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
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism . Joeykai (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected – 2 months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protection (preferred) or pending changes protection: Combination of WP:BLP violations from one IP, and very persistent IP (hopping) vandal who has been going at vandalizing this article for a long time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism by IPs. Felicia (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
move-protection: This page has been moved recently to another company name - which was not a true event. This should not have happened and was not authorised.
Current requests for reduction in protection level
Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at 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.
Unprotection: We should downgrade this page to WP:ECP, like a similar page entitled JaidenAnimations. The Duke of NonsenseWhat is necessary for thee? 21:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- It was originally EC protected by Dlohcierekim, which was overturned by Ritchie333. I think that in general, indef protection and full create-protection are overkill on their own, and combining them definitely is. Would support downgrading. Swarm ♠ 23:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- For the record, I protected it after consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaiden Animations (2nd nomination) was to salt the title as well as delete the article, and after somebody asked me to salt it on my talk page. Or are requests for "salting" now done as ECP instead of full? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Both options remain available to administrators' discretion, but standard practice for salting seems to have shifted towards ECP; WP:SALT now says that administrators should choose the protection level based on what is "appropriate", Twinkle defaults to ECP for salting, and ECP salting appears to be common practice these days according to my impressions from keeping an eye on User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report. To cite a recent example, an unintended consequence of indef full protection can be seen at Rush Hour 4, a title that was salted during the release week of Rush Hour 3 in August 2007, in response to what ended up being very short-lived hype. While it was eventually converted to a redirect, it inherited the indef full protection all the way to August 2018, when it prevented an established editor from updating the redirect, and they came here to request unprotection, where they were initially met by a skeptical admin who couldn't see the absurdity of the situation, and gave them grief about not going to the protecting administrator. Anyway, just throwing that out there. Swarm ♠ 17:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- I used the default ECP figuring if the subject did become notable, a well-established user could recreate it without having to seek unprotection. Auto-confirmed does not work if a determined user with more BEBOLD than experience persists in creating a page than has been interminably recreated and deleted. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Both options remain available to administrators' discretion, but standard practice for salting seems to have shifted towards ECP; WP:SALT now says that administrators should choose the protection level based on what is "appropriate", Twinkle defaults to ECP for salting, and ECP salting appears to be common practice these days according to my impressions from keeping an eye on User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report. To cite a recent example, an unintended consequence of indef full protection can be seen at Rush Hour 4, a title that was salted during the release week of Rush Hour 3 in August 2007, in response to what ended up being very short-lived hype. While it was eventually converted to a redirect, it inherited the indef full protection all the way to August 2018, when it prevented an established editor from updating the redirect, and they came here to request unprotection, where they were initially met by a skeptical admin who couldn't see the absurdity of the situation, and gave them grief about not going to the protecting administrator. Anyway, just throwing that out there. Swarm ♠ 17:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- For the record, I protected it after consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaiden Animations (2nd nomination) was to salt the title as well as delete the article, and after somebody asked me to salt it on my talk page. Or are requests for "salting" now done as ECP instead of full? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. See also Ritchie's talk: Special:Diff/858017753. Airplaneman ✈ 15:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – Users are constantly putting things like her careers ended etc (basically unsourced commentary), If their edits don't go live they might get bored and eventually stop, Failing that I wouldn't object to full protection, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 18:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: The page is already semi-protected by Boing! said Zebedee until 14:19, 7 September. The unsourced contributions are actually being added by autoconfirmed users. We would have need extended confirmed or full protection to stop those edits, but I don't think we are at the point where those are necessary yet. Airplaneman ✈ 18:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- ... Or extended works .... either way IMHO the protection should be upped for a few weeks until it all dies down. –Davey2010Talk 18:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
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.
Handled requests
A rolling archive of the last seven days of protection requests can be found at Wikipedia: Requests for page protection/Rolling archive.