Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.
Shortcuts

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
this header: view • edit



Current requests for increase in protection level

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 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.

Railway stations opened or closed category header templates

Permanent template-protection: Category header templates which employ intricate syntax. These templates are used on category pages and each such pages is wholly dependent on the template: if the template breaks, the category will break. Their usage level varies, but they work as an integrated set, and damage to any part of the set will have disruptive consequences.

Usage data:

The "/core" templates are used every time the parent is used, so the numbers will be identical. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ranil Jayawardena

Temporary full protection: BLP policy violations are leading to regular disruption. Care is not being taken to ensure NPOV. Voting record doesn't necessarily correlate with the potentially defamatory statements being made. Additions are being made on the incorrect basis of original interpretation or research. This is against BLP policy. -- Getbrexitdone (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Lectonar (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NumbersUSA

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant attempts to white-wash the article and remove sourced content by anonymous or new editors. Jorm (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Disruptive IP given final warning. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in Egypt

Indefinite semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and disruptive editing by many multiple single purpose user names and ip addresses. I have made my point in Talk:Christianity in Egypt and Talk:Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and have been asking them to discuss, but they wont. Dont know whether it is one individual or a group of connected people. User "Detyu15" regularly uses the edit summary to cast aspersions using uncivil, bad language. From talk page comments by other users' I understand that this sort of number vandalism to inflate religious adherence is common for articles related to Egypt. Longsword9 (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Lectonar (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria

Indefinite semi-protection: Same problem as reported above for article Christianity in Egypt. IP vandalism and disruptive editing by multiple ip's. I have made my point in Talk:Christianity in Egypt and Talk:Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and have asked them to discuss with authentic sources. Dont know whether it is one individual or a group of connected people. Longsword9 (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Lectonar (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Fight Night: Woodley vs. Burns, UFN 176 and UFC Fight Night 176

Move protection: Give some order.Request a move protection on current title dispute. Regice2020 (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Michael Flynn

Semi-protection: An IPv6/IPv4 admits to flaunting evasion (there is no point in blocking /64 for me as my /64 prefix changes every 2-3 days.) as a SOCK; example. There are various other shifting IPs. X1\ (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritius

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Numerous IPs trying to add unsourced material, particularly to the "Cuisine" section of the article. David Biddulph (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Khan

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Saqib (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H2O: Just Add Water

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. ~ Amkgp ✉ 07:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Han Chinese

Pending changes. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Baldwin

Indefinite semi-protection: Return of IP-hopping vandalism and BLP violations after recent end of previous protection. Page has been consistently vandalized despite multiple protections. Why keep doing this? Chessend (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for reduction in protection level

Shortcuts

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Shortcuts

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Shortcuts

Dream Games

Reason: Create protection is no longer required because the page will be redirected to Royal Match. The company is not notable enough for its own article, but is best known for its creation of the game. This is the result of an AFC/R request. Original administrator has not been active since April, and a timely response is unlikely. Garsh (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done This doesn't seem controversial to me. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Garsh2. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIBES FM Hamburg

Protected for over a decade. However, both of the page protectors are likely inactive. Consider downgrading protection level and set a time limit?102.106.191.176 (talk)

Question: Agree the disruption that led to the AfD being protected has long since ceased. But curious why anyone would need to edit this closed AFD from 2011. The deleted article title (VIBES FM Hamburg) is not protected so is theoretically available for recreation if the subject has since become notable. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: There's no reason to edit it, so why unprotect it? - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 07:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you this then: why won't you at least let EC users fix Linter Errors in case if they notice any?102.106.191.176 (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have any? - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 07:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sumanuil It's clean from all lint* error types that we regularly fix and I don't see any reason to need to edit that page for lint reasons.
 * The one "issue" that you'll see listed there in the lint info, "night-mode-unaware-background-color", is more a tracking category than a lint error, and it is predominantly being left alone by the experienced delinting editors since we don't really agree with WMF for it's classification as lint, and since the issues are not well defined with a high rate of false flags. Until then, those issues are to be ignored. Zinnober9 (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprotected I reduced the protection to WP:ECP. No reason for less than that. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Telugu films of 2024

Unprotection: Was protected due to IP activity during the release of a popular film. It can be unprotected considering the history being calm, giving chance to potential improvements by new users. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If not possible protection until 1 January 2025 is more than enough according to me. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprotected @Thewikizoomer: In the history of the article (see links above), click "logs" near the top to see the protection action with reason. The links in that reason explain that articles in contentious topics are often protected. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rape in Pakistan

Reason: The user who requested page protection is a bully who reverted necessary edits. An entire paragraph was repeated in the article. When an IP cleaned up the mistake they reverted it. They also reverted the ips edit in unrelated pages. They have a personal vendetta gainst them. They protected dthe page and possibly used a sockpuppet to revert the page to the state they wanted it to be in. They have an agenda. So please unprotect the page Donteatgarlic (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected @Donteatgarlic: You must not accuse other editors of bad behavior unless accompanied with evidence and at a noticeboard for that purpose, usually WP:ANI. If you have a proposal regarding the article, suggest it at the article talk page, with reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the evidence. The editor reverted the ips edit in rape in Pakistan.Then they proceeded to revert another edit made by the same in nwfp referendum article. They clearly have a personal vendetta. They accused me of all sorts of stuff when I sided with the ip. My edit was very valid. There was an entire paragraph copy pasted from one place to another. So please consider my request. Donteatgarlic (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they removed vandalism warnings from their talk page. Someone is being allowed to commit vandalism and block people who are trying to stop them Donteatgarlic (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for edits to a protected page

Shortcut

Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

Shortcut

Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.


Israel–Hamas war

"On 1 April, seven aid workers from World Central Kitchen, including British, Polish, Australian, and Irish nationals, were killed in an Israeli airstrike south of Deir al-Balah" is incorrect and should be reworded as

"On 1 April, seven aid workers from World Central Kitchen, including a dual US-Canada national, a Palestinian, three British citizens, an Australian, and a Pole, were killed in an Israeli airstrike south of Deir al-Balah" as per [1], [2]. 148.75.59.49 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Anderson

I would like to request that... (date of death is updated to 30/11/2024) . Jamesington (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Hamas war

I suggest adding to 'War Crimes' a section about the Sde Teiman detention camp. The use of concentration/torture camps is a very notable war crime and an important fact as it pertains to the ceasefire negotiations regarding hostage swaps. It is also relevant as many have been taken from Gaza and are being tortured under pretext of "interrogation." Jdftba (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Create a level 3 header with a link to the article in question, then a ((pagelinks)) template and then the reason[reply]

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus

Add: 14. Do not mention the lab-accident theory in this article. Link 1 Link 2 Per the outcome of the RfC (link 2). Thanks, 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation was closed by a WP:Involved participant. Based on a glance at the !vote totals, I don't suspect they closed it inaccurately, but some care should be taken to confirm the result (perhaps co-sign it) before adding this to the current consensus list. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 20:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'll action this if there are no objections 24 hours or so after the request was made (20:15 today UTC). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently working on checking the close. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-closed the article, and think that this is a reasonable edit request, though the links may need adjusting CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 00:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Handled requests

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

More