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.


    Reason: Too much edit wars and reverts are taking place. People are randomly changing box office numbers without looking at the reliable source. Hence requesting for Extended confirmed protection.PRIYAMANI7 (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 Reason: High level of vandalism by users on this page changing the boxoffice figure without citing reliable source. I can not say if canvassing or socks are attempted here. Some of these users are Special:Contributions/Shivraj0007 Special:Contributions/Manavchoudhury21 Special:Contributions/N0riooo Special:Contributions/RD55555 Special:Contributions/Jashpin. Special protection will help on this page and please revert to this last reliable version. Adding one more Special:Contributions/Bharatiya1177 who uses source with reports from the film producers that is unreliable. This disruptive editing is out of control on this page. RangersRus (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I am not seeing a lot of reverting. Yes, it's being heavily edited; it's entirely possible in that situation that IP users are in good faith using bad sources—can we reasonably expect them to know? 02:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary extended protection: This page is getting canvassing attempts from external websites trying to form a consensus to place a currently unofficial flag in the infobox Abo Yemen 13:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Abo Yemen: Assuming that it does not reveal private information about a specific Wikipedian, would you please post a link to where the canvassing is coming from? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Michigan fan vandalismChar3290 (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Repeated removal of sourced content by IP Yung Doohickey (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yngdoohickey is inflating numbers in articles and POV pushing. Every source says 377 victims. Even in the article itself it says: "As of March 2008, the remains of 345 massacre victims have been identified and returned to Kosovo and 32 remain missing". He found an old source speculating on the numbers and wants to add it. There is memorial and commemoration every year for the victims and reports, every source says 377 victims, even Albanian sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

    He wants to put the article into protection so his inflated number stays and that's wrong. --2607:FEA8:101E:CE00:7D91:2CAD:FEF4:5B00 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added CTOPS notice to talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent vandalism – Same flag problem with other Syria related articles. Regioncalifornia (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Persistent vandalism. Entranced98 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Sergiogriffiths (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Nothing seems to have happened here on over six months. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Indefinite semi-protection. Page has a lengthy history of protection, most recently for 2 years but previously for 1 year. (and expired) I think it's now time for indefinite semi-protection because of it's lengthy protection history. 50.100.44.204 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Since there have been no edits by non-autoconfirmed users in two whole weeks there's no need for protection at this time. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism, seasonal vandalism. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: High level of IP vandalism - requesting temporary semi-protection Patternbuffered (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. Donnowin1 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Juan Soto has reportedly signed the biggest contract ever, but it's far from official. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 03:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Semi-protection won't work here since most of the people making the problematic edits are autoconfirmed. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary extended confirmed protection: free agency signing unconfirmed. Will120 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The existing semi-protection appears to be working - only two autoconfirmed accounts have done the thing, and one of them has acknowledged their error. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: This page has recently been subject to vandalism and insertion of false content, as well as edits with biased language and incorrect or missing citations. Ohfallingstar (talk) 04:37, 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]

    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]

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Immediate resumption from last protect. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Geraldo Perez. This is the section for requesting a reduction in protection level. Is that what you are asking for? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Don't know how this happened, I just used Twinkle as I normally do to add the request and this is where it ended up. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just ignore this request. I'll try again and see if it gets added properly. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unprotected per above. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 9 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]

    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]

    Handled requests

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