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

Line 146: Line 146:

* baning the Fluffy_McGruff account, or at least preventing it from making further edits to this page.

[[User:QuietSisyphus|QuietSisyphus]] ([[User talk:QuietSisyphus|talk]]) 21:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

*~~[[File:Pictogram voting oppose.svg~~|~~20px~~|~~link=|alt=]]~~ ~~”’Declined”'<!–~~ ~~Template:RFPP#deny~~ –> ~~Please~~ ~~review~~ our [[WP:V|~~definition of vandalism~~]]; ~~the~~ ~~material~~ ~~you~~ ~~removed was certainly not vandalism. It was sourced material. However,~~ ~~given~~ ~~that~~ the ~~material was contentious, it falls under [[WP:~~BLP~~]],~~ ~~and~~ as ~~such~~ ~~it’s~~ ~~debatable~~ as to ~~whether it should be included in Wikipedia~~. [[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNoitsJamie]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|Talk]] 23:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

*|| our [[WP:V|]]; the BLP . [[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNoitsJamie]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|Talk]] :, November 2025 (UTC)

=== [[Queensrÿche]] ===

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.

Temporary Full Protection: There is an editor using sockpuppets to make edits WITHOUT a proper consensus. The edit removed cited content without discussing it on the talk page first, starting what is basically a mass edit war. The editor who last made a revert said “Stop reverting my edit.” The same edit that was made by multiple registered and temp accounts. They are very clearly the same person. This isn’t SPI though, so I will state what should have been said a while ago. We need this page to be fully protected temporarily to stop this mass edit war once and for all. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 01:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see this is a content dispute over material that never had a talk page consensus, so NotJamestack is edit warring against WP:ONUS. He is also misusing this protection request as a way to win said dispute which is against the policy. Ryuudou (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated to your other sock accounts, the slavery content has been there since the first version of this article in 2023 ~2025-35681-50 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have sock accounts. Clearly, you are a sockpuppet. Ryuudou (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryuudou, Now you’re accusing others of being sock puppets after saying “Stop making personal attacks” after I rightfully called you one of the sock puppet accounts. Can you stop disrupting pages and edit warring Kpop777 (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Persistent vandalism. LarryTheBird2011 (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, I do not see obvious vandalism, and needs to be requested by a user in good standing. Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement – This page concerns military history of India which is required to be placed under ECP according to the arbcom ruling as documented at WP:CT/SA. Zalaraz (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the page linked clearly states, the decision to implement such an edit restriction to a page and especially an Afd, which is a discussion (“Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion. The author of the article can make their case like everyone else. As discussed above, relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin. Please bear in mind that administrators will discount any obviously bad faith contributions to the discussion when closing the discussion. On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous”) might only be appropriate if such a page was the object of obvious disruption by anonymous users. Please note that the appellant had removed sources presented in good faith and that directly contradict their “vote”. I cannot see how the presentation of sources (by anyone, including temporary accounts) could be whatsoever problematic. ~2025-35819-18 (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done An article about a king only has mandatory ECR under WP:CT/IMH for the portions of the article that cover his military exploits. The remainder of the article is not under ECR, and the AfD on the spinoff article about his apperarances in popular culture is not IMH related. – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection: Persistent addition of unsourced cast after extended-confirmed protection expired. Media Mender (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Consistently receives unsourced additions and vandalism; it is pending changes protected but having indefinite semi-protection (like the other soap lists have) ensures that only reliably sourced information can be added, and lessens the work of pending change reviewers. – Meena • 13:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Socks and logged-out editors repeatedly re-adding the same unsourced original research about how TikTok is “Neo-Libertarian Falangism” despite multiple requests for a citation. • a frantic turtle 🐢 14:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Persistent unreferenced and unexplained edits from IP users. Hotwiki (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – I would like to request page protection due to repeated unexplained reversions by a single user with just 20 edits. The following diffs show the pattern of disruptive editing and WP:BLP violation:

Temporary protection may help stabilize the page until the issue is resolved. Thank you. Karieol51 (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Almost 30% of edits in the last year were vandalism. 𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘 (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Significant misinformation, removal of sourced material proving modern social democracy operates within capitalist apparatus, spread of false claims including the failure to distinguish modern social democracy in contrast with classical social democracy. AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement – WP:ARBPIA. Entranced98 (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement – WP:ARBPIA. Entranced98 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement – WP:ARBPIA. Entranced98 (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent block evasion. C F A 15:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – nothing but reverts for weeks!. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Frequent vandalism from anonymous/non-participating editors due to past association with extremist entities & his informant role within said organization. Additionally, the subject is controversial within the MMA world, attracting negative attention from UFC fans. 30Four (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: High level of IP vandalism and also every editor coming on my user page changing my content. Wiki – Read and Write (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary extended confirmed protection: BLP policy violations – Subject is not confirmed killed by an Israeli airstrike. Unsourced edits continue to claim he is dead. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His death has been confirmed by many official sources, including Hezbollah’s own website. Randomuser335S (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t this be permanent ECP anyways under WP:ARBPIA? The Kip ^(contribs) 19:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can go for it. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User above is violating BLP and RS policy. Page needs to be locked. —WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every source, including Hezebollah’s very own website, has verified his killing, but here you are aggressively censoring that information without any other user consensus under your own “BLP” banner. If anyone here is violating anything, it is you asserting that outdated “unconfirmed death” notion onto the article despite it being dispelled by all parties involved. If you are reading this WikiCleanerMan, it is also confirmed under al Jazeera. Randomuser335S (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protected No comment on content dispute among XC users, which should be discussed at the article talk page. Users are reminded to assume good faith, that WP:BLP is one of Wikipedia’s strictest policies for good reason, and that accusations of “censorship” can potentially be considered personal attacks. – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for violating that “assuming good faith” rule, but it’s a little hard to follow that when the user in question was persistently reversing every edit about his death even in the light of outlets such as al Jazeera, Reuters, the Jerusalem Post, and even Hezebollah’s website confirming it, using the BLP rule as their shield. They also repeatedly overrode the edits of at least 8 other users without bothering to consult a talk page. Can you please help me with finding a more charitable interpretation of those actions? Randomuser335S (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 19:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:RPPD. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Frequent target of WP:LTA/HABS. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: There was recent vandalism to the page “Mark Tomforde” by the user Fluffy_McGruff. (See article history and edits made on 15 November 2025). I’d like to request that the level of protection for this article be increased to prevent further vandalism.

In the past few weeks that have been multiple incidents of vandalism to this page by anonymous editors, and this page was protected at the level of “semi-protection”, preventing edits from unregistered users or very new accounts. Looking at the contributions page of the account named Fluffy_McGruff, it appears the user created the Fluffy_McGruff account for the sole purpose of editing this page. In particular: The Fluffy_McGruff account was created on 10 November 2025, and the user made the requisite number of edits on 10 November 2025 and 12 November 2025, while waiting the necessary four days before they could edit this page. After making their edits on 15 November 2025, there have been no further edits by Fluffy_McGruff.

This incident of vandalism by Fluffy_McGruff, as well as prior vandalism by anonymous accounts, have included persistent addition of biased and/or unsourced content that seems designed to damage reputation or push an agenda.

Currently there are multiple lawsuits in which the subject is plaintiff and/or defendant, and the edits are making conclusions about these lawsuits prior to their resolutions. The edits seemed designed to aid the plaintiff in one of the ongoing lawsuits.

The sources cited by the recent editor are not reliable or high-quality. There have been repeated attempts to include allegations, accusations, and negative details in an effort to be defamatory and promote a viewpoint or agenda. In the Fluffy_McGruff edits, the language used and choice of topics is not neutral, but rather displays bias and an effort to promote an agenda. Links to sources have included subject’s own social media, rather than Wikipedia’s preference for “secondary sources over primary sources” in BLPs. Also in violation of Wikipedia’s policies for BLPs, the edits synthesize multiple sources and combine facts to imply motives and add the editor’s interpretations. For example, the editor quotes allegations against the subject, while failing to mention that the cited source states “[The judge] believed many of [plaintiff’s] claims were not viable on various grounds.”

The topics discussed are also related to controversial topics, including sexual misconduct, other accusations, and ongoing investigations. The repeated and persistent edits are quite possibly coming from the plaintiff (or supporters of the plaintiff) and seem designed to damage reputation rather than state facts or present a neutral viewpoint.

Since the subject is not particularly famous, I personally would advocate for waiting until after the lawsuits are resolved to address the issue on this Wikipedia article. That way definitive conclusions can be made to avoid speculation, not affect outcomes of ongoing lawsuits, and not expose Wikipedia to any liability for incorrect or biased statements in the article.

I’d like to suggest:

increasing the level of protection for the article “Mark Tomforde”.

baning the Fluffy_McGruff account, or at least preventing it from making further edits to this page.

QuietSisyphus (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Edit warring/arguments over WP:NOTBROKEN. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism on this page for the Eagles’ offensive coordinator following the team’s loss to the Cowboys. HurricaneKappa (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism by fans following the Eagles’ loss to the Cowboys on November 23. HurricaneKappa (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply