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.
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. FMSky (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
User(s) blocked: 119.94.236.230 (talk · contribs) blocked by Drmies. Favonian (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: High level of IP vandalism by ip users.This page is in danger of being tarnished.Minakshi Pillai (talk) 04:01, 4 February 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 04:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
+1 Reason: this page has been recently vandalized by some people, who claiming their own opinion and using unprofessional words like, sudra, labors, slaves to attack a community for his personal feelings and without any refernece and talk doesn't even come to disscusion page to talk about this nor with with me, this guy also vadalizing the other article related to this community like Kodikaal Vellalar and List of Vellalar sub castes Mr.fakepolicy (talk) 04:48, 4 February 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 04:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- please verify the information first before made any decision Mr.fakepolicy (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Note: Article should be ECP'ed under WP:GS/CASTE. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
+2 Reason: High level of IP vandalism by user mr.fakepolicy who happens to be a sockpuppet user. Minakshi Pillai (talk) 07:52, 4 February 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 07:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. per WP:GS/CASTE BusterD (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Block evasion. Jfire (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Disruptive user stopped after the last warning they received. If it picks up, AIV is the way to go. Lectonar (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – From IPs and new accounts. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. BusterD (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: IP Vandalism Spworld2 (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. BusterD (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Constant edit waring over the political position in the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. BusterD (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Remsense ‥ 论 08:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. BusterD (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Continued addition of unreferenced "model" occupation in a non-encyclopedic way by various new or IP accounts. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. BusterD (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) talk/edits 10:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Lectonar (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. IP hopping vandal adding false information 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) talk/edits 10:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Recurrent vandalism edits from IP editor soon after removal of PC protection. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: High level of IP vandalism engaging in edit warring and ignoring suggestions to create talk page discussion regarding infobox image. Already reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring as of yesterday TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pending pages isn't helping this article, which receives almost daily vandalism from ips. Changing to semi-protection. BusterD (talk) 12:09, 4 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.
Reason: Protecting admin is okay with this being revised per here. Full protection was deemed unnecessary due to the edit war stopping, so requesting semi-protection. BMWF (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Flagging that this editor is forum shopping as after the first admin (Daniel Case) declined to lift the ECP, they went to RPP for a review where a second admin (Pppery) also declined to adjust the PP, and then went to a third admin's (Isabelle Belato) talk page who also declined. The RfC that we're both involved in is still ongoing and the ECP stopped an edit war. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Full protection might have been warranted at the time when we had ECP users edit warring (which seems to have stopped now). But I am not convinced autoconfirmed users will stay away just because "higher level" edit-warring has stopped. If they'res a dire need to add information: the talk-page is not protected, so edit requests are a way to go. If another admin wants to lower protection: be my guest. Lectonar (talk) 10:05, 4 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 user seems to make a lot of rollbacks without explanation in cases where the edit doesn't seem to be obvious vandalism. If they explain their rollback in the edit summary then it would have been fine. I wanted to ask the user to explain their reversion to my edit, but their user talk page is locked. 128.193.154.187 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
That text doesn't really summarize what's in the body, nor does that one bit seem significant enough for lead; please get consensus on talk
, per Schazjmd (talk · contribs) who reverted you before Modernist did. I would presume the same rationale applies since you reverted Schazjmd. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Not done – Question has been answered and talk page discussion initiated. Favonian (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Handled requests
A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.