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

Line 105: Line 105:

* {{pagelinks|2025 Jaramana clashes}}

”’Indefinite extended-confirmed protection:”’ [[WP:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|Arbitration enforcement]]. [[User:Freedoxm|Freedoxm]] ([[User talk:Freedoxm|talk]] ”’·”’ [[Special:Contributions/Freedoxm|contribs]]) 00:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

=== [[Deaths, detentions and deportations of American citizens in the second Trump administration]] ===

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: Persistent Disruptive editing – The IP address (~2025-39050-60) has made “fake” edits in the Characters section, please block them! ~2026-46505-9 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just the two back and forths today. Will warn one for incivility. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: WP:DERRY violation by TA hopper. FDW777 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. One or two edits to each article. If they keep it up, re-report. Daniel Case (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: WP:DERRY violation by TA hopper. FDW777 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. One or two edits to each article. Re-report if they keep up. Daniel Case (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: WP:DERRY violation by TA hopper. FDW777 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. One or two edits to each article. Re-report if they keep up. Daniel Case (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: WP:DERRY violation by TA hopper. FDW777 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. One or two edits to each article. Re-report if they keep up. Daniel Case (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Persistent level of IP vandalism in the past, requesting semi protection. Robloxguest3 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i’m just curious but how would that be preemptive? Robloxguest3 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Robloxguest3: Page protection is meant to stop recent and ongoing spikes in vandalism and other undesired behaviour. The only edits in the past half-year have been yours. Yue🌙 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. @Yue: “nea” is the argument to use in this situation. Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent IP vandalism I saw was from 2022, which is why I used “preemptive” instead of “not enough recent”. Guess it’s a matter of perspective. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hadn’t looked at the history. I usually use “np” only in response to purely pre-emptive requests, like “this guy’s coming out with a new album Thursday, so we better get out in front of any vandalism”. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

‘Reason: Temporary extended-confirmed protection Page is being targeted by a sockfarm, see [1] and [2] for details. Users who are part of this sock farm appear to already be autoconfirmed so ECP is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Between you and I, editors should look into the edit whether what I’m reverting is vandalization or building encyclopedia. There are nearly more than categories added to the article and the references used from reliable sources but these editors are removing it without any explanation. There’s ongoing discussion on the talk page of the article because political opposition are trying to fabricate lies about the subject without providing any substantial evidence from reliable source. Gwabman (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked: Gwabman (talk · contribs) blocked by The Bushranger. for 31 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Disruptive attempts to delete article over many years, some attempts of which were made by (auto)confirmed accounts. Jalen Barks (Woof) 20:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. It’s just one user, and they haven’t edited since the first warning someone gave them today. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: over the past week there has been several users randomly vandalizing the page, removing a conference that isn’t defunct until the end of this school year, adding a conference that is still too soon to add, with the fact it isn’t beginning until 2027 and does not have a name yet. And another user just randomly adding jumbled words. These accounts are either being edited by those without an account or recently recreated ones. I’m seeking the page to be semi protected. The vandalism took place between January 13-January 21 2026. Porfiriotorres991 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have warned each user of vandalism prior to this, however it appears new users continue to vandalize page, whether it’s the same user on multiple accounts or if it’s different users. However, no user responded to my comment or have reappeared, with those edits being the only edits on their accounts. Porfiriotorres991 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Persistent sockpuppetry. Love my dreams (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. Underlying IP ranges. Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Unconstructive editing by TAs hasn’t stopped since last request was denied. ~2026-45941-7 (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection: Persistent vandalism. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 21:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Autologged at CTOPS under SA and BLP Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Same anonymous user has been vandalizing this page for years. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Disruptive editing by auto confirmed account and other suspiciously similar accounts. ~2026-45726-9 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. If autoconfirmed accounts were causing disruption, ECP would be needed, and I don’t see it needed here. – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing Kajmer05 (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected by administrator Yue. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite extended-confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 00:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Lots of drive-by bad edits from new/temp users, while most constructive edits come from users with established accounts. (This includes the talk page, where multiple different IPs are starting redundant and borderline biased threads.) Requesting semi-protection for at least a week or so, maybe more if needed. Thanks. I like octopuses^{criticize me 🙁} 01:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Self-comment I’m not fully sure how temps work, so the edits might be being made by less people than appears. Even so, I think there’s enough disruption to warrant semi-protection. I like octopuses^{criticize me 🙁} 01:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: IP continues to revert the re-addition of an un-deleted sidebar, violating WP:3RR. Requesting semi-protection. –G M 01:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked: ~2026-39161-0 (talk · contribs) blocked by Discospinster. (31 hours) Left guide (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: The article on Baburam Bhattarai has been experiencing vandalism and biased edits, which will only increase as Nepal is nearing an election, including unsourced defamatory claims. I request temporary semi-protection or extended confirmed protection. ~2026-46331-4 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. There has been exactly one reverted edit since 9 December. – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what policy says on the subject these days, but bothering my Talk is a pretty harmless way for the vandal to entertain themselves and get blocked. I don’t mind letting them through. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment