Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    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



    Current requests for increase in protection level

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the 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.


    Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – We now have three brand new accounts with only edits to this article making the same edits and restoring the changes after they have been reverted. Mellk (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – People keep incorrectly creating test articles here, and despite similar pages like User:Test being protected this one hasn't for some reason. Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 08:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not done. Logs show that this was last messed with in 2014, I don't see a need to protect the page. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple handball clubs

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism about handball club transfers: someone with multiple IP constantly adds hypothetical (or not confirmed yet) transfers (see ? on each item), by the way without giving the source of the rumour. Maybe those transfers will be confirmed in future, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a Crystal ball.

    See also previous request about CS Dinamo București (men's handball) and the reverted contribution once the protection was over... --LeFnake (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP hopping vandalism. Wikipedialuva (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 14:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Requesting ECP per WP:GS/AA, the topic is under extended confirmed restriction but the article is not protected yet. Also non-extended confirmed users edit war [1], [2], [3], [4]. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended confirmed protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 14:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article has just come off PP, but is already being vandalised again. Tacyarg (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP vandal has now been blocked, so I think this article can remain unprotected for now. Tacyarg (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection: This is just waiting for it to be turned into an attack redirect. Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Possible target for vandalism because of the "still water those who know" meme. There has already been vandalism relating to this meme on the article "Water stagnation"(see history). The disambiguation page has already been protected, but after it expired, vandalism resumed. The redirect "Still Water" should also be protected. Requested type of protection: Semi-protection. Requested duration of protection: 1-2 months. (for both the redirect and disambiguation page) RaschenTechner (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    DeclinedPages are not protected preemptively. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 13:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: The page sees persistent WP:BE by an IP-hopping sock. I request a semi-protection to prevent these persistent reverts. Thank you! Chaipau (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Consistent vandalism of lede in the article. "Meghna" constantly gets changed to Cumilla even if it's not fully confirmed by the state yet. Ilhamnobi (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – People keep adding Juan Soto to the list despite the deal not being official yet. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 14:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page is being vandalized again after recent protections expired. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Per WP:GSCASTE ,proxies belonging to Truthfindervert are continuing their disruption [5] again. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Per WP:GSCASTE, block evasion by Truthfindervert. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for reduction in protection level

    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the 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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Reason: The article was protected back in 2010, when protecting standards were far lower. I believe it's now ready to go unprotected, Cheers. 50.100.53.53 (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm willing to try unprotection after 14 years of indef protection, unless Courcelles objects. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sergiogriffiths (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sergiogriffiths. This is the section for requesting a reduction in protection level. Is that what you are asking for? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Not everything from the Middle East/Canaan/Israel/Palestine is related to the conflict. Heyaaaaalol (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Heyaaaaalol: For what it is worth, it was protected unilaterally for one year (the maximum allowed for unilateral actions), per an RfPP request that was initially only asking for a semi. This cannot be unprotected here, but if you want to contest it with it being three weeks away from the protection lapsing, take it to User talk:Daniel Quinlan or to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Request a specific edit 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)[reply]

    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 ‥  01:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Handled requests

    A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.