Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
[edit]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent disruptive editing of Droop quota, instant-runoff voting, single transferable vote, counting single transferable votes, and electoral quota by a series of IPs. IPs do not belong to a single range that could be excluded by a range block, but all appear to be the same person. IP often introduces mistakes, typos, unsourced content, confusing or unclear wording that breaks up the flow of the text, and external links into the body of the article (prohibited by MOS). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a formal close on my part, but ... have you tried talking with them about this? I agree that, since at least some of the IPs resolve to the same area of Alberta, and the writing style seems the same, it's the same user on different IPs (probably the school connection and the home connection). On Talk:Droop quota they've opened up two sections that might be relevant and to which no one has responded (and on Counting single transferable votes I see no sign of disruption as the article hasn't been edited much in the last two months). Nothing you wrote, and nothing I saw, indicates that the user is editing in anything but good faith. Yes, cleaning up after them is a pain but ... when you don't let them know they're doing the right things the wrong way, don't expect them to stop doing it that way. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Membrey

[edit]

Reason: Tim Membrey has been linked with a delisted free agency move to the Collingwood football club. However some not logged in users have fallen under the impression that he has officially been signed on with them and no longer plays for the Saints. If Collingwood do end up signing him the earliest he can do it is on November 1st 2024. Flipstatic Energy (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trina

[edit]

Reason: IPs are continuously changing the birthdate. I tried to remove the birth year so they would stop, but It was reverted and they still keep on doing it. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Aoidh (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Reason: Intermittent vandalism and aggressive participation (e.g. repeated personal attacks) by an non-EC user, who has refused to stop after being politely told several times that they were violating the WP:ARBECR by involving themselves in Israeli-Palestinian conflict-associated editing.

Examples of the said user’s ECR violations: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII.

Also this by another non-EC user.

P.S. In the content of the article, “Israel” is mentioned 48 times, “Palestine” 6 times while “Gaza” 3 times. It has basically intertwined with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Steven1991 (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To provide more context, within the past several days this user has made multiple attempts at trying to prevent other users from engaging with the page: 1, 2 , this just appears to be a latest attempt.
They were told by an admin, Those edits aren't vandalism; this is a routine content dispute over inclusion, where WP:ONUS applies, especially given that there are WP:BLP concerns. If anything, repeatedly re-adding contested material without consensus is the most problematic behavior here. Anyone reviewing this should also be aware of OP's recent history ... On consideration, I suggest that you find other, less controversial topocs to edit
They were also told, In looking at the article talkpage, there are numerous editors expressing concerns about content you are pushing to include. And you are repeatedly personalizing the dispute and casting plenty of aspersions of your own--to an unwise degree given your own recent block history (three in the past month), and made doubly so by your decision to call admin attention to this dispute. My best advice to you is to ... show more good faith at the talkpage, and make sure you understand WP:ONUS, WP:BLP, and WP:BLPCRIME; your hands are far from clean here
On the article's talk page they began spamming (1, 2, 3, 4) me with alerts regarding ECR, when no one else agrees with WP:ARBECR applying to the article, and were told (1, 2), You know they're already aware of ECR, they were aware before you started alerting them.They're allowed to edit this article, just not be involved in WP:PIA. Now stop harassing them by spamming alerts at them. You've been told before not to do this with other users ... I already pointed out that they are allowed to edit this page as antisemitism as a whole is unrelated to WP:PIA & just because some aspects under ECR are included in the article, does not mean the entire article is under ECR.     Now please, leave them alone, stop aggressively trying to kick them off the page, & focus on content Wikipedious1 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I.) Isolated instances of reversing edits that apparently violated the WP:VANDAL and WP:ARBECR are not considered edit warring, when some of your last week’s mass deletions of well-sourced content comprised a few to no reasons, as pointed out by one of the admins who intervened ( “Lol” is not a reason ), not mentioning those entries were directly associated with the A/I conflict in which you’re not supposed to have got involved in the first place.
III.) Last week, I made a significant compromise by removing the vast majority of the specific entries you didn’t want to be kept in the list so as to address your “concerns” so as to de-escalate for any disputes the sake of de-escalation.
IV.) I have never ceased to follow the demands from you/other users concerning any other disputed content, despite my personal disagreement – I removed those entries accordingly without much questioning when it’s supposed to take place prior to any mass deletion attempts.
V.) I have tried my best to be patient and keep all of my replies as polite, civil and humble as possible, none of which however seemed to have been reciprocated by you at any point of time. You do not appear to have shown signs of improving your manner in your correspondence, which I find considerably intimidating.
IV.) It is not “spamming” when you appeared to have violated the rules of engagement repeatedly and got relevant reminders. They are reminders – gentle reminders. I advise you to follow the WP:AGF and avoid mischaracterising my actions as anything “malicious” unfriendly when what I desire is respect.
You were asked repeatedly, as per the WP:NPA and WP:HA, to stop referring me to as an “entity” (dehumanising code word) or persistently employing offensive language in your replies to my polite and humble messages. You don’t appear to have apologised to me either despite your claim of having “reformed”.
Rather than listen, you appeared to have continued the suspected WP:NPA, WP:HA and WP:ARBECR violations. Reminders were given repeatedly as I didn’t want to bring in the specialised admins when they’re already busy enough – I have exercised maximal restraint throughout the process. Steven1991 (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your first point is the only one that seems reasonable to me, I did make edits and discussion regarding protests related to WP:PIA, which may be incorrect, however I have refrained from discussing the conflict, or taking a side, other than describing what I perceived to be Biden's side in the conflict (this was relevant to a disputed incident in the article). In other words I made edits and discussions about protests, and a public figure's opinions (Biden's), only when it was relevant to specific incidents on the list that were in contention. I do not believe the entire article is related to WP:PIA, however, and I would dispute that, and I would guess that that is not the consensus among the editors. I want to point out that I have refrained from editing the page until a consensus to the current impasse is reached. I also think it's strange that I was blocked for making improper edit summaries (including what you're referring to, I don't understand why you're still bringing that up or presenting it as an ongoing issue when it has been settled), which means an admin or admins saw my edits, and decided that I hadn't broken any rules other than making improper edit summaries and not properly discussing my edits. It just seems strange that only within the past <24 hours it appears to have become a problem, when I was blocked on the 12th of October. For any admins my question would be why no one seemed to have caught this additional, earlier breach.
You don’t appear to have apologised to me either. I referred to you as the "Steven Entity" several times in 2 separate occasions, once on your talk page and once on the article's talk page, separated by the IIRC 48 hours of my block period. I thought it was all in good humor especially as a newer Wikipedia user who has not really engaged in discussion on an article talk page before, but since engaging with other editors I've since realized that creating nicknames for others -- only meant in good humor and not to seriously hurt other's feelings -- is an impediment to civility and consensus, and I have shed the earlier immaturity. I also noticed that you did not tell me to not refer to you in this way, so I thought it was okay to do so. In day to day civil discussion, as an example, I would expect someone to correct me immediately if I were to misgender them or mispronounce their name - in this situation I was only told by other members not to refer to you in this way, and you did not remark on it until after I already agreed to stop referring to you in this way. While it seems that this has been a major slight to you -- which is fine, you are of course allowed to feel that way -- I do get the feeling that it is being weaponized as another "point" you have in your dispute against me, in the same way your request for page protection seems to be another weapon you've decided to fire as part of the dispute rather than something you believe at a genuine level would allow for more meaningful contribution to the article. Though these points do not take away from the fact that my nickname for you was wrong. I do want to apologize to you for referring to you in this way on 2 separate occasions, and I do want to point out that I did agree to not refer to you in this way, and I have not done so since, I also want to thank you for improving my netiquette and my ability to use Wikipedia through engaging in our dispute. I'll repost this to your talk page as well, though I do question why you're bringing it up on this page and what relevance it has here, as well as what relevance some of these matters that appear to be settled have to this request for protection. Wikipedious1 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
V.) Your quoted user has apparently NEVER never been involved in the editing of that article at any point of time, not least the period 1 September~19 October 2024. The user is a disinterested party who made a highly subjective judgment based on very limited information and he has no administrative powers on the site and who’s supposed not to get involved either.

VI.)

when no one else agrees with WP:ARBECR

It does not require any participant’s “agreement”. It is a site-wide rule applicable to every individual participating in Wikipedia’s editing activities. You were reminded by other users of such requirements in some of the entries pertaining to the discussion as well, which you don’t appear to have followed.Steven1991 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mauretania

[edit]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – disruptive editing (replacing sourced content with OR), sockpuppetry and personal attacks (see diff). M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Acroterion. Favonian (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARM (film)

[edit]

Reason: High IP vandalism for days changing boxoffice numbers. Please protect page for longer time. RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Russia

[edit]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Disruption may also fall under WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Maiden (band)

[edit]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Looks like Dylan Florida is testing on this one too. Jalen Barks (Woof) 14:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked: 180.150.38.85 (talk · contribs). Its predecessor, 1.152.106.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), as well. In view of their general editing pattern, successors should probably just be shipped off to SPI for processing. Favonian (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Charah

[edit]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continued disruption regarding result. Mellk (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Will be logged under WP:CT/KURD. Favonian (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen

[edit]

Reason: Anon IP edits, using WP:SPS like X, Ex-Twitter as source. Also unsourced material. Recomend to restore to mid protection. 30days accounts Mr.User200 (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended protection due to Arab conflict 2600:100C:B0A1:195:54A8:F1E5:B5B6:EF15 (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Latimer (New York politician)

[edit]

Reason: IP vandalism Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing films in Nepal

[edit]

Reason: Continuous vandalism by IP users despite multiple warnings. At the moment, two top films are competing at the Nepal box office and thus high level of IP vandalism. Protecting this page for at least a week would suffice. Sneshik (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q4OS

[edit]

Reason: Persistent sockpuppetry and spam. Every edit since 12 February has been either adding or reverting edits by block evading sockpuppets or promotional spam. Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey

[edit]

Reason: Immediate resumption of vandalism after expiry. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Anne-Sophie Ofrim

[edit]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Being hassled by a cross-wiki LTA abusing proxies. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&oldid=1252070387"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy