Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

"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.

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 protection Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Request a specific edit to a protected page Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit

this header: view • edit

Current requests for increase in protection level

Chris Kubasik

• Chris Kubasik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Persistent campaign of whitewashing. He resigned as CFO of Lockheed Martin in 2012 after an ethics investigation revealing an affair with a subordinate, and this was well-documented in the national press. Several users and IP addresses have repeatedly deleted all references to his resignation. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 22:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: It looks well supported to me. Perhaps the material could be discussed at WP:BLPN? Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the change from Special:Contributions/47.185.226.125. Seems linked to Special:Contributions/47.185.244.86, Special:Contributions/47.185.247.109, and Special:Contributions/Happykat123. Check the edit history for the page, every time the story is linked, within a few days it gets deleted again. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 06:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

WRFB

• WRFB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced content. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. El_C 22:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Halston Sage

• Halston Sage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Makdous

• Makdous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Nearly all recent activity is edit-warring by various IPs over unsourced claims of national origin, as well as Arab–Israeli conflict issues. IamNotU (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Intel Graphics Technology

• Intel Graphics Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – anonymous IP(s) keeps adding content against WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:RS without any discussion (see revision history). Vossanova ^o< 01:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

LGBT community

• LGBT community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – People just randomly add weird things on pages like these. For some time, we should put protection on these to ensure no offensive comments get posted here.

I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly.

01:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Current requests for reduction in protection level

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at 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.

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at 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.

Virginia Beach shooting

• Virginia Beach shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Protecting admin has declined the request to unprotect. There was an edit war a few days ago over whether to include the names of the victims, and it has been resolved with a discussion. The result of the discussion is a consensus 2 to 1 in favor of inclusion, with the editors opposing inclusion citing no policy reasons other than the nebulous WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The consensus should be enforced, rather than page protected. Banana Republic (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, consensus is not a vote. I'm not sure that description fairly represents the minority position, but if that's true, then that is a fair point. But I don't believe that, in this case, it's my place to enforce what is argued as being representative of consensus. My recommendation was that the discussion be reframed as an RfC, so that it is closed with consensus or no consensus having been established formally. El_C 17:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and any admin should feel free to undo my protection — I do not need to be consulted further about that in any way. El_C 17:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess I don't know what it means to "reframe as an RfC". Over 15 editors have already commented. Banana Republic (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Request that it be formally closed. My point is about someone making a determination as to whether there is or isn't consensus to include, not the involved editors deciding it themselves. El_C 18:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: Inclined to unprotect. @The Rambling Man:, who's judgment I value, for his opinion. Anyone else feel free to accept or decline or opine while I vacillate. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, unprotect. A handful of edits should never result in full protection. Both editors had reached 3RR and not exceeded it. This is the system "working" and doesn't need the addition of full protection. Unprotect and if necessary block editors who exceed 3RR. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The The Rambling Man actually opposed, but if they feel there is consensus to include, that would be an especially powerful statement, because it would be coming from the oppose camp itself. The issue, to me, is the continued edit warring. Unprotection would risk the edit war erupting for the third time. The page has only been protected for two days, anyway. Waiting for editors to reach 3RR does not seem ideal. El_C 18:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand me completely. I'm not suggesting that any particular edit is right or wrong. I'm suggesting that the mild edit warring needs a different antidote, i.e. warnings, blocks and semi-protection if required. Not full protection. It's bonkers having "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" on the main page along with an article which only a tiny fraction of the universe can actually edit bold linked from it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Except, with 7 reverts in the space of several hours, I just don't feel this edit war was "mild," even if it may somewhat appear so once I stopped it in its tracks. El_C 21:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That is absolutely as mild as it gets. Some articles get hundreds of edits in a day, and you're full protecting and article which has a handful of reverts in 24 hours? Seriously? Stop wasting time, remove the full protection, it's complete overkill and an abuse of the protection capability. Warn the edit warriors, block the edit warriors if necessary, but don't preclude updates to a recent news article which will become a laughing stock if it doesn't live up Wikipedia's raison d'etre. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

We have had 7 more reverts in less than 24 hours since I unprotected the page yesterday. El_C 18:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Seven reverts in 24 hours is hardly big traffic now is it? Full protection is completely unwarranted. If registered editors are edit warring, warn them. If unregistered editors are edit warring, warn them, and if necessary, apply semi-protection. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

But would it be more than 7 had I not protected? I don't think the editors in question need warnings as they seem to purposefully be running short of 3RR, anyway. But the combined reverts from a potential pool of 15 editors has the potential to be quite disruptive. El_C 18:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Well we don't have infinite editors, so if they're stopping at 3RR then the right thing is happening. The full protection is complete overkill. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

No, having them stop at 3 reverts would still be too much reverting. El_C 18:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope, that's the point of 3RR. We'd quickly run out of edit warring editors. Quit the overkill, allow Wikipedia to be as-designed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That's where we differ, as I find the proposition of having potentially tens of reverts untenable and just too disruptive to the article's overall stability. El_C 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Well precisely: "potentially" sums it up perfectly. Now then, remove the full protection as there's nothing to be gained. Removing edit warriors is a different issue, let's just get back to Wikipedia basics, shall we? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I think, El_C, you can better utilize your authority as an uninvolved admin to close the discussion and rule on a consensus, since apparently the consensus is not clear (it's clear to me, but I am involved). If you rule on what is the consensus, that will nip any future edit war in the bud. Banana Republic (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

But there's objections that closing it now represents too brief of window. An RfC would take a minimum of a few weeks and it's only been a few days. (Having the discussion reframed as an RfC will help bring more outside input.) I can always just force the status quo ante (victims not included) until that discussion is closed — until it has been determined that there is consensus to include. But I've been on record before against including victim lists, so that approach may have the appearance of opportunism. That's why I'm saying: another admin is free to step in and take the lead on this. El_C 22:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I am far from an expert on Wikipedia's bureaucratic processes, but it seems to me that 15 opinions in the span of 3 days should be sufficient to establish a consensus, especially when the page is a current event, and the opposing side does not really give policy based reasons for exclusion (i.e. the default should be include, just like in an AfD discussion).

Far fewer opinions were given in far less time for the discussion to rename the article. Banana Republic (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That move discussion was snow-closed — that's not applicable here. I recently closed an 11/4 RfC as no consensus. Sure, it was really close and I did take some flack for it, but on Wikipedia, consensus is not determined by raw numbers or yes-no vote ratio — rather, the closer has to weigh the strength of the arguments and agreements. El_C 01:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

That having been said, again, if another admin steps in and feels differently, I do not need to be consulted further. Which is to say, I hope they would take what I said here into account (as in I hope I've been persuasive), but as far as there being even the whiff of a chance for wheel warring — that's totally a non-issue. I can't stress this enough. El_C 01:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: A possible bureaucratic remedy to consider:
  1. Apply a page restriction under WP:NEWBLPBAN so that the "names of the victims cannot be mentioned to the article until the related discussion(s) are formally closed and consensus for their inclusion is established"
  2. Reduce protection level to whatever works for the rest of the article.

That way the article can, hopefully, be expanded/improved without this one point of dispute standing in the way. And any editors ignoring the restriction can be individually blocked/topic-banned without having to count the number of reverts. Abecedare (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Kris Jenner

• Kris Jenner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reset pending changes settings, as this article is semi-protected indefinitely. Regards :) 190.160.21.173 (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 01:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Current requests for edits to a protected page

Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests

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.

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

Jason Momoa

• Jason Momoa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please update the relationship truth and accept so this has its calmness back because of the other misleading and false information about Adria. Jason Momoa was just hanging around and the other pulled the misleading information off only because of a picture and he is in a marriage commitment already with Nicolle A.Morea and she is being damaged right now for no reason while not being a lie and the other being a lie and please take Adria out and protect the page further, because the other are on who you know what and they aren't normal at all, they are having something and over doing it definitely with damaging people and they damaged over 200 tausend people on the Instagram of Jason Momoa as well and went on Nicolle A.Morea too and even twisted all and really done a big bubu. Adria is not to get to near to and the only she gets near is for the promotional points of the other movie and no dating a marriage committed man who is with someone else. 2A01:599:A30:B2F7:BBD9:EFEF:AFFB:B0BA (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done – Block evasion, WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Moreamomoa. Favonian (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Create a level 3 header with a link to the article in question, then a {{Pagelinks}} template and then the reason. It looks like this: Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) your request here. ~~~~

Handled requests

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