Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFPP)
"WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, or Wikipedia:Random page patrol.
    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

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
    Shortcuts

    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.


    Johni Broome

    Temporary pending changes protection: Edit warring / content dispute. Valorrr (lets chat) 17:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The only dispute I can see occurred around 10 days ago. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    President of Tanzania

    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)[reply]

    President of Namibia

    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)[reply]

    COVID-19 lab leak theory

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Tryptofish: right, thanks for the clarification and further explanation!
    Daniel Case, my sense is that editors fear that an erroneous "consensus" will form to dismantle these articles if they restrict their involement, so, they remain involved, and as I noted above, the pace and consistency of these continued efforts are withering. The talk pages have also noted that there are calls on social media to recruit people to edit Wikipedia's articles on these topics.
    Sadly, and this is my own deficiency, I am wholly incompetent to approach Arbcom: I've been editing Wikipedia for a while and everything about Arbcom - its processes, how to understand its decisions, etc - remain wholly mysterious to me. -Darouet (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the problem is that there is nothing going on on these talk pages that rises to the level of disruptive editing sufficient to justify protection IMO. New editors civilly propose information, civilly discuss it with existing editors ... what's disruptive about that? It's how, by our own standards, these things are to be handled. No regular reverting, no profane IP outbursts at Wikipedia or certain editors, no repeated reposting of rejected edit requests ... all things that we have experienced on other CTOPS talk pages that we have protected (save Talk:Taylor Swift, where too many people have arrived from, I suppose, searching on "talk to Taylor Swift" and assumed that that page had a direct connection to her phone).
    Yes, there has been a little pushing and shoving, particularly between one five-day-old account (a likely SPA, it seems to me from their POINT-y behavior) and one regular editor on those two pages whose brusque responses aren't helping matters). But that's not enough to justify the bluelock, or even (at this point) a gray one.
    Any admin's decision to unilaterally ECP that talk page right now is likely going to be portrayed as some sort of censorship effort ... and you know what? That perception would be legitimate IMO—established editors, generally tending towards sources that support one side of this more than the other (Although I should say the lab-leak article does, to me, fairly represent the point of view that there was a lab leak, which is the most important thing to worry about here), ask that access to the talk page be limited to similarly established editors because they're afraid the article might have to be changed by our own rules, via an unprecedented use of administrative power. How would that not look suspect?
    For now I really think the best measure would be to have some sort of FAQ template on the talk pages, listing all the sources proposed for use and why we're not considering them reliable enough to use in the article, so we can just point to that instead of rehashing those reasons in the talk discussion (We might also take more affirmative steps to identify where on social media these coordinated efforts are originating from so that we can more clearly identify them as such when those users get here).
    If we want to ask ArbCom if we can do this to repel a possibly offwiki-coordinated sealioning effort, then in addition to any evidence of offwiki activity we would need piles of diffs (or at least links to the sections on the talk pages). My talk page has been freshly archived, so there's space. You can also email me if you think it's better off keeping that confidential. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Discussion is mostly civil, related to an expert survey, German intelligence, the CIA statement, the French press release, and the DIA analysis, in that order. Are editors expecting not to have to discuss these sources?? Consensus building is how this place works...
    2. This request for protection has not been mentioned on the talk page--is it going to be? Or is the talk page too problematic to discuss how problematic the talk page is?? SmolBrane (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A remedy against repetitive request is long well known: keeping archives and referring the newbies to them without long chat. One can even partially violate a no-edit rule for archive by allowing anchors to perennial topics. Another way is Q&A page. If the IP persists despite the 'rtfm' advise, simply do not engage, because consensus is already established. --Altenmann >talk 03:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    1881 Focșani Zionist Congress

    Reason: Risk of vandalism, since it is about Zionism. Edward Mike005 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My Life as a Teenage Robot

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page faces consistent vandalism despite existing level of page protection. Evident by >90% of the last 500 edits having to be reverted. Existing level of page protection is not sufficient. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like the page is not protected at all now. --Altenmann >talk 03:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hosei University

    Semi-protection: Persistent addition of promotional wording. Likely the same person using multiple IPs. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Israel and weapons of mass destruction

    Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement – ARBPIA. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Surname

    Reason: Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandslism. --Altenmann >talk 03:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Handmaid's Tale (TV series)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent unsourced and irrelevant addition of the same sentence diff. Previously protected for the same reason. Iiii I I I (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for reduction in protection level

    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
    Shortcuts

    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.

    Shortcuts

    Modestas Mankus

    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)[reply]

    Lee Thompson Young

    Reason: This article was semi-protected in September 2013 due to an edit war over using an image in the infobox. 12 years later, I think the protection isn't needed anymore as there is currently a fair use photo on the infobox and there's been no edit war against it nor any edits to the article in over seven months. I think we should try unprotecting it. Kaptain Yummy (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    interest

    Reason: try for phone hack 49.156.103.212 (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Kushwaha

    • Error: Protected edit requests can only be made on the talk page.

    Request to reduce the protection level of this page from fully protected to semi-protected. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushwaha Reason: There is no current high level of vandalism or edit wars. Semi-protection would allow more constructive editing from autoconfirmed users, while still preventing vandalism from unregistered users.

    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
    Shortcut

    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.
    Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests


    Handled requests

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

    1. ^ https://www.forbes.com/profile/modestas-mankus/
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=1285786448"