Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase: Difference between revisions

Line 48: Line 48:

”’Indefinite semi-protection:”’ Persistent [[WP:VAND|vandalism]] – IPs are continually changing the ideology of the party without consensus and engaging in edit warring. [[User:The Kora Person|Kora ^^ (she/her)]] [[User_talk:The Kora Person|say hi!]]/[[Special:Contributions/The Kora Person|what I’ve done]] 00:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

:[[File:Pictogram voting oppose.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] ”’Declined”’ – Not enough recent disruptive activity to [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|justify]] protection.<!– Template:RFPP#nact –> The TA making the unsourced edits has not edited since being warned. ”[[User:Yue|Yue]]”🌙 ([[User talk:Yue|talk]]) 08:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

=== [[:Marti Buckley]] ===

Place requests for protection increases at the BOTTOM of this section. If you cannot find your request, check the archive of requests or the page history. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Indefinite extended confirmed protection: This page is such a flash point that it has its own dedicated sanctions set up for it, and yet … it has no protections, but it probably should. Right now, a non-EC editor is heavily redacting the page, with much of what they are doing going against both the sources and long-established consensus (entire RFCs in some cases). The edits have been challenged politely on talk, but they are editing at a rate that is impossible to address and showing no intent of slowing down or seeking consensus for any of their edits in advance. A case could be raised, but basic EC protections would be far more expedient and pragmatic. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: If this concerns my edits, why did you not ping me? I’m concerned that this request would effectively exclude me from the editing process rather than resolve any potential content issues. I have made edits to this page aimed at improving neutrality and sourcing, and none of those edits have been substantively challenged on the talk page. If Iskandar323 has a specific problem with my edits, it should be discussed directly there so it can be evaluated on merit rather than attempting to push me out through this page protection. PatriceON (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That a non-EC account is watching my contributions to the extent that they could reply here within 30 minutes rather illustrates my concern. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your failure to address the points raised (here or on the article’s talk) illustrates mine. PatriceON (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PatriceON, the article currently has the following restriction (which appears when editing it): Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. After your first set of edits were reverted, you should’ve not re-reverted them. It’s clear that your edits to the article are contentious and, as such, should be discussed first on the talk page. @Iskandar323: I don’t think protection is needed at the moment, but if disruption continues, you might want to bring this to AE. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yue🌙 (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: High amount of vandalism and cosmetic changes being made. There is an election coming up in Tamil Nadu, so people are tampering with information and colour schemes in the article. This article I’m requesting protection for is AIADMK led Alliance (abbreviated as AIADMK+), which is the official name, and the primary colour is Green since is it led by AIADMK. However, people have tampered with the name of the article, calling it AIADMK led National Democratic Alliance, which is misleading and inaccurate – NDA is national alliance, whereas AIADMK+ is a REGIONAL alliance. Also people have been changing the primary colour to Saffron instead of leaving it as Green because the BJP is in this regional alliance – this is not accurate either. The primary colour of an alliance should be that of the party who is leading that alliance.

With an election coming up in Tamil Nadu, unprotected pages like these are breeding grounds for misinformation and for misleading inexperienced voters who turn to Wikipedia for up-to-date information, so I request that this page be protected, such that not everyone can edit it. Thank you!
~2026-46047-7 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. No comment on the context here but this falls within the WP:CT/SASG extended-confirmed-required-for-all-edits area. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 06:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Indefinite extend-confirm protection Arbitration enforcement. Contentious topic which would be post-1992 US politics CaptainShark49 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Permanent create-protection (salting) Repeatedly recreated CaptainShark49 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Page has not been recreated after creator warned. – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Frequent vandalism from several temp accounts. OceanGunfish (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 07:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism from TAs. Jalen Barks (Woof) 23:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 07:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs are continually changing the ideology of the party without consensus and engaging in edit warring. Kora ^^ (she/her) ^{say hi!}/_{what I’ve done} 00:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The TA making the unsourced edits has not edited since being warned. Yue🌙 (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Multiple violations of WP:PAID. Gheus (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: ip vandalism. 45BearsFan (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Nvdtn19 (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined This seems more likely to drive the socks to pages more people care about than actually stop them. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 06:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Nvdtn19 (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined This seems more likely to drive the socks to pages more people care about than actually stop them. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 06:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Repeated addition of unsourced BLP material, five times since 12 January. Tacyarg (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Underlying IP p-blocked from the article, revdels applied. Left guide (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – IPs continue to add unsourced information and edit war over it. CNMall41 (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply