegrey (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lizthegrey On Twinkle options, there's no way to actually request semi-protection for edit warring. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vigneshwara

Reason: This page is set to be highly edited with untruthful content and high level of vandalism so I would request for a page protection. Imwikki13 (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively.RegentsPark (comment) 20:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye Mr A

Reason: Has been subject recently to lots of disruptive editing- lots of block evasion/LTA, even after the recent protection that ended on September 23. Magitroopa (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fortnight

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Steady stream of disruptive edits/vandalism by both IP's and registered users ever since protections expired in late June. 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 5 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quando Rondo

Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – recent uptick in disruptive editing. 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty

Indefinite extended-confirmed protection: Community sanctions enforcement. Since September 13th, the article Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty has been vandalized, and many senior editors have reverted poorly sourced and unverified sourced articles, but there is a similar pattern being used to vandalize by a single user who is not admitting thr policy of neutrality according to Wikipedia and is against the Community sanctions enforcement. So I sincerely propose that the protection level be increased to indefinite because there is a high risk of unsourced, unverified information and disruptive contributions by some users. And leaving some links to investigate vandalism, disruptive editing using unverified, arbitrarily picked Colonial era sources and journals—all of which failed verifiability. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] Fancy vißes (call) 21:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy vibēs, could you please specify which sanctions (or which contentious topic area) exactly you are referring to? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

England women's national football team

Reason: Also Spain women's national football team and most likely others: an IP user is adding excessive and completely non-encyclopedic Women's World Cup summaries, with close paraphrasing, and reverting its removal. With no women's international matches for a while, there shouldn't need to be any updates, so page protection will not harm genuine use but should discourage an IP wannabe journalist from warring over their content. Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 297

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – vandalism from IP editors and also adding unsourced info since Nov 1, 2023. Cassiopeia talk 23:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&oldid=1183563170"