Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
| Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here. | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection) After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.
Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
Request a specific edit to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here | ||
|
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 |
Current requests for increase in protection level
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.
Reason: Hello. Given that this article has been the victim not only of sockpuppets but also a bone of contention who claim that one did this and the other that, avoiding good coexistence, teamwork and contributing to Wikipedia; I request through this message that the the block is only and exclusively for Extended confirmed users. With this we continue to avoid more problems, although I do not understand why you should delete editions with their sources just because it was done by a sockpuppet. Thank you. JeanMercier90 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I have no idea what you're attempting to convey. The page has been semi-protected for the next year; no active disruption on the page and no reason to change protection status. BusterD (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Edit warring by IP hopper. CycloneYoris talk! 22:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason: This page has been highly attacked by IP users as soon as its temporary protection level is removed. They continuously change the box office numbers of the films without adding any sources despite multiple warnings, undermining the credibility of information the page provides. I would like to suggest that the page be permanently semi-protected to minimize the vandalism is possible. If not, temporary protection for a longer period is needed. Sneshik (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It's only been a day or so since protection expired and there has been only one unsourced edit, which was reverted. If it continues over the coming days, feel free to ping me directly or re-request. Steven Walling • talk 04:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Requesting semi-protection: Persistent disruption and sockpuppetry by MAB (again). ~SG5536B 05:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 05:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Already protected by administrator Extraordinary Writ. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protect: This redirect is often vandalized as a form of shitposting. Wikipedia is not for shitposting. 67.209.130.66 (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Redirect was last edited in July and article in November? -- Euryalus (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Remsense ‥ 论 06:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in protection level
Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.
- To find out the username of the admin who protected the page, click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page," which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
- Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
- Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
- If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page, please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected, please use the section below.
Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Reason:Article is in a poorly written state and barely gets meaningful contributions since it was last protected. No signs of disruptive editing for a long time either.Axedd (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Axedd: Is the long-term abuser that caused the article to be ECP'd still active on other articles? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Last time this specific user was active was 4 years ago according to his case page. I believe another sock caused this page to locked over an year ago for edit warring, but they weren't solely interested in this particular page. Axedd (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The case page is not a reliable indicator of if an LTA is active or not, especially if they're reveling in the attention. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Last time this specific user was active was 4 years ago according to his case page. I believe another sock caused this page to locked over an year ago for edit warring, but they weren't solely interested in this particular page. Axedd (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Yamaguchi先生 --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Axedd for being in touch and Jéské for the ping. Axedd, you are already able to edit this article in the currently protected state. For context, there have been over 18 different page protections applied over the years due to long term abuse, block evasion, and persistent disruption in general. In light of this, was there any specific reason that you're looking to see this page unprotected? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because i believe that the metaverse is now less associated with crypto and the blockchain - especially after the rise of spatial computing. 67.209.128.24 (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Suggested action: Lower to WP:WHITELOCK/WP:PCPP to prevent disruptive editing from cryptospammers while still allowing for broader contribution from legitimate editors (especially IPs like me). Otherwise, if no cryptospam is expected, remove protection completely. 67.209.128.24 (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @El C. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @El C. --Ahecht (TALK
Unprotection: Requesting a reduction to indef WP:ECP, per conversation on talk page of imposing administrator. Move protection can remain at indef sysop. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'll have to disagree. Just look at the page history. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason: The page was protected due to BLP, and is still protected for that reason despite Eric dying in 2014. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.
- Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among
{{Edit protected}},{{Edit template-protected}},{{Edit extended-protected}}, or{{Edit semi-protected}}to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed. - Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the
{{Edit COI}}template should be used. - Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
- If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
- This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
This, I think, is the first time I've made a suggestion. Hopefully, I'm doing this correctly.
The lateral fricative voiced retroflex, as an example, has an IPA representation of ɖɭ˔ according to its Wikipedia page, but the IPA Pulmonic table and other tables use the Unicode representation in the table and any font I have found just doesn't handle that character,
Would it be better to use the IPA representation which I think many fonts handle since the table has 'IPA' in its title and its link points to the Wikipedia page with both representations? The linked article each cell in the table states that the representation the IPA version and that the Unicode character is implied from that.
I'd be happy to make a list of each table and cell where this occurs if that is necessary and you think these will be worthwhile changes. BLWBebopKid (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Kwamikagami as they are likely to have some insight to these issues. For me personally, I'm not sure. I happen to have fonts installed that handle the extIPA symbols, but I'm in the stark minority there. Remsense ‥ 论 01:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- ExtIPA is IPA. It's just a specialized subset. For example, extIPA can be used in the 'Illustrations of the IPA' published in JIPA.
- The issue is one of font support. The letters in question date to 2015, though they weren't added to Unicode until 2021. There are websites that list fonts that support various characters. These are supported by the SIL fonts, which are the best free IPA fonts available. If you don't have a good font installed, you're not going to be able to view IPA correctly anyway. That's why we have the IPA notice in articles, that you may need to install an IPA font to view the article properly. — kwami (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like to request that the most recent change be reverted: [1] . User 'Http iosue' who made that edit has been banned for engaging in edit wars and vandalizing the wikipage. The One True King page became protected today, but he continued to revert until he got banned. Mach9Wikia (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This user who requested protection has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 03:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Handled requests
A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.