Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 261: Line 261:


'''Semi-protection:''' Persistent addition of [[WP:INTREF|unsourced or poorly sourced content]] – A blocked user using IP 103.134.25.90 keeps adding original research & his own thought. See [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Global_block_for_103.134.25.90 meta]. Even if you block 103.134.25.90, this sock will come back with new IP. A page protection is necessary. [[User:আফতাবুজ্জামান|আফতাবুজ্জামান]] ([[User talk:আফতাবুজ্জামান|talk]]) 02:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
'''Semi-protection:''' Persistent addition of [[WP:INTREF|unsourced or poorly sourced content]] – A blocked user using IP 103.134.25.90 keeps adding original research & his own thought. See [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Global_block_for_103.134.25.90 meta]. Even if you block 103.134.25.90, this sock will come back with new IP. A page protection is necessary. [[User:আফতাবুজ্জামান|আফতাবুজ্জামান]] ([[User talk:আফতাবুজ্জামান|talk]]) 02:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
::: please, don't protect the page, the things which I edit are not vandalism or out of policy. If you block it, I will not be able to edit the page. [[Special:Contributions/103.134.25.90|103.134.25.90]] ([[User talk:103.134.25.90|talk]]) 03:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


=== [[:Jared Goff]] ===
=== [[:Jared Goff]] ===

Revision as of 03:35, 31 January 2021

"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

    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.

    Cho Mi-yeon

    Semi-protection: persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced information. Alex (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined @Alexanderlee: Sorry but I only see one recent IP edit that could justify protection, and that was adding unsourced detail which is not vandalism however undesirable it is. Request again with more detail if problem persists. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ibn Khaldun

    Temporary semi-protection: Many reverts in the last weeks/months, mostly of IP-edits, some tagged as "possible vandalism". Phlsph7 (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)

    Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism and original research related to contestant progress template. Gagaluv1 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade

    Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring by several parties. VQuakr (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Kurtis Conner

    Indefinite semi-protection: High level of vandalism (repeatedly adding false claims to article due to longstanding joke that Conner is in the band Wallows). Was previously protected, but vandalism has increased since the protection was removed. – JayCoactus (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Park Shin-hye

    Semi-protection: persistent removal of reliably sourced information. Alex (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Music (2021 film)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Too much edit warring. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dennis Man

    Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – After the recent transfer, there are many edits and users trying to impose their "way" in which how the article should look like. 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 00:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @8Dodo8: This article cannot be extended confirmed protected due to majority of distruption come from IP users. So IMO, the article would be likely semi-protected. 110.137.117.75 (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, plus we would not ECP unless semi-protection had been tried first. But most recent IP and new user edits appear to be in good faith and we would not protect a page just to keep it a certain way. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Spence (legal scholar)

    Temporary semi-protection or pending changes protection: Persistent vandalism and violation of WP:BLP - this page has been protected twice over the last few months. Almost as soon as it is unprotected the same IP users continue to return and add unsourced material to the article that violates WP:BLP - sources are added but the sources do not say what the edits say - they are designed to portray the subject in an entirely negative light (example diff as case in point, as second case in point by new registered user who did this as their first edit). Some of the sources don't even discuss the subject of the article. I cleaned up this page the first time IP edits happened and kept in material that was supported by sources, so the continued edits are disruptive and violate Wikipedia policies. This needs a longer-term protection or to have pending changes protection applied. Deus et lex (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For further context, see earlier RPP entries here and here. Since I last posted there has been a further attempt to replace the content, again by a different IP user. Deus et lex (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... this is Deus et lex's most edited article, and their username matches the educational background of the subject. In March last year, there was a complaint from Bondegezou that the article was very promotionally written, and they extensively re-edited as a result. Deus et lex registered their account a few weeks prior to the complaint. At that time, SKZ2020 was still active, an account whose sole purpose it was to inject promotional material into Michael Spence (legal scholar). It could be said that SKZ2020 became inactive shortly after the appearance of Deus et lex. Samsara 12:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Samsara, the accusation of sockpuppetry is unfair and uncalled for. I have not edited at the SKZ2020 account (run a checkuser if you want) and the claim that "their username matches the educational background of the subject" is baseless, I have nothing to do with them. My history will show I only started editing that page well after starting my account (I came across the page randomly while editing articles on Anglican priests and noticed it was unduly negative and not backed up by sources). Most of my edits have been to get rid of unsourced material and report it to this page. What I did after the first time I reported this was go through the IP edits, and extract any material that was validly sourced and put it back into the article even if it was negative (there wasn't much - but there are some things like a no confidence motion and criticism about links with China). Most of the material the IPs are trying to add back to the page are not supported by any source, or the sources don't even mention him. You can see some of the examples in the diffs above. I'm very happy for people to put in other critical material, but it's got to be backed up by sources to comply with BLP. I"m trying to clean up the page, not add promotional material. Deus et lex (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Try not to get caught up in lies. You removed mention of the no confidence motion. You did not reinstate it as implied above. Samsara 13:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll partially retract, but it seems to me the no confidence motion got buried at the bottom of a section where it doesn't belong, chronologically. Samsara 13:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for retracting (I'd still like the sockpuppet accusation retracted). I have fixed it up and improved on it now anyway (using your new separate section). The chronological thing is a fair point but it was hard to add a separate section where there was only one source. Deus et lex (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Ang Probinsyano episodes

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Frequently edited by Ajhenson21 LTA. MarioJump83! 04:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ludwig Ahgren

    Temporary semi-protection: High level of vandalism by IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts. Rosalina2427 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Julius the Cat

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – I can't seem to find a revision that was done in good faith by any IP in the last week. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    King of Kings (Don Omar album)

    Extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Repeated edits by sock to sales figures without sources or with sources that 404. This article has been protected previously for the same reason. Robvanvee 07:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    James Dreyfus

    Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Persistent disruptive editing, boasting about such on Twitter [[1]] AutumnKing (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Max Meyer (footballer)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The Parting Glass

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Chronic targetting by IPs to represent origin as solely Irish, contrary to sources and elaboration in lede. Occasional other IP disruption. Happy with pending changes protection as alt., if deemed more appropriate. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Rahul Chahar

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Kriti Sanon

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Extensive disruptive editing by multiple IPs over several weeks, invariably seeking to delete parts of the lead, academic sources, and edit in-citation quotes from academic sources, with either little or no engagement in talk. Has necessitated reversion my multiple editors over several weeks: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Recent editing has included removal of ~80% of the lead and edit warring by IP with several editors - reversions: [8] [9] [10] ; seems to be ongoing. Cambial foliage❧ 15:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would implore any reviewer of this to carefully inspect the contributions and behaviour of Cambial Yellowing. They are rude, uncooperative and their account is used not to improve articles but primarily to ensure that this particular article starts with the the misrepresented opinion of one person and present it as something stated by the UK Government. Their motives could only be explained as the actions of a political activist who wishes to present a twisted representation of an act of Parliament. When inspecting the text of the act or considering highly reliable sources Cambial Yellowing performs acrobatics to ignore, it's clear that they contradict the POV Cambial Yellowing continues to revert repeatedly rather than take on board anything discussed in the talk page. Their request here is simply part of a disturbing pattern of behaviour. For the record, the references they're claiming have been deleted remain but someone has finally come along to improve the article and Cambial Yellowing is moving onto new tactics revert the lead to their preferred version and prevent others from changing it. They are also likely a sockpuppet of FDW777. Factmachine66 (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry is a serious (and dubious, in this case) accusation. I hope you have evidence for that statement, and make your case at WP:SPI if so, or withdraw it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I support CY's request. The case made by Factmachine66 is inaccurate because they have misread a citation bundle as a single citation. The sources in the bundle are of the highest standard. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The above user is at least the second SPA created for the purpose of looking to remove what they apparently view as offending material. This is why it was initially listed for ECP. Cambial foliage❧ 21:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Talysh assimilation

    Semi-protection: Denying the authority of sources and immediately delete. Mad Irishman1789 (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Talyshstan (region)

    Semi-protection: frequent editing of articles with Talysh titles. Mad Irishman1789 (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Talysh National Movement

    Semi-protection: frequent editing of articles with Talysh titles. Mad Irishman1789 (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Cadusii

    Semi-protection: Possible denial and removal of reliable sources. Mad Irishman1789 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Shelley Hennig

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bacha bazi

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Crossroads -talk- 16:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Danielle Bernstein

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hotan Prefecture

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP ranges constantly targeting this article even after one of its ranges were blocked for disruptive editing. Same IP ranges [11], [12] [13], etc BenkovacZrinjski (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    NFL playoffs

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Consistent vandalism and/or misuse of editing for the last week or two. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:2020–21 NFL playoffs

    Temporary semi-protection: Extend the previous protection (expired on Thursday) through the next 15 days. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohun Bagan A.C.

    Extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – addition of Fan POV stuff continuously in the article since this club and another club merged last year.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @ArnabSaha: Hey, i see in the page history. Most not all editors that editing this page are extended confirmed users so applying ECP to this cannot resolve the problem. This is maybe needs apply a full protection due to fact it is a content dispute. You also must recognized that Debankan Mullick that contribute most in the article is also Extended confirmed users. 110.137.117.75 (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbër Zeneli

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Saturday Night Live (season 45)

    Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism. Article currently has pending changes applied, but IPs continue to reinsert the same disruptive edits. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Greenville, North Carolina

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Frequent target of TikTok spam; see also filter log. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dustin Poirier

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Disruptive and placing unsourced fight method/content. Cassiopeia(talk) 22:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Maroon 5

    Temporary semi-protection: A IP user keeps performing the same disruptive edits over and over. Bowling is life (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Liz Cheney

    Temporary pending changes: Liz Cheney has unlocked a notable Wikipedia achievement, attracting simultaneous vandalism from drive-by IP editors on both sides of the political divide. This is a slow cadence of blatant vandalism covering the last couple weeks and can probably be handled by the PC reviewers. Chetsford (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pending changes is a pain, requiring reverts for the BLP violations or confirmations for minor adjustments. Let's try this after the recent three days. Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Philosophy Tube

    Temporary semi-protection: Article subject recently came out as trans. Several editors are currently warring over inclusion of deadname without consulting the relevant policy. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note also that there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about the issue. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 23:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong objection to semi-protection as many of the edit warriors are autoconfirmed and this would privilege them above other editors, despite the fact that many are making no effort to engage in discussion. Several are extended-confirmed (though usually offering good faith edit summaries or also discussing on talk). See WP:ROUGHSEMI. Very few bad faith or vandalism edits, based on an editing dispute with autoconfirmed participants and constructive IP edits are being made. Full protection or no protection. — Bilorv (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Set it to full protection and use the deadname version that was used in the Elliot Page article (Same situation).2A02:8388:1603:BA00:4919:8F4B:3C67:B039 (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi three days Sorry Bilorv but working out what is going on would take quite a while. I see IPs edit warring. If edit warring continues from autoconfirmed users, please ping me and I'll have a look. You might do that from article talk where you propose that the article be reset to version at a particular date/time and protected to allow a full discussion or RfC. If it's just a couple of editors, warn them and I'll let them know that further edit warring will result in a block. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: working out what is going on would take quite a while is the reason I made the summary. I don't agree that one should take an admin action without a full understanding of the situation, and if you can't afford the time then let another admin take it. If there was serious harm in the "wrong version" then I would understand urgency but this is just back-and-forth over two reasonable versions of an article, neither of which there is yet consensus for. — Bilorv (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I looked more and fortunately a recent edit by an autoconfirmed user demonstrated your point. I'm watching for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Carter (musician)

    Indefinite pending changes: BLP policy violations. Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended confirmed protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pauline Hanson's One Nation

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Frequent IP vandalism, edit warring against consensus. Was previously semi protected. Bacondrum 00:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @Bacondrum: Hmm, I saw this request in my watchlist and acted before reading what was here. It might get protected for a few months and then possibly a year but indefinite is very rare. If you ping me when problems resume I'll protect for longer. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Johnuniq Bacondrum 01:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ida B. Wells

    Indefinite semi-protection: Recent possible vandalism, likely racist, from unregistered editors. – Eurodog (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    BBC News

    Pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Low-level IP and new user disruption; most of the recent edits from these users are reverts. Aspening (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    2021 in Philippine television

    Indefinite semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism, adding unsourced material. AsphereOfficial (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Macaron

    Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP / new account vandalism. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Talk pages are not semi-protected unless there is high levels of vandalism and/or WP:BLP violations. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Taron Egerton

    Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. KyleJoantalk 01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    B. J. McLeod

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Zappa⚡Matic 02:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Islamic sexual jurisprudence

    Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – A blocked user using IP 103.134.25.90 keeps adding original research & his own thought. See meta. Even if you block 103.134.25.90, this sock will come back with new IP. A page protection is necessary. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    please, don't protect the page, the things which I edit are not vandalism or out of policy. If you block it, I will not be able to edit the page. 103.134.25.90 (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jared Goff

    Temporary semi-protection: subject is reportedly going to be traded - needs to be protected from people prematurely changing team. Troutfarm27 (Talk) 03:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) There have also been some vandalism issues on this page. Aspening (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Rockford, Michigan

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Charleston, South Carolina

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Another frequent target of adding names to the Notable People section. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:11, 31 January 2021 (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.

    • 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

    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.

    Shortcuts

    WP:FA

    Reason: (The redirect, not its target): The page was preemptively protected without prior deletion in logs. No prior history of vandalism. Requesting extended confirmed protection or autoconfirmed protection as WP:Featured articles is autoconfirmed-protected. 2003 LN6 07:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Souhardya De

    Unprotection: seems notable now, valid AfC at Draft:Souhardya De. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy ping to @Ohnoitsjamie: (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:List of countries without armed forces

    Unprotection: No legitimate reason to protect this talk page. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For admin, please read ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK. Matthew hk (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests
    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.
    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

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

    Handled requests

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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=1003877509"