Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFP)
    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 of article protection, upload protection, or create 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.


    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent crypto-related promotion related to current events. czar 03:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. BusterD (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: IP editors keep vandalizing the page. There is a very persistent IP editor who keeps adding the name of a non-notable individual to it, and it persists despite blocking the offending IP address. Chemtamengineer (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. No misbehavior on the page in the past 48 hours. BusterD (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Per WP:RUSUKR Mr. Komori (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement – Per WP:GSCASTE, persistent sockpuppetry by open proxies who are trying to redirect it to inappropriate targets. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing, and socking from many IP adresses. Kajmer05 (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite extended-confirmed protection: Contentious topic restriction. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talkcontribs) 09:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please enforce WP:CT/IRP. IanDBeacon (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Frequent target of fake phone number spam, some of which has had to be revdeled. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    )
    15:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Mike Allen 11:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: The flags on this page have been changing back and forth since October. In December 2024, IP users (or user) started getting involved and continued to change them without reason. Catalyst GP real (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: article is subject to WP:1RR per WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. IanDBeacon (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Frequent vandalism and bad editing on article as well as reverting reminiscent of an edit war. Vandalism on talk page Sushidude21! (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: BLP policy violations – IPs persistently inserting unsourced birthdate. Taffer😊 💬(they/she) 13:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Continuous unreferenced edits from IP users.[1][2][3] Hotwiki (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Assadzadeh (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2025 (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: The protection is no longer necessary because ....... . 2607:FEA8:FF01:4FA6:2C16:7AB6:96EB:857A (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Gulf of Mexico talk page - why is a talk page protected? The article yes, but the talk page?

    Not unprotected – Too many IPs/new accounts got "carried away". The protection expires in approximately four hours, but you may have to type quickly. Favonian (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2025 (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.


    Remove: "Historians and political scientists rank Biden as above average in historical rankings of American presidents."

    Way too soon to suggest that in the main text of the article! He has barely left office, its going to be at least a few months before such a bold claim can be made. Is there really enough historians and political scientists saying this to justify this claim? BlunanNation (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Currently, the lede states "On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, taking 251 captive, against which Israelis responded applying the controversial Hannibal Directive, resulting in the death of 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals, among which 815 civilians.". This implies that the majority of the casualties were caused by Israel applying the Hannibal Directive, and despite some cases of casualties due to this, no credible source has made the claim that the majority of casualties originate from it. I suggest changing the lede back to what it was before it was randomly edited to the current lede without any discussion on the talk page about it, to "On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, killing 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals and taking 251 captive." Aradkipod (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Handled requests

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