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.
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Call me paranoid, but I believe this deserves to be indefinitely (or at the very least, temporarily) semi-protected, since most of the edits to this page have been unconstructive. OpalYosutebito (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @OpalYosutebito: That's difficult. It won't be indefinitely protected but it conceivably could qualify for temporary. The problem is that the bad posts by IPs are occurring roughly every two or four weeks (I did not see any good posts). Generally, that is regarded as not enough of a problem to warrant protection. I'll leave this for other opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Frequent vandalism recently. Stickymatch 06:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Persistent unreferenced edits from IP users. Hotwiki (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Semi-protection: Page is regularly getting IP vandalism due to football rivalry and the political name associations. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing by IPs. BilletsMauves€500 08:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Ongoing since January 2025. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Why is an Indian editor so persistent to delete content from the page of a Bangladeshi Member of Parliament? Ratnahastin has been accused of gaming the system and misreporting editors who did not violate Wikipedia policy. In fact this is part of a wider pattern and coordinated campaign against Bangladesh-related content on Wikipedia, which is now being discussed in public domain forums like Substack: https://sherlockbd.substack.com/p/wikipedia-and-the-hindutva-war-against 203.202.240.244 (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- There are reasons why this content is important. A former Prime Minister of India knew this gentleman (who is the subject of the aforementioned article). So its absurd that an Indian editor is blocking legitimate content and gaming the system in the process. 203.202.240.244 (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IPs and a new ID, likely the same person, have been repeatedly adding the name of a non-notable person (likely WP:PROMO) in the list of notables - initially without any links/red-links [1] [2], [3]; later using false backlinks [4] [5]. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Edit warring, possible CTOPS and BLPCRIME issues. Borgenland (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple vandalism from IPs and new users these days. MileyCytrus (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: 87.116.160.95 (talk · contribs) replace original fair use Kenny McCormick file (cannot be uploaded to Commons), by the way, (Marko Mijajlović80 (talk · contribs)) uploaded Kenny McCormick files and pretended it was his own files.
I already alerted Adeletron 3030 (talk · contribs) on his Commons talk page. Anyways, I will no longer revert Kenny McCormick edits to avoid starting a war editing. A consensus can be found for Kenny McCormick, but for the Commons uploads, it's copyright violation.
Thanks. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Vandalism. Ash (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Favonian (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Removing Redirect by IP. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – There's been long-term sockpuppetry by editors with clear ties to the subject itself trying to remove well-sourced, negative information. Things had been pretty quiet for a few months before starting up again, so not sure whether temporary or indefinite makes more sense here, and won't prescribe one as I am WP:INVOLVED. signed, Rosguill talk 18:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Pending-changes protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Given the sporadic nature of the edits, pending changes seems suitable. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous vandalism by IPs. Agent 007 (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Permanent semi-protection needed Vellutis (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent disruptive editing by anonymous editors. livelikemusic (TALK!) 19:15, 16 February 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.
Reason: The page no longer attracts vandalism as the subject is no longer contentious. The person is no longer active in politics and the page view is low compared to previous data. The page is only protected due to one vandalism attempt by an IP address which had not edited wikipedia since. I see no reason why there could be persistent vandalism once the protection is decreased. Therefore, I request that the page be no longer protected. CS012831 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- @CS012831: Biographies of still-living people are themselves a contentious topic. Have you spoken with the protecting admin? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Reason: The article has been semi-protected indefinitely since 2023 over anti-vax edits. It's been over a year since then (closer to two years), so it might be a good idea to at least experiment with pending changes protection. The protecting admin Courcelles is currently inactive (last edit was in December and has generally been inactive for some time), so bringing up here. I'm aware of the current political climate, but as the subject is Japanese and not American, I don't necessarily see that as a major issue. This time, rather than full unprotection, I'm merely asking for a reduction to pending changes protection as an experiment to see if long-term semi is even still warranted (this is per the testing unprotection guideline). If the issue resumes, then semi can always been reimplemented. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
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.
"Noted for his addiction to sensual pleasures, he was confined by his father at Panhala Fort after violating a Brahmin woman"
The above statement should be removed from this page on Wikipedia. Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj had never imprisoned or placed Chatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj under surveillance on Panhala Fort - its proven by many authentic historical records. In fact, while working with Diler Khan, Sambhaji Maharaj was accompanied by his wife .. Durga Devi Bhosale. In fact, the first historical document (bakhar) which maligns Sambhaji Maharaj's character was written by none other than Malhar Ramrav Chitnis. He was the great grandson of Balaji Aavji. Malhar Ramrao Chitnis authored the Chitnis Bakhar (चिटणीस बखर), portraying his ancestors as loyal and innocent while depicting Chhatrapati Sambhaji in a negative light. In the 19th century, as the British began drafting India's history, they faced a shortage of contemporary sources on Sambhaji due to the destruction of the Maratha Daftar Khana (record room) during the 1689 siege of Raigad. Seizing the opportunity, they adopted this Bakhar—despite it not being a contemporary source—without much scrutiny. Early Marathi historians later relied on these British narratives as the foundation of their studies, further cementing a distorted image of Sambhaji. By the early 20th century, this misrepresentation had spread through numerous plays, novels, and dramas—after all, sensational tales of "mad, bad kings" are always popular. Thus began the systematic character assassination of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. It wasn’t until the 1960s that the renowned historian V.C. Bendre debunked these falsehoods through a critical analysis of authentic contemporary sources. His extensive 700-page work was later summarized by scholar Dr. Jaysingrao Pawar in Chatrapati Sambhaji: Ek Chikitsa. 167.103.3.16 (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- This appears to relate to the article Sambhaji. I have adjusted the header accordingly. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
"In 1683, he invaded Portuguese Goa. In the ensuing battle, Maratha soldiers raped Christian women and later sold captured men and women to Arabs and the Danish."
I want to know the source of this statement. Which historical document of the Maratha Kingdom or Maharashtra government records corroborates this statement? 167.103.3.16 (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- This appears to relate to the article Sambhaji. I have adjusted the header accordingly. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
"Sambhaji's behaviour, including alleged irresponsibility and addiction to sensual pleasures, led Shivaji to imprison his son at Panhala fort in 1678 to curb his behaviour.[5][6] While another theory suggests that Sambhaji was imprisoned at the Panhala bec"
Please remove this sentence - All authentic historical documents confirm that Shivaji Maharaj did not imprison or kept Sambhaji Maharaj under surveillance. 167.103.3.16 (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- This appears to relate to the article Sambhaji. I have adjusted the header accordingly. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Handled requests
A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.