=== [[Wayside (TV series)]] ===
=== [[Wayside (TV series)]] ===
* {{pagelinks|Wayside (TV series)}}
* {{pagelinks|Wayside (TV series)}}
”’Reason:”’ Nearly all contributions from non-autoconfirmed editors are eventually reverted for violating one of Wikipedia’s content guidelines, mostly the addition of unsourced/poorly-sourced material and unexplained removal of content without establishing consensus. This has been a recurring problem for almost a decade, and one that I cannot foresee being efficiently dealt with solely on [[WP:PCP|pending changes protection (PCP)]]. The vast majority of accepted changes are by experienced editors with an access level of autoconfirmed or above.
”’Reason:”’ Nearly all contributions from non-autoconfirmed editors are eventually reverted for violating one of Wikipedia’s content guidelines, mostly the addition of unsourced/poorly-sourced material and unexplained removal of content without establishing consensus. This has been a recurring problem for almost a decade, [[WP:PCP|pending changes protection (PCP)]]. The vast majority of accepted changes are by experienced editors with an access level of autoconfirmed or above.
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: Adding and re-adding multiple unsourced and WP:CRYSTAL claims + deleting templates Arjayay (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Disruptive editing by IP (Temporary) editors.. Vestrian24Bio 16:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Sugar Tax (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Submitted for review by a temporary account a third time after being rejected twice and nominated for deletion. Please semiprotect against further editing by temporary accounts until MFD can be resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Since semi-protection would block off all the editors working on the draft (i.e. not reverts of the AfC submissions) and the article is clearly just self-promotional, would it not make more sense to just delete the draft? If we protect it for more than six months than the article will probably be deleted for being dormant for six months. If we protect it for less than six months, than the same editors will be the only ones “working” on the draft anyways. Yue🌙 (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- My request evidently wasn’t clear, User:Yue. The draft has already been nominated for deletion. I was asking to semi-protect the draft for seven days while the MFD is pending so that further tendentious resubmissions will not waste reviewer time while the draft is being deleted. I was asking to protect it for seven days, not for six months. After seven days it will be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- I’ll let another responding admin make the final call, but I think a speedy deletion would make more sense instead of leaving it in MfD for a week and protecting the draft during that period. Yue🌙 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- My request evidently wasn’t clear, User:Yue. The draft has already been nominated for deletion. I was asking to semi-protect the draft for seven days while the MFD is pending so that further tendentious resubmissions will not waste reviewer time while the draft is being deleted. I was asking to protect it for seven days, not for six months. After seven days it will be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Since the animated adaptation of his series has returned, multiple anons have edited the article with nonencyclopedic information or just bias. Users, on the other hand, should be free to edit. Tintor2 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Reason: High level of recent anon vandalism. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing. RedShellMomentum 02:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
User(s) blocked: ~2025-36238-32 (talk · contribs). The Bushranger One ping only 02:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP/anon user was banned for caste-cruft but they have returned to making their caste edits two weeks later. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., also blocked new underlying IP. The Bushranger One ping only 04:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP/anon user was banned for caste-cruft but they have returned to making their caste edits two weeks later. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., also blocked new underlying IP. The Bushranger One ping only 04:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Reason: High Level of vandalism in past even few days ago, this pages has been protected mutilple times in past but after protection tenure ends again vandalism starts, so i will request to protect this page for longer times from Vandalism UncleBashin (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ongoing vandalism by temp accounts over last few days. echidnalives – talk – edits 05:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The Bushranger One ping only 05:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – nothing but reverts for days. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The Bushranger One ping only 05:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Nearly all contributions from non-autoconfirmed editors are eventually reverted for violating one of Wikipedia’s content guidelines, mostly the addition of unsourced/poorly-sourced material and unexplained removal of content without establishing consensus. This has been a recurring problem for almost a decade, with revert-after-revert consistently taking up most of the revision history for close to a decade. I cannot foresee pending changes protection (PCP), which has been put in place since 2018, being efficient enough to deal with this issue. The vast majority of accepted changes are by experienced editors with an access level of autoconfirmed or above.
- Examples (note that this section only indiscriminately samples a small number of recent revisions and does not represent the full extent of problematic editing):
Suggested action: Indefinite semi-protection. The longevity and persistence of the disruption justifies setting no expiration date. This page has been temporary semi-protected several times in the past, which has failed to stem the tide of unproductive editing in the long-term. Giovanni Potage (talk)
