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

Line 72: Line 72:

::{{u|Yue}}, they are on different ranges though? The rangeblock would have to be really large to cover the entire thing. And one is on IPv6 and another is on IPv4, so two large rangeblocks would be needed. [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]] [[Special:Contributions/45dogs|(contributions)]] 05:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Reply|45dogs}} Oops, assumed they were in the same range because of the shared geographic location. ”[[User:Yue|Yue]]”🌙 ([[User talk:Yue|talk]]) 05:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

::::[[File:Pictogram voting support.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] ”'[[Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection|Pending-changes protected]]”’ for a period of ”’1 week”’, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.<!– Template:RFPP#pend –> ”[[User:Yue|Yue]]”🌙 ([[User talk:Yue|talk]]) 05:11, 18 December 2025 (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.

Reason: Editors keep ignoring hidden notes about NOT adding or changing information about the film (particularly the cast) using leaks or rumors as their source. Joy040207 (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was also going to file this request. There are multiple talk page discussions on how to handle this situation and material, which even extended confirmed editors are ignoring and have nearly edit warred over this leaked material. Requesting a longer timed ECP. I do not think autoconfirmed is sufficient for the high traffic this article already receives, which is only inevitably going to increase and become more problematic given the nature of this article and subject. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 04:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see no great gain in applying ecp-protection…too much back and forth editing is by extended confirmed editors (who should know better). The consequence if all else fails (and I think a bit more discussion on talk might be called for here) would be a full protection…I don’t think we are there yet, though. Lectonar (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in all blunt fairness, many of the EC editors have been warned in the past about adding such additions, much to no avail… they have pretty consistently ignored my recent warnings given to them earlier this month and last month on this article. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 15:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean we are “there” now. This is getting out of control with how many edits have been reverted due to the insistance of using leaks and rumors as sources to back up information. We have told people numerous times, even opened more than one discussion in talk, still edits being reverted. This warrants full protection, not just semi-protection, as the leadup to release it will keep getting leaks and rumors, especially when the trailers start coming and we go back to square one in this topic. Joy040207 (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been almost 12 hours since the article was last edited, and I may be (wishfully) thinking that these types of edits about the leaks may have ceased for now. Given the trailer will be available to watch in theaters for Avatar showings tomorrow, it feels disingenuous to fully protect the page and prevent adequate constructive edits from being made due to a few bad apples. I can only hope that the editors in question have learned from their warnings, but I remain unconvinced in that regard. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – TA’s vandalising the page and adding unsourced information. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Repeated disruptive editing by anonymous editor(s), with continued addition of factually false information. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent disruptive editing by anonymous editor(s). livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Constant anonymous user vandalism – requesting permanent semiprotection. Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yue🌙 (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Semi-protection for this page expired two days ago. In the subsequent two days, the page has seen an immediate influx of disruptive editing from multiple non-confirmed users. Specifically, this includes: a bad-faith speedy deletion attempt ([1]) by a user under the sole stated reason of disliking the film; the addition of WP:NOTLYRICS copyright violations ([2]), necessitating a revision being hidden; along with vandal content removal & wikitext formatting disruptions to the lead ([3], [4], [5]). — Jamie Eilat (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I think an indefinite period of protection should be considered if disruptive editing emerges again after the six months. The article has been protected seven times now with no end to disruptive editing in sight. Yue🌙 (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Vandalism Trade (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Repeated removal of content by TA’s, despite consensus at Talk:Littleton, Colorado over a decade ago to keep said content. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Unregistered users keep claiming the channel will be closed although no source has been provided for this. A quick Google search only comes up with a Facebook fan group that cites a random Instagram account. Limmidy (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yue🌙 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Fairly persistent vandalism over some weeks, possibly going into BLP violation territory. I think long term (but not indefinite) pending changes would be the best solution. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be the same IP range on multiple TAs; can another responding administrator consider blocking the range temporarily? Yue🌙 (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yue, they are on different ranges though? The rangeblock would have to be really large to cover the entire thing. And one is on IPv6 and another is on IPv4, so two large rangeblocks would be needed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@45dogs: Oops, assumed they were in the same range because of the shared geographic location. Yue🌙 (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yue🌙 (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply