This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HackerKnownAs (talk | contribs) at 04:28, 15 November 2024 (→15.ai: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:28, 15 November 2024 by HackerKnownAs (talk | contribs) (→15.ai: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) ShortcutsPlace requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create 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". | |
Survivor Series: WarGames (2024)
Reason: I've previously asked for protection for this page here and was told to come back if more issues occured. Even though it's semi-protected it is still being contantly disruptied. I'm asking for extended confirmed protection not indefinite but at least for a month, maybe a bit after just in case they disrupt the article after the event has concluded. ] If you need any more evidence to confirm anything please let me know in the reply. Lemonademan22 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Some of the other users you've reverted recently are also extended-confirmed; they wouldn't be affected. Are their edits the ones that you are referring to? Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
15.ai
Reason: High level of edit warring on semi-protected article. In addition, there seems to be a high level of COI edits from users who previously engaged in a pattern of disruptive edits. Despite previous discussions about notability, the same issues continue to resurface, creating an unproductive cycle of content removal and restoration. The editors' actions appear to be WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior rather than constructive editing. (see Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1).
I plan to clean up the article after it has been protected, as per WP:BOLD. HackerKnownAs (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Question: So you want extended-confirmed protection? Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be good, especially if the protection can be added indefinitely (since this article has been extended-confirmed protected multiple times and it still sees a large amount of vandalism and edit warring to this day). Out of curiosity, is it also possible to add a protection against specific users that have been participating in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior rather than constructive editing? HackerKnownAs (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, but we have Misplaced Pages:Partial blocks which, imho, are somewhat less used than they should be. Lectonar (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see, thanks. Specifically, I've noticed a disproportionately large amount of nonconstructive edits (some blatantly violating WP:YESPOV and accusing editors of violating WP:COI with no evidence) from User:BrocadeRiverPoems, a relatively new Misplaced Pages editor who seems to be more concerned with arguing the legitimacy of previous editors than constructively editing the article (see: the lengthy discussion at Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1). I suggest a partial block over the participants of this edit war on this article, but an extended-confirmed protection should do the trick as well. HackerKnownAs (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't like issuing partial blocks without any warning, though, especially to a user who seems in general to be contributing constructively. If we're going to discuss that, perhaps AN/I is a better forum than this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- That is a rather curious characterization of my activity. I pointed out numerous flaws with the article, and corrected many of them. I noted extensive WP:SPA activity from yourself and others centered on 15.ai, including several accounts that appeared at the AfD for the purpose of voting to keep the page and nothing else while also noting the unusual circumstances in which the article was elevated to "Good" status. As for "evidence" of COI editing, as I pointed out in my post on the talkpage, there are clear edits that can be linked to the so-called Pony Preservation Project which engaged in considerable off-site coordination to edit the article and which is itself linked to 15.ai and listed as "invaluable" on an archived version of 15.ai. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, because edits like that blatantly violate WP:YESPOV are totally constructive, yes? And again, I am not involved with the PPP, and you have neither pointed out who you suspect are involved in COI nor have you given any evidence of said editing. You say there are "clear edits" and yet you have not given examples of any of them - you are making baseless accusations and grasping at straws, and are actively discouraging Wikipedeans who only want to help.
- To accuse me of others of COI and SPA activity (which, by the way, is blatantly untrue, if you'd seen my history of helping out with articles relevant to 4chan) because of your extremely strange obsession over the article along with this kind of dishonest conduct and projection is appalling. HackerKnownAs (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see, thanks. Specifically, I've noticed a disproportionately large amount of nonconstructive edits (some blatantly violating WP:YESPOV and accusing editors of violating WP:COI with no evidence) from User:BrocadeRiverPoems, a relatively new Misplaced Pages editor who seems to be more concerned with arguing the legitimacy of previous editors than constructively editing the article (see: the lengthy discussion at Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1). I suggest a partial block over the participants of this edit war on this article, but an extended-confirmed protection should do the trick as well. HackerKnownAs (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, but we have Misplaced Pages:Partial blocks which, imho, are somewhat less used than they should be. Lectonar (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- If this article is granted extended-confirmed protection, I am requesting extended confirmed access to help with cleanup. I previously held this right and used it for similar maintenance work on this article when I asked for the article to be extended-confirmed protected a year ago. HackerKnownAs (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Should that happen, you are referred to WP:REQPERM. That request is outside the scope of this noticeboard. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, thank you. If the extended-confirmed protection is granted, I'll make a request there. HackerKnownAs (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Should that happen, you are referred to WP:REQPERM. That request is outside the scope of this noticeboard. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be good, especially if the protection can be added indefinitely (since this article has been extended-confirmed protected multiple times and it still sees a large amount of vandalism and edit warring to this day). Out of curiosity, is it also possible to add a protection against specific users that have been participating in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior rather than constructive editing? HackerKnownAs (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Lucky Baskhar
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Changing the budget and box office without providing reliable sources. Charliehdb (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- If we upgrade to ECP, either that stays till May or we shorten the protection term, due to the limitations of MediaWiki which don't allow us to layer protection beyond PC, so once protection expires we'd have to reprotect it. Which are you comfortable with? Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Kola Norwegians
Reason: Vandalism Holtseti (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Not many edits in the last couple of weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Bully (album)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. l ke (talk • contribs) 00:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Perhaps best we suspend IP edits until the gentleman is comfortably in his new job. Vast majority of these contributions have nothing to do with helping the article... Simply just criticisms without recommendation or sources. Simply a time sink for our editors that seems to be a coordinated attempt to change the article from outside sources. Moxy🍁 02:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Mauritania
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Looking at the article's history shows that IPs have been been removing the same content for a while. Semi-protecting it like all the article about countries will prevent the disruption. M.Bitton (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
List of active rebel groups
Reason: High level of IP vandalism Zinderboff(talk) 03:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
List of NHL players with 1,000 points
Semi-protection: IPs and new users scrambling to update the page for Connor McDavid's 1,000th, despite clear directives on the page to wait until the end of the season to comprehensively update. The Kip 03:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)