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 protection increases at the BOTTOM of this section. If you cannot find your request, check the archive of requests or, failing that, the page history. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Last edit was over three months ago; and while I wouldn't argue this doesn't come under ARBPIA I similarly wouldn't argue this is a primary topic within it (as while it was the first international Zionist program, as the article notes it was replaced in the early 1950s with the Jerusalem Program), nor does it appear to have any nexus with the current conflict. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: User request within own user space. Per BusterD's comment in Special:Diff/1285477831, it was protected because of WP:DE, but there appears to be no good reason for non-extended-confirmed users to edit my user page. That user also said I can request any administrator to change the protection level if I choose to do so. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Just linking to WP:UPROT here...I for one do not see the need for protection at the moment. Lectonar (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Declined per above. The absence of a reason for non-EC editors to edit a user page does not, to me, by itself constitute a reason to so protect that page. We seem to have established a high bar for that level of protection to a user page; I would consider it only in cases of demonstrated long-term abuse by AC accounts. This is not being argued here. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Lots of disruptive editing from IP accounts and may continue. Unilandofma(Talk to me!) 06:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
User(s) blocked: 2404:AB80:B:1CC:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) blocked by PhilKnight. for 48 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Mike Allen 16:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- It is not disruptive. The version you restored is a bloated, repetitive mess, which is a real disservice to those seeking guidance. 41.32.39.128 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- User(s) blocked: 41.32.39.0/24 (talk · contribs) blocked by Daniel Case. for 72 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Reason: IP vandalism and disruptive editing for the past month PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 16:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary pending changes protection: Edit warring / content dispute. Valorrr (lets chat) 17:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing, first by IPs and then by a (obviously related) newly-created account. Similar situation persisted at Samia Suluhu Hassan, until the article's current protection. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing, first by IPs and then by a (obviously related) newly-created account. Similar situation persisted at Samia Suluhu Hassan, until the article's current protection. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 17:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I requested protection for this article on 9 April. It was declined on 11 April. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 18:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Adolescent IP editors from a similar location vandalizing on the same article issues. Zefr (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 2 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Reason: I am requesting 6 months of ECP for Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory, and for Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2. All COVID topics are already considered contentious topics (WP:CT/COVID), and both of these article main pages are already protected by ECP.
The talk pages, however, have suffered under a truly withering barrage of endless requests that we depart from the standard of scientific consensus, and treat the concept of a laboratory leak as highly plausible. In the last two weeks alone, 11,000 words have been written at Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2 (33 single-spaced pages in word), with IP addresses and SPAs all asking editors to change the article.
The pattern of discussion in each new talk page topic is the same: an editor with relatively few edits proposes a change to the article emphasizing a potential laboratory leak [1], discussion quickly descends into accusations and fruitless argument [2], and thousands of words are written before the discussion is closed [3]. Then, hours later, another and similarly pointless topic is opened with the same agenda [4].
Editors are complaining of burnout, and you can see why. ECP on the talk pages would not impede article improvement, but would significantly reduce the strain and stress on editors working in this publicly contentious area. -Darouet (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- P.S. I'm not sure if this is the right location to post but Tryptofish suggested that any competent administrator can decide to apply ECP to these talk pages given that COVID is already deemed contentious (WP:CT/COVID). Tryptofish your input also welcome. -Darouet (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- I actually said uninvolved, rather than competent, and I'm sure y'all are competent.
Anyway, my advice came out of the discussion at User talk:Bon courage#These covid pages are exhausting, where it sure sounds to me like those talk pages are, indeed, needlessly exhausting. This is a matter of CTOP, and I hope no one minds that the request ended up here rather than at WP:AE, but it does very much seem to me that it would be a good idea for an admin, acting under CTOP authority, to grant this request. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC) - I'm not sure if protection is the answer as much as not feeding the trolls. The regular editors are under no obligation to answer or engage in these discussions to the extent they seem to be doing. I would also suggest following the lead of many other talk pages of contentious articles and putting a FAQ up top basically saying, we are not discussing this issue here anymore without some change in the facts underlying consensus. Because I think protection here goes beyond the scope of what CTOPS authorizes, and when we have applied ECP to other talk pages (something we do not do lightly).
- Now, if ArbCom itself were to specifically authorize this here, that would be different. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- I actually said uninvolved, rather than competent, and I'm sure y'all are competent.
Reason: Privacy Sir Barron Giraffe (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Declined, I do not see anything which would require protection. Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Risk of vandalism, since it is about Zionism. Edward Mike005 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by IPs. LightlySeared (talk) 21:47, 15 April 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.
Reason: Several new sources found for subject including an award from Forbes 30 Under 30. Also, a fellow of the FRSA[1]. KingMud (talk) 20:06, 15 April 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.
Handled requests
A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.