Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
| 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 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 | ||
|
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 |
Current requests for increase in protection level
Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create 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.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 22:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Lectonar (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long-term persistent vandalism by IP editors. Apocheir (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent in Additional of unsourced or poorly sourced content. — 64.18.11.5 (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. 54rt678 (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Reason: High level of IP vandalism Betoota44 (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Persistent vandalism from IP Users. Kurogaga (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by I.P editors. Flat Out (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent disruptive editing and addition of unsourced content increased by IP users. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Skitash (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Editor is disrupting article with POV and modern politics. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – An ip address mislabeling the film as a 'slasher' even though no reliable film sources label it as such. (note: this is my first time using Twinkle). Clammodest (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Even shorter TLDR - temporary semiprotection Talkpage spam (mostly IPs) repeatedly making edit requests/new discussions about Trump's new picture. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Longer reason: See Talk:Donald Trump § Duplicate edit requests/discussions for the discussion I opened on this issue. Long story short, ever since Trump's "official" inaugural photo was released, there has been a plethora of users attempting to get it replaced/added on many pages - the most prevalent being his page, for obvious reasons. The issue is that there is no evidence whatsoever this image is a free image, and there is actually evidence that the image is non-free (either copyrighted, or barred by a NC restriction). See, for example, the current deletion request on Commons. For historical reference, this also happened in 2017 - Trump "hijacked" a private photographer's image (including posting it on whitehouse.gov claiming it was public domain after his inauguration) without their permission, and the photographer confirmed to VRT/OTRS on Commons (confirmed by multiple VRT members in that discussion in 2017) that they never permitted such. It seems likely that the same is happening here, as a user on Commons has claimed that they spoke to the photographer who wants a NC restriction on this image.
Sorry for the length of this request, but TLDR: there's tons of talk page spam (edit requests or otherwise) from mostly IP editors trying to get this almost-certainly-copyrighted image replaced in his page. I know talkpages are rarely protected, but I'm requesting temporary (maybe a week, to cover the inauguration itself) semiprotection of the talkpage to see if it may help. Any alternative ideas are welcome on the talkpage itself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
As one of those dealing with the problem firsthand, I'm mixed. In my view, the copyright issue isn't really relevant here; that's just background. Rather, it's the recent onslaught of drive-bys who (1) are misusing the edit request facility because they are too fucking lazy to read the information put in front of them during the edit request path (a continuous problem not unique to this situation), and (2) for some unfathomable reason assume they are the first to think of proposing the new image, so don't bother to look for an existing discussion before edit-requesting. (At the Trump article and other well-attended articles, the edit request facility is always far more trouble than it's worth—probably 95%+ of edit requests at Trump are "not done", and the other 5%− could just as easily use the normal "New section" path—but that's a different discussion.) Ultimately, I think the question is how much useful contribution is the ATP getting recently from IPs and brand-new accounts, and I think the answer is not a lot. I guess I'd lean toward supporting temp semi. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I am normally loath to protect article talk-pages, but we need to get some respite on this one here. My hope is that it will somewhat die down aftter inauguration has taken place. Lectonar (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Reason: The page protection for the article just expired few hours ago, and it appears the sockpuppeteer behind two recently blocked accounts, is restoring their unreferenced edits once again. Hotwiki (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Repeated WP:SUSPECT violations following his recent arrest: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Badbluebus (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Aqurs1 (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Continued BLP violations/vandalism after previous protection expired. – Recoil16 (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Reason: High level of IP vandalism Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Significant portion of edits are either vandalism calling the subject of the article a scam or replacing the founder's name with Hindi swear words, or reverts of said vandalism. Requesting 6 months to 1 year of protection. Tube·of·Light 08:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in protection level
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.
Current requests for edits to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
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.
Add “by June 30, 2024” to the sentence: The Lancet has estimated 70,000 deaths due to traumatic injuries.[8] Seahumidity (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
In paragraph 4 is this assertion: "In private, White House staffers and Biden's family took measures to conceal and compensate for apparent declines in his acuity." There is no source cited for this consequential claim. The "apparent decline" of mental acuity in Biden, a lifetime stutterer, is a topic of contention. Rnperry (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Done Removed. We must source EVERYTHING, especially in BLPs. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 05:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? Nothing is directly sourced in the entire lead for that article, it generally follows the practice of citations in body, not lead, from MOS:LEADCITE. There is however, an entire section in that article that backs up that point. Does the OP think that:
A tight-knit group of select staffers and Biden's family emerged during his presidency that insulated him from others. Biden's staff routinely adapted his schedule and activities to accommodate his needs as he aged and conceal signs of declining cognitive ability. White House staffers took on unusually strong roles as gatekeepers for Biden, limiting meetings with cabinet secretaries, lawmakers, and other officials, and restricting the information made available to him. Events Biden attended were tightly scripted and limited.
- was because he had a stutter? There are multiple sources backing it up, from the NYT, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Axios. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I would like to request that... (the status section for the front page should be labeled as “ceasefire” until the ceasefire ends. This is in accordance with the recently-reached agreement.) . LordOfWalruses (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Handled requests
A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.