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 2025 |
Current requests for increase in 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.
Reason: High level of vandalism and tarnishing of information by some users in the name of editing. Minakshi Pillai (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This appears to be the case of an article being unilaterally replaced with a redirect. Please discuss it with WeyerStudentOfAgrippa and, if you're unable to resolve the question, review WP:DISPUTE and, if necessary, take the matter to WP:AIV. Chetsford (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC) Chetsford (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – The subject is a Saudi Arabian dissident, and critic. IP users continue to introduce violations of the WP:BLP, especially as it pertains to sourcing, gossip, and BLP balance. IP users keep adding mentions of the subject engaging in sex work, and yellow journalism level gossip regarding subjects relationships and personal life, which is completely inappropriate for a BLP Wikipedia article of a person largely notable for a single event. In my personal opinion, these are attempts to further victimise the subject by smearing them in highly search ranked Wikipedia pages. Please consider protecting the page. Pinging admins who previously protected this page: Ohnoitsjamie, Deepfriedokra. Melmann 10:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 90 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The nature of the violative edits is such that they should not be visible to logged-in users. The cadence they're occurring at is too brisk for the PC reviewers to handle. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- I am a PC reviewer and I am keeping an eye on the page, hence why I requested the PC. But I cannot obviously make any promises regarding keeping the page in check on my own, so this works too. Thank you for intervening. Melmann 18:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. jolielover♥talk 11:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Repeated disruptive changes of file by various (potentially linked) accounts to use a copyvio image and removing presently used file. Trailblazer101 (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Persistent addition of unsourced content. Waxworker (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – This is a highly contentious ongoing conflict. Unregistered users have gotten their attention on it, which is becoming a problem. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Subject has been reported dead by several self published sources, however, no RS is reporting it yet. Have had many well-meaning but BLP-inexperienced editors trying to update the article with death info from these sources; request increase to EC protection. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: High level of IP vandalism Vellutis (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Violations of the biographies of living persons policy. Subject is editing about himself DACartman (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Declined Except in exceptional circumstances, we shouldn't protect articles to arrest WP:COI editing. Please first try to engage the editor as per WP:BLPKIND. If that fails, further mitigatory measures can be attempted. Chetsford (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Edit warring / content dispute. Multiple attempts to remove Denali redirect DACartman (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing. - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: This page should be protected under the Wikipedia:GS/CASTE and recently it getting some biased information without any proper source under the WP:RAJ. Mr.fakepolicy (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Lots of ip's adding variations of greatest of all time (unreferenced). Knitsey (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: I am requesting page protection for [Article Name] due to continuous vandalism by a specific user, Minakshi Pillai. This user has repeatedly engaged in disruptive edits, particularly targeting articles related to Vellalars and related topics. The repeated vandalism is affecting the integrity of the page and its content.
Additionally, I would like to clarify that some of the historical and folkloric information in the article comes from oral traditions, which may limit the availability of high-quality sources. However, these details are still valuable for documenting cultural history.
I kindly request that appropriate action be taken, such as page protection or user intervention, to prevent further vandalism. Mr.fakepolicy (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Multiple IPs, trying to change the content to Ghana, whereas Detty December (Ghana) already exists as a separate article - had to have a 1 week protection in January - Arjayay (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: I am requesting page protection for Maruthanayagam Pillai due to repeated disruptive edits by a particular user Minakshi Pillai. This user has been consistently altering sourced information and replacing it with their own biased opinions, which affects the accuracy and neutrality of the article. Mr.fakepolicy (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in 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.
No protection: No longer necessary. 1250metersdeep (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Why is it no longer necessary? Please expand your rationale. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Current requests for edits 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.
The INES Level 7 classification for Bhopal is incorrect. The INES scale only applies to nuclear and radiological events. Official sources like the IAEA confirm this. Please correct the mistake. Itsrihan (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Done - The source used for this claim is explicitly titled "From Bhopal to Fukushima", and the quote provided did not include any sort of context as to whether it was referring to Bhopal or Fukushima; I find Fukushima to be far more likely. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Handled requests
A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.