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 sockpuppetry. consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 22:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    DeclinedWarn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Lectonar (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long-term persistent vandalism by IP editors. Apocheir (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent in Additional of unsourced or poorly sourced content. — 64.18.11.5 (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse me everyone this request protection page article is not protect yet can anyone protect this page Jesse Winker please they continued to add unsources information it needs to done. Pipetttttttt (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. 54rt678 (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Vandalised once in one month. Sdrqaz (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: High level of IP vandalism Betoota44 (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Persistent vandalism from IP Users. Kurogaga (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Sdrqaz (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by I.P editors. Flat Out (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent disruptive editing and addition of unsourced content increased by IP users. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Skitash (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Anarchyte (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Anarchyte (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Editor is disrupting article with POV and modern politics. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – An ip address mislabeling the film as a 'slasher' even though no reliable film sources label it as such. (note: this is my first time using Twinkle). Clammodest (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This last occurred in November, which is too long ago to consider protection now. Please report again if it recurs. Sdrqaz (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Aqurs1 (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Anarchyte (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Continued BLP violations/vandalism after previous protection expired. – Recoil16 (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: High level of IP vandalism Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked: 2001:0:0:0:0:0:0:0/20 (talk · contribs). Partially, from the article. This takes care of most of the recent disruption. Sdrqaz (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Significant portion of edits are either vandalism calling the subject of the article a scam or replacing the founder's name with Hindi swear words, or reverts of said vandalism. Requesting 6 months to 1 year of protection. Tube·of·Light 08:07, 17 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.

    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.


    Add “by June 30, 2024” to the sentence: The Lancet has estimated 70,000 deaths due to traumatic injuries.[8] Seahumidity (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In paragraph 4 is this assertion: "In private, White House staffers and Biden's family took measures to conceal and compensate for apparent declines in his acuity." There is no source cited for this consequential claim. The "apparent decline" of mental acuity in Biden, a lifetime stutterer, is a topic of contention. Rnperry (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Removed. We must source EVERYTHING, especially in BLPs. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 05:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What? Nothing is directly sourced in the entire lead for that article, it generally follows the practice of citations in body, not lead, from MOS:LEADCITE. There is however, an entire section in that article that backs up that point. Does the OP think that:
    A tight-knit group of select staffers and Biden's family emerged during his presidency that insulated him from others. Biden's staff routinely adapted his schedule and activities to accommodate his needs as he aged and conceal signs of declining cognitive ability. White House staffers took on unusually strong roles as gatekeepers for Biden, limiting meetings with cabinet secretaries, lawmakers, and other officials, and restricting the information made available to him. Events Biden attended were tightly scripted and limited.
    was because he had a stutter? There are multiple sources backing it up, from the NYT, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Axios. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all of those sources seem entirely reliable (one's reporting on a poll, another calls the endlessly-harped story "underreported"), and the sentence in question is not very neutral. Keep the rest of the paragraph, just remove that. It was fine before it was added. And frankly, some outlets need their reliability re-assessed. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 08:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put it back for now, with a "disputed" tag. In the meantime, we really need to re-evaluate the reliability of sources in regard to US politics, especially given how the owners of some outlets have inserted themselves in the decision-making process. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 09:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to request that... (the status section for the front page should be labeled as “ceasefire” until the ceasefire ends. This is in accordance with the recently-reached agreement.) . LordOfWalruses (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to request that... in the highest grossing films by year section , the highest grossing film of 1986 should be edited , because it is Muddat instead of Karma.

    Source : https://www.imdb.com/list/ls561310428/ ) . ZemonZeh (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined See WP:IMDB. Lectonar (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Handled requests

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