→Joseph Kallarangatt: Reply
|
→Brianna Wu: Reply
|
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
:It already is Indefinately Fully protected. [[Special:Contributions/74.14.6.233|74.14.6.233]] ([[User talk:74.14.6.233|talk]]) 04:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
:It already is Indefinately Fully protected. [[Special:Contributions/74.14.6.233|74.14.6.233]] ([[User talk:74.14.6.233|talk]]) 04:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
::Indefinite full protection? Was there a discussion among ARBCOM that lead to that decision? Otherwise I wonder if indefinite ECP is the way to go. Pinging protecting admins {{u|Courcelles}} and {{u|AmandaNP}}. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 17:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
::Indefinite full protection? Was there a discussion among ARBCOM that lead to that decision? Otherwise I wonder if indefinite ECP is the way to go. Pinging protecting admins {{u|Courcelles}} and {{u|AmandaNP}}. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 17:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::{{ping|Muboshgu}} There was not as far as I remember a discussion with all of ArbCom about this. Potentially individual members, I can't remember. That said, there is a very good reason behind it. This article is a target of accounts that are evading ECP, and already caused the [[WP:SELDEL]] of 427 edits. There are also 17 suppressions by oversighters done on this page. I also know the outside of wikipedia source of these concerning edits, which for multiple reasons including [[WP:BEANS]], I can't say here. -- [[User talk:AmandaNP|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b> (she/her)</span>]] 17:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== [[Joseph Kallarangatt]] === |
=== [[Joseph Kallarangatt]] === |
Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.
Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Requests for page protection | |
---|---|
Click here to return to Requests for page protection. Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level |
Block: User Semsûrî keeps on reverting edits and claiming that the map and Anthem should be sourced (they're very clear and don't need to be sourced)....... . Kirkukturk3 (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The protection was put up to stop a sockpuppet account from edit and it's been 15 years and i haven't seen any of that happening. User1432532758 (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotection: Whitelock was added 7 years ago for disruptive editing, and there no longer is as much disruptive editing. For the article of an important American city, it's probably better not to whitelock. Josethewikier (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite PC protection should be used only in cases of severe long-term disruption.Any thoughts, Maile66, about this? Perhaps it can be ended. Is semiprotection necessary in its place? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary full protection: I'm not against a goldlock protection and I can understand arbcom's decision, however it would be ideal if the protection is temporary (even if it's 4 years or something like that); if that fails immediately, then should we consider a definitive indefinite goldlock protection. Josethewikier (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: The protection is not needed as the disruptive edits by unnecessarily reverting are done by an extended confirmed user. The disruptive edits(reverting) are [1] [2] [3]. These constant and complete revertings of contributions done by multiple users prevents the improvements done to the page. That particular user is alerted in the talk page of the article and hasn't yet provided evidence to his claims. Not blanket page protection but page protection from this particular user is the one needed. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]