Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFPP)
Requests for page protection

This page is for requesting that a page, file or template be fully protected, create protected (salted), extended confirmed protected, semi-protected, added to pending changes, move-protected, template protected, upload protected (file-specific), or unprotected. Please read the protection policy for details. 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 only to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop page-move 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, the protection is listed in the page history and logs with a short description indicating why it was protected, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins do not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.

Instructions

If you would like to request to have a page protected, have a page's existing protection level lowered or raised, or would like to submit an edit request for a protected page, please follow these steps (note: if you enable the Twinkle gadget for your Wikipedia account, this process can be largely automated for you):

  1. If you are requesting unprotection, the correct protocol is to ask the protecting administrator first for unprotection (the admin's user account name can be found in the page's edit history). If for any reason he or she is unresponsive, unwilling, or unable to lower protection then you may list your request on this page.
  2. Add a level-3 header (i.e. === [[Example title]] ===) with the exact title of the page you would like (un)protected. If the page is not in the article namespace, include the namespace prefix (e.g. Template:Example template or User:Example user). Place your request at the bottom of either the protection or unprotection list, depending on the nature of your request. Please make sure you have spelled the name of the article properly; a common error stems from mistaken requests for the protection of redirects, particularly capitalised ones (Twinkle can make sure this never happens to you!)
  3. Place the pagelinks template below the header, in the form of * {{pagelinks|Example title}} (note the asterisk).
  4. If you are requesting protection, write the type of request (full protection, semi-protection, pending changes, move protection) and a brief reason for your request below your header.
  5. Please do not add arbitrary requests for a protection expiry time to your request, or request indefinite protection arbitrarily.
    • If there is a reason for a page to be protected for a certain amount of time, such as protecting a user talk page until the user is unblocked, please make this clear.
    • If you are requesting indefinite semi-protection or pending changes, be aware that it is only applied to articles with endemic and endless vandalism problems that multiple increasing periods of temporary semi-protection or pending changes have failed to stop.
    • Note that different expiry times can be set for edit- and for move-protections— thus, an article can, for example, be semi-edit-protected for a week and also fully-move-protected indefinitely.
  6. Sign your request with four tildes ~~~~ and click Publish changes.
  • Note: editors should not consider requesting page protection as a method for continuing an argument from elsewhere nor as a venue for starting a new discussion regarding article content. If a request contains excessive argument, appears to be intended to resolve a content dispute, includes personal attacks or uncivil comments, or has any other unrelated discussion, it will be removed from this page and no action will be taken.
Examples
For single page requests
=== [[Example Article Name]] ===
* {{pagelinks|Example Article Name}}
'''Semi-protection:''' High level of IP vandalism. ~~~~
=== [[Template:Example Template Name]] ===
* {{pagelinks|Template:Example Template Name}}
'''Reduction in protection level:''' From full protection to template editor protection. ~~~~
For multiple page requests with the same criteria
=== Short descriptive header ===
* {{pagelinks|Wikipedia:Example Page Name 1}}
* {{pagelinks|Wikipedia:Example Page Name 2}}
'''Temporary semi-protection:''' High level of IP vandalism. ~~~~
Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.


Administrator instructions


Current requests for increase in protection levelEdit

Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the rolling 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.

United Malays National OrganisationEdit

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Qaidul (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

2020–21 Indian Super League seasonEdit

Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – The article has been persistently disrupted with unsourced, unofficial rumoured contents since the article is a league article. Several newly registered user are being warned but no response from them, rather everytime a new registered disrupt the article. Previously semi protected but those ips now made accounts and continued their pursuits. Need protection for atleast for a month until the league starts. Drat8sub (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Non-admin comment This is more likely a content dispute for me because there are adding contents and some of editors that involved are Extend-confirmed users such as Abishe78 and SHISHIR DUA that edits you reverted. So for me a full-protection would be necessary, at least take the discussion on the talk page.36.68.187.70 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  Extended confirmed protected for the duration of the original block. The page will reset to no protection when the block expires. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

10 Gigabit EthernetEdit

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Elizium23 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Warned user. They haven't edited this page in a few days. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

ObamagateEdit

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – continued attempts to create a pov article despite consensus Talk:Obamagate#Request_for_comment_on_page_creation. Praxidicae (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  User(s) blocked. The page has also been protected by Muboshgu. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Science of yogaEdit

Temporary semi-protection: Attempts at advertising by Yoga businesses. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment It's better to deal with individual spammers (warn, block, blacklist as necessary); they're typically going to target more than one article, and it's not really practical to semi-protect all Yoga-related articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

RigelEdit

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Nyook 18:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nominationEdit

Full protection: Persistent vandalism – As this is high-profile news as of late, there has been several instances of vandalism. Lettlerhellocontribs 19:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Non-admin comment This article cannot be fully protected only due to vandalism conducted by all-IPs. So semi-protection would be enough to prevent this. I see WP:ARBAP2 sanctions applies here. 36.68.187.70 (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Super RTLEdit

Semi-protection: Paristant edit warring by an IP hopper who's reverting the page to the way he/she wants it (with a long, unnecessary bit about the parent company's history) and blames me for working with a professional user (although i'm not). Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Declined (for now). I've rangeblocked the IPv6 and blocked the single IPv4 causing the disruption for a significant duration for block evasion. If they squeeze around these blocks you can ping me directly and I'll semi the article. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Britain's Got Talent (series 14)Edit

Temporary Semi-protection: Disruptive IP editing resumed following the immediate end of the previous protection yesterday. Asking for this to be put in place until October 11-12, when this series is planned to end, to prevent further disruptions. GUtt01 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

To Pimp a ButterflyEdit

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. An editor keep using multiple accounts to restore their edits in the article. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Might be sockpuppetry, but given that those IPs geolocate to three different places, might also be multiple editors, given that the Rolling Stone list was recently updated. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ohnoitsjamie: Could be the edits are from different people but the edits look kinda similar, that's why I think it might be sockpuppetry. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Ponteland High SchoolEdit

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Req semi due to a spree of IP hopping and new account vandalism. Kb03 (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Semi-protected --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  User(s) blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Govindrao AdikEdit

Semi-protection: Vandalism by a single determined editor with a new account who does always log in. A week should be enough. Pending-changes for the same time period would accomplish the same goal, use whichever is most appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 21:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    Confirmed semi-protected for a few days. Let's hope this is long enough. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

List of compositions by Dmitri ShostakovichEdit

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from banned sockpuppet using an IP. User in question had been banned for edit warring and belligerent behavior towards fellow editors earlier this month. Additionally, user is unwilling to cooperate, instead making accusations of “coordinated trolling” against several editors. Page had been previously semi-protected for two days. Requesting a longer period of semi-protection if possible. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Doc RiversEdit

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – current sports event. the page is crazy with vandalism. Idan (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Quim TorraEdit

Temporary extended confirmed protection: BLP policy violations – There is a lot of activity at the page a lot of reverts, and this is ok, but now someone wrote he committed suicide. Quim Torra was dismissed as President of Catalunya today for not withdrawing his solidarity to the Catalan political prisoners and his adversaries are bit... Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Pia KlempEdit

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Since expiry of protection on Sept 19, the page has been vandalized (defamatory/BLP policy violations) ~10 times by ip editors. Lookunder (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Current requests for reduction in protection levelEdit

Please post requests in this section for removing or reducing the protection level of a page if the protecting admin is inactive or you have already asked them.
  • 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 rolling archive if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Theresa GreenfieldEdit

Remove full protection: Vastly improved draft at Draft:Theresa Greenfield is ready for mainspace. Protecting admin. declined request, with minimal explanation, at User_talk:Muboshgu#Unprotection_request. Protecting admin. appears to be WP:INVOLVED, having nominated previous version of article for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Non-admin comment To add more context, I also asked for unprotection at Talk:Theresa Greenfield#Notable (on September 22) and Draft talk:Theresa_Greenfield#Greenfield draft status, and we have also received only minimal responses there. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Non-admin comment To add more context, there is a draft article for Theresa Greenfield, the Democratic US Senate nominee in Iowa, a closely contested race that could determine control of the US Senate. Of 69 US Senate major party nominees this cycle, 61 have articles, and Theresa Greenfield should too, as she clearly meets general notability guidelines.Narayansg (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The draft was declined by Robert McClenon two weeks ago. I suggest the draft is resubmitted for review. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  Not unprotected. This article/draft has had a very controversial existence, from being deleted and redirected, not overturned three times at deletion review, and being declined three times as a draft. I see it's been significantly expanded since the last decline, but I don't want this to be seen as an end-run around AFC, so please resubmit. If the draft is accepted then make a new request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
My concern is that this full protection is being used in an inappropriate way, against the spirit of the AFC process and against the spirit of full protection. As described at WP:AFC, AFC is meant to be a special pathway to article creation for unregistered and new editors. AFC is not meant to prevent experienced registered editors from creating articles in mainspace without AFC review - and there are several experienced editors who want to move this draft article to mainspace. WP:PROTECT describes protection as being appropriate when there is "a specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open". There's no threat of vandalism, edit wars, or other damage here - from what I've seen here, everyone involved in this discussion is being civil and making efforts to interpret policy in constructive ways. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Best KoreaEdit

Unprotection: wikt:Best Korea. 213.166.146.139 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

So? wikt:Best Korea is the appropriate place for a dictionary definition. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it'd be reasonable to create this page with {{wiktionary redirect}}, and then re-protect it so it doesn't get turned into something else. If nobody objects here for a while, then I'll do that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Current requests for edits to a protected pageEdit

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 {{request edit}} 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.

Create a level 3 header with a link to the article in question, then a {{pagelinks}} template and then the reason.

Secret City (book)Edit

unprotection This page has been protected because of ongoing controversies over Polish-Jewish relations during the Second World War. I am the author of this book, and the page was created and has been edited by partisans in those controversies who completely misrepresent its nature purpose of the book. It was never intended as a contribution to those controversies: it is a social history of the underground community of Jews hiding "on the Aryan side" in Warsaw, and not about the actions and attitudes of the Polish population towards those Jews. It does have implications for those controversies, but not the ones that the creator/editors think it does. The entire page as it stands is so wrongheaded and misleading that it cannot be fixed by some edits: it simply puts the book in the wrong category. It belongs in the categories of Jewish History, History of the Polish Jews, the Holocaust, Jewish responses to the Holocaust and others, but definitely not Polish-Jewish relations. By analogy: in the 1960s, the American Civil Rights Movement was often characterized as a struggle between northern white liberals and southern white racists, almost ignoring the role of Black people themselves. Now a Black author writes a book about that movement from the Black perspective, including interactions between Black people and southerners of various kinds. Southern white racists pick out passages that speak positively of those relations and misinterpret the author's actual findings as if they justified their views. Then northern white liberals denounce the book as a defense of racism. Literally black and white, no nuance, no understanding of the issues, based on misreading, partial reading or just hearsay. I would like to recreate this page, explaining the intent and purpose of the book and commenting on its reception. Gspaulsson (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Handled requestsEdit

A rolling archive of the last seven days of protection requests can be found at Wikipedia: Requests for page protection/Rolling archive.