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

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.

Anushka Sen

• Anushka Sen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anushka sen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Please WP:SALT Anushka Sen & Anushka sen. Pages are being repeatedly recreated. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Automated comment: @AKS.9955: This request cannot be parsed. Please ensure it follows formatting consistent with the current or previous methods of submission.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Fixed — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Creation protected Salted the second one; the first one already is creation-protected. Lectonar (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Multiple airport pages

• Southwest Florida International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Midway International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bradley International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pending changes protection: Multiple airport pages such as Southwest Florida International Airport and Midway International Airport has seen tremendous amounts of vandalism from various IPs. There are a couple more pages as well. Bradley International Airport is another example. Please put pending changes protection to these pages so reviewers can review these edits so the vandalism is not immediately accepted. Thanks, *AirportUpdater* (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Automated comment: @*AirportUpdater*: This request cannot be parsed. Please ensure it follows formatting consistent with the current or previous methods of submission.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  I cannot as this involves more than one page. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  Listed what was mentioned at least. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Abomination (comics)

• Abomination (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Childish vandalism from a longtime IP sock vandal who thinks fictional characters are real. See this section in my sandbox for a summary of this. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Declined per below Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Elders of the Universe

• Elders of the Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: Childish vandalism from a longtime IP sock vandal who thinks fictional characters are real. See this section in my sandbox for a summary of this. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Declined I looked at the edits and determined they could be good faith; I can understand the article is about something fictional without the word "fictional" having to be there. Sounds like a good copyedit to me. No protection necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333, trust me mate, this is vandalism. The word "fictional" is standard for these sorts of articles if you didn't already know. Removing it over and over and over and over again is vandalism. Many users have tried talking to this user about this over a period of at least two years and the vandal has never said anything. They have acknowledged that they are aware that they have been told to stop making these edits because they have removed posts off the talk pages of the IPs they use. Note that around ten pages have been protected multiple times because of this. Around ten protecting administrators, dozens of reverting users, myself of course, and a few people who participated in a discussion I once started would disagree with your statement that these edits are productive copyediting. There is no way around it, these edits are vandalism. If you haven't already, take at look at the section in my sandbox which I linked you to above. It contains a list of every IP I have seen making this edit (the oldest activity being April 2014), a basic summary of this situation, and a diff to an admin displaying the opposite opinion to yours. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not believe this is vandalism, which I define as a deliberate and obvious attempt to make Wikipedia worse. It may be disruptive, against consensus, and annoying, but I don't believe that removing the word "fictional" makes the article obviously worse. Indeed, I would argue it makes it more concise and more readable, which is a good thing, so I'm with the IP on this one. More to the point, there is not enough continual and frequent changes on this article to warrant a protection. If things are as severe as you believe they are, I would recommend starting a thread on WP:ANI instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Just know that everybody else who has directly commented on this would disagree with you. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am with Ritchie333 here; actually I would have said: Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. In olden times I would have said: just watchlist and revert; page protection is not the way to go here; much to heavy-handed. Lectonar (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Lectonar, I expected the decline for there not being much activity but I requested anyway because I was told by one of the protecting admins that waiting for three instances of the vandalism rather than one is "overly bureaucratic" (diff). I can't get over how you both see it as productive copyediting though. You two are literally the only two users – out of dozens who have commented on this – who have not considered this behaviour to be vandalism. It is clear vandalism. Even if you didn't want to use that term, one simply can not argue that these edits are productive. Watching and reverting is generally how I handle this. I usually only request protection when the edit occurs say five times in one day. Again, I requested 'early' this time because I was pretty much told to do so (same diff as linked above). —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You are reading something into my words which I didn't say: I am with Ritchie333 as to declining the request, but as a "nea" (Actually he provided this rationale too: "...there is not enough continual and frequent changes on this article to warrant a protection" . The frequency is just not high enough. Fell free to bring this up at ANI, though. Lectonar (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather cut off all my toes with a pair of scissors than spend one minute at ANI. I don't have ten hours spare and it wouldn't achieve anything anyway. It's good to hear that you have some sense in regard to this matter. I'll handle this junk how I have always handled it, revert on the spot, occasionally request page protection. I assume this person isn't stopping anytime soon so I'll likely be playing this game with them until I am no longer active here. —DangerousJXD (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2016 (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.

Carl Hewitt

• Carl Hewitt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please allow editing talk page and article.

Carl (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(non-administrator comment) The page can be edited by the user above; he appears to be autoconfirmed already. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(non-administrator comment) My misunderstanding. The editor requested this to allow new and unregistered editors to edit. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not requesting that I be able to edit this talk page or the article. Instead, I am requesting that others be able to edit the talk page and the article. Carl (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You should always start with the protecting admin, so let's ask Sarah what she thinks. Katie^talk 21:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I added indefinite semi-protection to the article because of all the trouble, which is likely to start up again if it's lifted. I also semi-protected the talk page in 2011, lifted it in 2013, and it was later restored, mostly recently by Ruud Koot. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd also advice against lifting the semi-protection, given the long history of problematic edits from anonymous users and single-purpose accounts. —Ruud 23:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Not unprotected It seems to me that what the requester really wants is more eyes on their edit suggestions. Perhaps they might want to consider using WP:RSN and WP:COIN for broader input toward their specific edit proposals. There doesn't seem to be a benefit from opening up the article to anonymous users and, based on the two comments above, there appears to be a definite downside.--regentspark (comment) 00:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Zootopia

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

Unprotection: This page wants to be edited by IPs and moving by autoconfirmed users. 112.134.81.133 (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Declined The page actually does not have a say in this; disruption was too great, and I do not think it will be better when we lift the protection. Lectonar (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Try again unprotect 112.134.81.133 (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2016 (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.

Handled requests

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