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



    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 disruptive editing – Article is continously being created despite a recent deletion discussion. (Note: there is an ongoing WP:RfD for this page title, which is why WP:CSD#G4 is not being requested at this time. SSSB (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined Moot as the page has been deleted, and WP:ACPERM means it's already semi-protected. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Persistent IP vandalism (transfer rumors) BlameRuiner (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      User(s) blocked: 2405:3800:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs) blocked by Daniel Case. for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: The Wikipedia page for Bleona, an Albanian singer and entertainer, has been subjected to frequent edits and vandalism over the years, leading to concerns about the accuracy of the information presented. Due to the nature of Wikipedia being an open-source platform where anyone can contribute, there have been instances where individuals have deliberately changed key facts or introduced incorrect details, sometimes to mislead fans or tarnish the artist's reputation. These edits may include fabricated information or exaggerated claims, which can distort the public’s perception of Bleona's career and personal life.

    The protection of the Bleona Wikipedia page has become necessary to prevent further harm caused by such misinformation. By restricting editing access to trusted contributors, Wikipedia can better ensure that the information about Bleona remains accurate and reliable. This protection helps safeguard fans from being misled and ensures that the page reflects the true nature of her achievements and contributions to music and entertainment. Given the high potential for misinformation on celebrity pages, such protective measures are critical for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia as a resource and preventing the spread of false narratives that can damage public figures' reputations. Brajan shkembi (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it me, or does this request read like it was written by an AI? Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IP range repeatedly inserting poorly-sourced information. DonIago (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Over the last several weeks, multiple IPv6 editors and some IPv4 editors have been repeatedly changing the cast orders of this film. No sources have ever been provided, and I've routinely undone them. The changes continue anyways. I'm an admin, but obviously involved. Requesting temporary semi-protection, perhaps a week or so, to stop the disruption. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: High level of IP BLP vandalism. Zanahary 20:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite move protection. Sergiogriffiths (talk) 21:33, 10 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]
    Pinging @Yamaguchi先生 --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    )
    20:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[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]
    I think at this point you can assume he does not. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 10 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]
    Pinging @El C. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    )
    16:19, 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]
      Declined per above Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 10 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]

    Remove Category:American children's animated comedy television series and add Category:2000s American comic science fiction television series and Category:2010s American comic science fiction television series to the article. 200.73.92.111 (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Not done Favonian (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Add Category:British English-language television shows to the article, as this show is British and originally in English. 200.73.92.111 (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd argue it may actually be better to put Category:Bob the Builder under that category, as two other Bob the Builder series are in that category. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not done Favonian (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Handled requests

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