Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

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".
Return to Requests for page protection.

Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level

Saudi Arabia[edit]

Arbitration Enforcement: Raise to Extended-Confirmed Protection because this article is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. How is it that Israel-Saudi Arabia relations is Extended-Confirmed protected, but the article on Saudi Arabia is not? Especially considering the Normalization that was supposed to take place, between These two countries before October 7th. 70.50.199.125 (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. And your request answers your own question. Normalization is/was much more germane to the relations article than the article about the country as a whole. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources[edit]

Reason: Indef protection from non-ECU: Due to the list containing sources heavily involved in the Israel-Palestinian conflicts which is a magnet of vandalism by non-ECU. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. I see in the recent history some reverts recently. None of them are related to the current conflict; they appear to arise from legitimate discussions about particular sources' assessments or inclusions on the page (a page that gets viewed quite a bit for one not in article space).

I would only protect this page in a situation like the one two years which led to the only protection in the page history: where connected third-party actors are engaging in a concerted effort to alter our judgement on a source without any discussion here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Muir-Harvey[edit]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. It's a few days old and the issue raised seems to me to be a legitimate point. Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 MotoGP World Championship[edit]

Semi-protection. Dieter Lloyd Wexler 15:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked: 180.74.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) blocked by Daniel Case. for six months. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She-Hulk: Attorney at Law[edit]

Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked: Doctor Strange19 (talk · contribs) blocked by Daniel Case. for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Platzman[edit]

Reason: Persistent sockpuppetry. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Norway[edit]

Indefinite extended-confirmed protection: Contentious topic restriction. regarding recent edits and recognition of Palestinian state Dell Latitude E6400 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Hell, even Israel-Norway relations isn't really seeing disruption given this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ireland[edit]

Indefinite extended-confirmed protection: Contentious topic restriction. same reason as above Dell Latitude E6400 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Again, very little disruption, as with Ireland-Israel relations. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal Empire[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&oldid=1225361134"