| Revision as of 05:01, 20 September 2022 editMifter (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators28,607 editsm →Melissa DeRosa: add missing ~ for signature← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:14, 20 September 2022 edit undoBeccaynr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users29,602 edits →Melissa DeRosa: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ::Hi {{u|Mifter}} - after this request was declined, the latest IP continued with the same disruptive edit. I am not sure it is ], and I have just warned the latest IP for edit-warring, but was hoping for page protection to be applied for a third time because of the apparent IP-hopping and persistent disruption. ] (]) 02:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC) | ::Hi {{u|Mifter}} - after this request was declined, the latest IP continued with the same disruptive edit. I am not sure it is ], and I have just warned the latest IP for edit-warring, but was hoping for page protection to be applied for a third time because of the apparent IP-hopping and persistent disruption. ] (]) 02:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
| :::Thanks for the heads up, {{u|Beccaynr}}. I read some of the sources and the term "government official" does appear in a few of them. In contrast, the IP's change to "government servant" does not appear to be backed up by sources. Therefore, I have restored the term "government official" in the lede and added a cite (the lede does not normally need cites, however, if something is controversial (as this appears to be), they can be included). If the IP continues to revert without engaging they can (and likely will) be blocked for edit warring or making unsourced changes (unless they can provide a source for "government servant," in which case there should probably be a discussion for which term to use). Protection may also be warranted, however, I would defer to another Sysop to make that determination as to avoid any appearance of being ]. Best, ] (]) 05:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC) | :::Thanks for the heads up, {{u|Beccaynr}}. I read some of the sources and the term "government official" does appear in a few of them. In contrast, the IP's change to "government servant" does not appear to be backed up by sources. Therefore, I have restored the term "government official" in the lede and added a cite (the lede does not normally need cites, however, if something is controversial (as this appears to be), they can be included). If the IP continues to revert without engaging they can (and likely will) be blocked for edit warring or making unsourced changes (unless they can provide a source for "government servant," in which case there should probably be a discussion for which term to use). Protection may also be warranted, however, I would defer to another Sysop to make that determination as to avoid any appearance of being ]. Best, ] (]) 05:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Thank you very much, {{u|Mifter}}, and I have reported to ] - I also now realize that I could have linked to ] instead of writing "wikify" in the edit summary to support the other part that various IPs have been disruptively editing despite warnings. I did cite ] in December 2021 and November 2021 , fwiw. Thanks again, ] (]) 05:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | === ] === | ||
Revision as of 05:14, 20 September 2022
Shortcut| Requests for page protection | |
|---|---|
|
You are currently viewing the subpage "Current requests for increase in protection level". | |
Melissa DeRosa
Reason: After previous page protections have expired, IPs persist in making the same disruptive edits to the article lead. Beccaynr (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Mifter (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Mifter - after this request was declined, the latest IP continued with the same disruptive edit. I am not sure it is vandalism, and I have just warned the latest IP for edit-warring, but was hoping for page protection to be applied for a third time because of the apparent IP-hopping and persistent disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, Beccaynr. I read some of the sources and the term "government official" does appear in a few of them. In contrast, the IP's change to "government servant" does not appear to be backed up by sources. Therefore, I have restored the term "government official" in the lede and added a cite (the lede does not normally need cites, however, if something is controversial (as this appears to be), they can be included). If the IP continues to revert without engaging they can (and likely will) be blocked for edit warring or making unsourced changes (unless they can provide a source for "government servant," in which case there should probably be a discussion for which term to use). Protection may also be warranted, however, I would defer to another Sysop to make that determination as to avoid any appearance of being WP:INVOLVED. Best, Mifter (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Mifter, and I have reported to ANEW - I also now realize that I could have linked to MOS:LEAD instead of writing "wikify" in the edit summary to support the other part that various IPs have been disruptively editing despite warnings. I did cite MOS:FIRSTBIO in December 2021 and November 2021 , fwiw. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, Beccaynr. I read some of the sources and the term "government official" does appear in a few of them. In contrast, the IP's change to "government servant" does not appear to be backed up by sources. Therefore, I have restored the term "government official" in the lede and added a cite (the lede does not normally need cites, however, if something is controversial (as this appears to be), they can be included). If the IP continues to revert without engaging they can (and likely will) be blocked for edit warring or making unsourced changes (unless they can provide a source for "government servant," in which case there should probably be a discussion for which term to use). Protection may also be warranted, however, I would defer to another Sysop to make that determination as to avoid any appearance of being WP:INVOLVED. Best, Mifter (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Mifter - after this request was declined, the latest IP continued with the same disruptive edit. I am not sure it is vandalism, and I have just warned the latest IP for edit-warring, but was hoping for page protection to be applied for a third time because of the apparent IP-hopping and persistent disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Mark Jones (filmmaker)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Sockpuppetry and blp violation. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
User(s) blocked. Mifter (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mifter (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Samara Weaving
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated addition of unsourced/poorly sourced (Daily Mail) info in BLP. Geoff | 18:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. It looks like the user has found sources that are not the Daily Mail to support their addition (though I have not reviewed to determine if they are WP:RS or not). Based on their note that they are an industry professional I also left them a COI note on their talk page. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
ContraPoints
Reason: For the last couple of days an IP editor has been repeatedly adding a notability maintenance template to the page. Attempts to communicate with the IP editor have failed, and messages left on their talk page have been left unanswered. Requesting semi-protection for the article please. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- User(s) blocked. Mifter (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Metaverse
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Pretty much as soon as the last semi-protect expires, the blogspam starts up again. It's been a week since the page was unprotected and so far 3 attempts at low-grade Web3 spam have been made. BrigadierG (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
EuroBasket
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – repeated sock edits. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Guardians of the Galaxy (film)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP continues to edit war. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Reason: Full protection because the RfA is past the deadline and people are still commenting. I believe it should be fully protected until a bureaucrat can officially close it. Noah 23:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Declined The discussion stays open for further comments until a bureaucrat starts the closing procedure. One week is the minimum time for discussion, not a deadline. Paul Erik 00:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Paul Erik: That's at the discretion of bureaucrats and only for exceptional circumstances.
In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer.
Either way, someone has to do something. As worded, it seems as if seven days is a deadline unless the bureaucrats see it fit to extend the discussion further. If that's not the intention of the wording, then it may be wise to amend it. Noah 00:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)- You're welcome to inform the 'crats at WP:BN (noting, of course, the message ref overdue RfAs) — as it stands, there's nothing wrong with what's going on at the RfA, and any delays is purely down to a lack of (active) 'crats — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 00:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Paul Erik: That's at the discretion of bureaucrats and only for exceptional circumstances.
- @Hurricane Noah: It's been the case, for as long as I've observed RfAs, that the end of the seven days (168 hours) is not a hard deadline for the ending of discussion. You can make a request at WP:BN, but you'll see that at the top of the page it says:
If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it.
That note reflects the consensus that 168 hours is not a hard deadline. Paul Erik 00:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
User talk:Tropicalkitty
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I personally don't think the user talk page needs protecting (not yet anyway). Three reverts of unconstructive comments in just over a day, but the users were blocked. Tropicalkitty (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
USS Arizona (BB-39)
Reason: Persistent vandalism to lead by same person, numerous times, using multiple IP accounts, for more than 2 years now (possibly more, that's as far back as I looked). The page needs long-term semi protection, (if not permanent). - wolf 00:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Squirrel monkey
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale
Reason: Indefinite semi-protection: This page had indefinite semi-protection for years, before the recent article lock on 8 September by Deepfriedokra. After that expired on 10 September, the unprotected page immediately fell to disruptive editing (a perennial problem), prompting another semi-protection on 12 September placed by the same admin. That has expired, so the page is again vulnerable.
There has been an ongoing discussion involving this page at DRN, during which it should be protected. Sapedder (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Darna (2022 TV series)
Reason: I would like to request of protection for this page because there have been high level of IP vandalism. Loibird90 (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Gunther (wrestler)
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing Justificate (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)