Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase
Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
| Requests for page protection | |
|---|---|
|
You are currently viewing the subpage "Current requests for increase in protection level". Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
| |
Reason: Persistent sockpuppetry. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2024 (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 8 days.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Constant edit warring, particularly by user Malik-Al-Hind, but by IP users as well. The former user fails to stop reinstating edits which, on the talk page, (see Discussion 1 and Discussion 2) there have been discussions against adding such edits. I plan to start an RfC soon, and until that is over there should be full protection until any disputes have been settled, as was recently done on the Gupta Empire article when there was edit warring there. The current consensus reversion, as I recently restored to, is 1225352800. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Since the article is already indefinitely semi-protected, as you might expect from one so close to the center of what makes a contentious topic area contentious, I ask you for clarification on what protection options you would like. Going to extended-confirmed protection wouldn't keep MaH from editing, as they already have that user right. If edit warring is the problem, perhaps we should go to ECP and 1RR ... I don't think anybody would question that on this article. What do you think? Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I said in my above comment there should be full protection, which I think is appropriate temporarily until all disputes (the inclusion of "Hindustan" in the lead and the inclusion of "Indo-Muslim" in the lead) can be settled. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I see you asked for full protection, but the way you want it would require doing it indefinitely, and we just don't full-protect articles indefinitely. And frankly, looking at the article history the problems go back longer than the current dispute. I'm thinking more and more that ECP/1RR, under CTOPS authority, is the best option. Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- That seems fine, I'll open two RfCs on the mentioned issues once that is added. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, could you expand on why temporary full protection is not possible here? There has been constant edit warring or disputes over what to include in the lead, and while I'm not saying fully protecting the page will fix it permanently, it will give time to discuss and settle the issues, and especially with an RfC, there can be consensus over whether or not to revert such edits in the case of future edit warring over similar matters. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Increased disruptive edits in the past week. –WPA (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. bibliomaniac15 01:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-confirmed protection: Contentious topic restriction. High level of IP and sockpuppet vandalism and edits that violate WP:BLP. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)