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
| |
Shivaji[edit]
Reason: Disruptive editing on the title of Shivaji, without discussing it on the talk page. Frequent edit warring and suspecting meatpuppetry. Imperial[AFCND] 10:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- The article has been under indefinite semi-protection for about five years now. It does not appear to me that going to ECP would make much of a difference as many contributors already have that user right. The only thing I could imagine doing that could force more talk page discussion would be imposing 1RR. Would you be amenable to that? (I have put a long-overdue CTOPS notice on the talk page). Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion, but looking at edits from the last 2 weeks, 3 out of 8 users involved in the dispute over titles are not EC so ECP probably would improve the situation over the long run. I suspect that even if EC editors reach consensus, the title dispute will continue. Perhaps full protection for a week or two followed by indefinite ECP? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't like imposing full protection when it's not been requested; that solution also requires setting the watchlist ping to come back and reimpose the indef. And any ECP would not have a "long run" effect since the three editors excluded would likely work to increase their edit counts, PGAME or not, to the point that they could edit the page again (Some day we will have the authority and ability to make page-specific user access level revocations ...).
1RR is frankly to me the best long-term solution here, but I'd still like to hear from the requester. So, @ImperialAficionado:, any thoughts here? Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't like imposing full protection when it's not been requested; that solution also requires setting the watchlist ping to come back and reimpose the indef. And any ECP would not have a "long run" effect since the three editors excluded would likely work to increase their edit counts, PGAME or not, to the point that they could edit the page again (Some day we will have the authority and ability to make page-specific user access level revocations ...).
- I don't have a strong opinion, but looking at edits from the last 2 weeks, 3 out of 8 users involved in the dispute over titles are not EC so ECP probably would improve the situation over the long run. I suspect that even if EC editors reach consensus, the title dispute will continue. Perhaps full protection for a week or two followed by indefinite ECP? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Bhramanam[edit]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Santhosh Thomas304 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I have also nominated the image at issue for deletion from Commons due to the impossibility of its claimed PD-US-old licensing along with its watermark suggesting it's copyrighted. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Shiju Abdul Rasheed[edit]
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Santhosh Thomas304 (talk) 18:56, 28 April 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 19:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. And I have also nominated that image for deletion at Commons for the same reason as the one at Bhramanam. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Perpetual virginity of Mary[edit]
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)