Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RPP)
    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.


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

    Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. Will log. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 22 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]
    Is there any disruption to the article? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. As implied above. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 22 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]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 22 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]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. No reverts on article for a couple of days. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: CTOP - AMPOL sanctions. Don't know what the normal protection level is for AMPOL. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    AP2 does not have a blanket 500/30 restriction to my knowledge. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not logging as a CTOPS action yet but I will leave a notice on talk. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Sockpuppet user constantly adding hoax information. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Top_Gun_X_4. CoconutOctopus talk 21:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Will leave CTOPS notice on talk. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Edit waring. Discombobulates (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator Cryptid. For a week. In full. Wow. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: High levels of IP vandalism, likely by the same person. Sushidude21! (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Requesting temporary protection (extended confirmed) due to recent edit warring between multiple users. Likely the product of his upcoming birth anniversary. Yue🌙 22:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked: SuvGh (talk · contribs) blocked by The Bushranger. for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Temporary semi-protection - Oh boy, it's me again. The questionable salute has led to heated debate and is a contentious topic at the moment. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Long history of COI editing and promotion. See username of this editor, [4], [5], [6], recent edit warring [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. --Richard Yin (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 23:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth considering protecting the page anyway, given that this has gone on for years across multiple accounts/IPs. --Richard Yin (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined for now as, since I blocked the account causing trouble today, it was the first significant editing to the article in three months. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Lots of IP vandalism, due to recent events (J6 pardons). This and other J6 pages likely to be targets for forseeable future -FactsheetPete (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. For now, given that the article has not previously needed protection. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Preemptive measure due to rampant J6 related vandalism. -FactsheetPete (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    DeclinedPages are not protected preemptively. Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – consistent changes (unsourced) from multiple IPs over time. It is constant disruption of the article. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator Isabelle Belato. for a month. Semi. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: High Level of IP vandalism Normal rookie (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Multiple IPs making similar disruptive edits. Wburrow (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Long term vandalism spanning several years. -FactsheetPete (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Will log at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – has been going on since November. Kajmer05 (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Persistent addition of unsourced or improperly sourced content. Johnj1995 (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unregistered users keep removing the 'anti-colonialism' from the infobox, while keeping the reference intact. therefore I request semi protection, most useful edits have been done by registered users. – Nar 260802:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) talk/edits 02:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Already extended-confirmed protected, but should also be move-protected while the redirect discussion regarding "Gulf of America" is still underway. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: A number of IPs have been vandalizing the talk page, either treating it as a forum post to talk about their reactions to her sermon, and a partially blocked IP calling The Rt Rev. some pretty crass & gendered insults (namely demanding that there be a section added calling her [derogatory term removed]). This is pretty plainly not the point of a talk page and is disruptive & harmful. 96.231.129.14 (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, my apologies for repeating the term, I shouldn't have done that, that's my bad! Figured it was useful for documentation purposes in the moment but it's on the talk page after all, and best not to have that floating around here too, thank you for that! 96.231.129.14 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse the report by the IP that the attack language at the talk page has gotten out of hand and violates BLP. However, it has not reached the any-reasonable-admin threshold where I feel comfortable acting, as I have a borderline COI with TEC. —C.Fred (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – String of recent vandalism. Amigao (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – After disrupting Kabyle people to the point where it needed EC protection, the highly disruptive SP master Noname_JR moved to this one, first by using Special:Contributions/Dotabetterthanlol and now, resorting to IP socking (their IP range is known). M.Bitton (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Require semi-protection. High level of IP vandalism. Hbanm (talk) 03:19, 22 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 edit includes a source from the Department of Defense Inspector General and the page isn't allowed to include that source. Airman79 (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Airman79: This request is a request to lower protection on a title that isn't protected, and reads more like an edit request. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no Wikipedia page for Dave Isaacson. Most likely the requester intended to refer to David Isaacson. Still, that is not a page under any form of protection. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 22 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.