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

Line 43: Line 43:

”’Reason:”’ Vandalism [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 03:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

*”’Automated comment:”’ A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last [[WP:RFPPA|8 days]].—[[User:Cyberbot I|cyberbot I]][[User talk:Cyberbot I|Talk to my owner]]:Online 03:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Brown_University_shooting&oldid=1328228842#Investigation

Someone added a video of someone calling them a “Suspect” despite the fact that the source of the video labeled them as a “Person of Interest”. Seems like a BLPCRIME violation–[[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 18:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

=== [[:Littleton, Colorado]] ===

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]

Declined – Disruption appears to be at a manageable level. Favonian (talk) 15:57, 18 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: Vandalism Trade (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added a video of someone calling them a “Suspect” despite the fact that the source of the video labeled them as a “Person of Interest”. Seems like a BLPCRIME violation–Trade (talk) 18:30, 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]

Removal seems to be made in good faith as the users (likely one user) seem unaware of the consensus. They seemed to have stopped after your revert. Yue🌙 (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mainly per user’s last comment “I will keep deleting this info and will not stop deleting it.” RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – The page is being vandalized by new editors who are changing data without any proper sources. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 07:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Long history of disruption, resumed almost immediately after previous protection expired. Sugar Tax (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Gross violations of WP:BLP policy, obvious sockpuppetry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: High level of unsourced additions and vandalism. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk – contribs) 12:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Reiterating IP vandalism (see page history). Barjimoa (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. GPL93 (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Created twice by the same user, who has now been warned appropriately. Consider WP:AIV if user continues to disrupt.RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Sock-puppetry 𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝 𝙴𝚙𝚒𝚙𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚢👁👄👁 (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Semi-protection Due to recent news, there has been an increase in unsourced info. — MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been protected via request on another page. Electricmemory (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The page is being vandalized continuously. Sàádî (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – No constructive posts from new users since 2021, just a constant queue of people trying to contact the customer service department of unspecified companies (often posting personal information assuming that they’re on a private channel) and being reverted. I assume these people are searching “name-of-company customer service” in their search engine, clicking the top result and then recognising and clicking the word “talk”.

There’s an edit notice in place, but it hasn’t worked except to perhaps filter the comments to non-English speakers who didn’t understand what it said. Belbury (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Vandalism Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 18:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply