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

Line 81: Line 81:

”’Temporary semi-protection:”’ Persistent [[WP:VAND|vandalism]] – Persistent vandalism by anon users. [[User:Puzzledvegetable|Puzzledvegetable]][[User talk:Puzzledvegetable|Is it teatime already?]] 18:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

:[[File:Pictogram voting support.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] ”'[[Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection|Semi-protected]]”’ for a period of ”’6 months”’, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.<!– Template:RFPP#semi –> –[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 18:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

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 semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Peterxy（talk） 07:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 17:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: This page needs to be protected. We have Wolof POV pushers using IP addresses to change the history by replacing Serer with Wolof without sources, and leaving the sources supporting Serer claim. This has gone on for years, and this article needs protection to prevent this. CultureCouture (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recurring vandalism over many years. Entranced98 (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Given the page was quite for 2 years before the recent spat I don’t think indef is justified. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 17:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Could use protection from sockpuppetry. Kajmer05 (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Continuing as target of banned user User:JacktheBrown evading ban as WP:LOUTSOCK. See:

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 16:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Two edits by possible socks in a week is not enough to justify protection. I sympathise with the situation, but it’s trying to hit a moving target that will likely have moved on. If disruption increases, re-report. —Hammersoft (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 18:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: High level of IP vandalism through LLM and it is highly viewed and may increase in coming days, especially due to protests, and US threats. Globetrotter30 (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined No non-autoconfirmed edits to this page at all for weeks. Except in [[WP:ECR}] topic areas, which this isn’t quite, we don’t protect preemptively. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 18:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – New account has appeared despite RfC consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: Baltic states birth infoboxes. Mellk (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueDIAMOND20s. Getting real tired of this sockmaster’s shenanigans, as they’ve socked on at least 50-60% of my GA’s. Gommeh 📖 🎮 17:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Nswix (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Consistent big changes without discussion from multiple temporary accounts even after giving warning several times. It was protected for them but after the protection expired they have started this again. Need more protection for longer time. They are now editing Bengal Subah in the say way disruptively so please protect them both. Mehedi Abedin 18:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Persistent addition of a redirect to the notable people section. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done There’s just one account in the last couple of days that is pushing for this. They are edit warring on the article. I’ve given them a final warning regarding this. Protection is not necessary at this time. —Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: it needs protection because Kurdish people are trying to vandalize it SalmanWrites (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done —Hammersoft (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: vandalism, venomous information SalmanWrites (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Vandalism by a single account. Account has been insufficiently warned. No other disruption occurring. —Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by anon users. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Hammersoft (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply