Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oshwah (talk | contribs) at 05:26, 15 February 2019 (→‎Daniel Brandt: There, now it should read better...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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.

    Shortcuts

    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.


    Olympiacos F.C.

    Temporary extended protection: Persistent Vandalism. Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: @Lorry Gundersen: Can you please point out specific recent edits that are vandalism and briefly explain why they are vandalism? And which ones are from autoconfirmed editors? Large portions of the article are unsourced so it is difficult to tell. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Other administrators: please feel free to resolve this as you see fit based on the response, especially if I take too long to respond. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reactions to the Russian invasion of Ukraine

    Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Sanctioned topic -

    WP:RUSUKR. – Primium (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Prem Suri

    Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Disruption resumed within hours of expiry of the previous 1-week protection. As the disruption comes from new accounts that are already autoconfirmed, ECP protection might be necessary. — kashmīrī TALK 09:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigma male

    Semi-protection: Persistent

    vandalism – Consistent vandalism or addition of poor quality content immediately after a protection expired. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Claudia Jessie

    Reason: Repeated BLP violation (i.e. addition of unsourced date of birth) by several IPs and also User:Pumpkin7135 GrindtXX (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    West Ferris Secondary School

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Article is attracting various promotional editors & vandals. Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Theresa McQueen

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent disuprtive editing, and long-term violation of MOS policy. livelikemusic (TALK!) 13:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last
      Talk to my owner:Online 13:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    Rhodesia

    Pending changes: Persistent disruptive editing – Several NPOV violations and vandalism cases. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jenna Ellis

    Semi-protection: Persistent

    vandalism. FMSky (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edcel Greco Lagman

    Reason: Request ECP due to vandalism and unexplained and falsely pretensed removal of content by SPA. Borgenland (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2024 University of Amsterdam pro-Palestinian campus occupation

    Reason: Requesting extended-confirmed protection for this page. Reasons: preventing vandalism, Israel/Palestine conflict, etc. Yello231 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Missoula Children's Theatre

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – On main page for DYK, just getting driveby poor quality edits to add puffery. Shut it down to anon IPs until tomorrow or until off DYK, please. Montanabw(talk) 16:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of foreign-born samurai in Japan

    Full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Edit war on

    WP:ANI#Talk:Yasuke is a complete dumpster fire and [1]. Thibaut (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ymblanter (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—
      Talk to my owner:Online 21:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    Droop quota

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. –Sincerely, A Lime 18:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Will Turner

    Semi-protection: Persistent

    MOS:FILMCAST stating "Subjective interpretation using labels such as protagonist, antagonist, villain, or main character, should be avoided. Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—
      Talk to my owner:Online 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    Sass (style sheet language)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent

    MrOllie (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Here's an example of what I'm talking about. It's a blatant BLP violation. -
    MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—
      Talk to my owner:Online 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Various IPs continually adding protagonist & antagonist info here as well. Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The 'protagonist' stuff is a hallmark of an LTA called Jinnifer, see
    MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    These appear to be unrelated; the most recent IP is registered to schools in Manitoba.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One IP from yesterday at Will Turner and from May 12 here shares the same geographical area as the LTA, though.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They tend to use VPNs and proxies these days.
    MrOllie (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—
      Talk to my owner:Online 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    Craig Berube

    Temporary semi-protection: Non-official sources reporting he’s signed on as Maple Leafs HC, which IP editors are continuously adding to the article. The Kip 20:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—
      Talk to my owner:Online 21:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Already protected by administrator Ohnoitsjamie.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DatBot/Filter reporter/Run

    Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent

    vandalism – Seems at least one LTA has found this page. DatGuy hasn't edited in about two weeks but I doubt he'll object. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Extended confirmed protected--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diet Coke

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent

    vandalism. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 20:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—
      Talk to my owner:Online 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anurag Sinha

    Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent

    sockpuppetry – Sock and meat DE on a project page.  // Timothy :: talk  20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Mufasa: The Lion King

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—
      Talk to my owner:Online 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    Tom Holland

    Semi-protection: Persistent

    vandalism – Subject to vandalism and addition of unsourced material by unregistered/new users. FrB.TG (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Gua sha

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent

    talk) 18:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: warned user Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Effeminacy

    Temporary full protection: Persistent poorly explained changes without discussion. Should be discussed. Request about 36 hour lock. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 36 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I warned the edit warrior, who is ripe for a block but was not waned Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jay Rock

    Semi-protection: Repeated attempts to add that the artist is Grammy award winning to the first sentence of the article by IP editors. This is not done per

    Beyonce do not lead with "Grammy award winning". StaticVapor message me! 21:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    @STATicVapor: Though that may be the case, I think it'd be appropriate to mention the Grammy somewhere in the lead (like Beyonce's article). I personally don't see a need to protect the page for this reason, just a need to mention the Grammy somewhere in the lead (but not the first sentence). Airplaneman ✈ 21:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Mark Dice

    Extended confirmed as SP has not stopped the disruption. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm involved here, but I was also about to come and request this as a
    Washington Times is all but advertising it as well. Quite frankly, based on sheer numbers, we can't deal with this. We normally don't like protecting talk pages, but I think under discretionary sanctions it would be within an uninvolved admins remit. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Done Enigmamsg 04:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Palestine Solidarity Movement

    Indefinite long-term extended protection: 30/500,

    enforcement. 2607:FEA8:A75F:F823:60A8:58E5:34BD:8901 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. Samsara 02:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Greater Israel

    Indefinite long-term extended protection:

    Arbitration enforcement – This article that is related to Arab–Israeli conflict. ---2607:FEA8:A75F:F823:60A8:58E5:34BD:8901 (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: Since I've made an edit, it's best that someone else assesses this. Samsara 02:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Columbia University

    Permanent semi-protection: Persistent Edit warring and

    vandalism. This level-5 vital article is semi protected almost every week for a period of 1 week, twice in January for vandalism and 3RR. Due to the name recognition, it is subject to consistent vandalism from trolls and competing institutions. Disputed contents are added and warred regularly. It's sister college's page is already locked due to vandalism so I am requesting permanent semi-protection as it is already classified as a good article. (Nochorus (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC))[reply
    ]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Someone look it over and see if you agree. Can't go with indef. Not yet. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the solution here is okay but maybe increasing the semi-protection till April will be helpful. There seems to be a lot of vandalism from IPs and users getting banned for wikipuffery. But they rise up during admission seasons anyway. I do think semi-pretoection till April is better as most rejected candidates will stop caring around then. And people who don’t care about facts or reasoing will find ways to get around it anyway and WP community can take care of it then.(
    talk) 03:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC))[reply
    ]
    Done Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

    Indefinite extended confirmed:

    Arbitration enforcement. Banana19208 (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Declined not part of the conflict reasonably construed. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oru Adaar Love

    Temporary semi-protection: Film has just been released and has been subject to a lot of promo edits and fancruft in the past. That rubbish has started again. I guess a week or so of semi would do it. Sitush (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    List of programs broadcast by Jeepney TV

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. LG-Gunther :  Talk  05:16, 15 February 2019 (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

    Draft:Lifespan Integration

    Reason: Full creation protection seems unjustified. The corresponding

    Nickps (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    @
    threads critiques 15:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Even that sounds wrong to me to be honest. Protecting the draft but not the mainspace article is a weird thing to do. It's essentially directing any spam to mainspace. Since there has been no such spam all this time, I'd argue that the protection has outlived its purpose. But, lowering the protection would still be a positive in any case so I won't get too hung up on the level. Do XCP if you think it's right.
    Nickps (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It doesn't look like there's been any attempt to re-create the mainspace page after the AfD (which, I should note, post-dates the most recent draft deletion). —
    threads critiques 16:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Meh This is one of those cases who pop up from time to time where I am always on the fence. Yes, the page shouldn't be protected anymore (or only at lower level); on the other hand there is no expressed need to create a page under said draft. Lectonar (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles Banner

    Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because the edits were correct and not vandalism. Charles has three children, not two, and he did divorce Tetyana and had a relationship with someone else with whom he shares a child and whom he left mid-pregnancy. He wants to hide this information because he wants a picture perfect bio but people deserve to know the truth about their politicians. 2A00:23EE:2218:FD3:A528:9F83:6245:898B (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected – Please use an edit request to request specific changes to be made to the protected page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    january 20

    The article is simultaneously semi-protected as well as pending protected, both with indefinite deadlines. I thought there should be only one type of edit-protection, if not one indefinite and the other time-based like the page kate Ryan.102.159.242.79 (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—
      Talk to my owner:Online 20:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    All Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards ceremonies articles between 2005 and 2018

    Reason: Those pages have been protected by a user who is no longer active for the past 3 years. My question is, is the indefinite protection still necessary for the time being? I can already see that 2007 and 2012 editions have had their protection settings revoked. Furthermore, I checked the page logs of later ceremonial events and realized that they were protected at least once, except for the current year's page which is presently a redirect.102.159.242.79 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Brandt

    While page protection, by policy, is to used in a reactive measure and to stop disruption that's currently in progress and occurring at a rate that justifies its application, there are rare situations and circumstances where applying page protection outside of this realm is legitimate, justifiable, and beneficial to the project given the circumstances involved. Given this discussion and the arguments and input given as a whole, there's an overwhelming consensus by the participants that the semi protection applied to the article by
    WJBScribe was for reasons that fell into one of those rare circumstances where its use outside the realm of being reactionary was appropriate and warranted, and that the semi protection currently applied to the article should not be removed. Hence, I am closing this discussion and declining the request for unprotection and due to the consensus reached. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unprotection: As of the time of this posting,

    • The article receives about 22 daily views
    • The article is watched by 250 editors

    Samsara 15:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Can of worms time. Unless we are seeing legitimate edit requests, I'm disinclined. Too much history and disruption to take the risk. Further thoughts appreciated. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the discussion on WJB's talk and while I see Samsara's point, I'm inclined to agree with WJB's protection. Enigmamsg 20:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I still remember the times :)....no unprotection imho. Lectonar (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do too (I even created the Wikipedia Review article) and yes this should definitely remain semi protected. Fish+Karate 10:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A note that if anyone is looking for the old article the deleted history is at Daniel Brandt (activist). Fish+Karate 10:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no vandalism on article or in its history so their should not be protection Abote2 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Abote2: That is because the subject of the article is not what led to the protection in the first place...have a look at the permalinks provided above. Lectonar (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The musician himself isn't actually the problem — but unfortunately he happens to share the same name as somebody else who comes trailing an extremely problematic history, and certain people are very likely to try to hijack this article given half of one per cent of a chance to try. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously. The amount of disruption over the former subject is staggering. AfD's, ArbCom, admin's driven off Wikipedia. Probably the most damaging series of events in Wikipedia's history. Most of its been hidden. But if you search in the Wikipedia namespace for this name, you'll find enough to curl your hair. And yes, that legacy is the past disruption that justifies create protecting that page for this long and semi protecting that page now. That's why so many people still watch that page more than a decade later. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We have no evidence that this will continue. And if we keep it at semi, we'll likely never know and may be keeping an innocuous article under an iron dome. With PC1, at least we'll know whether there is a problem. Samsara 02:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish we had something like a ping|admin.... let's hear some more opinions, folks. Lectonar (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just post a notice about this discussion on the article talk page. That would be a place to start. And if there are a gazillion watchers, we should have a good discussion-- or crickets. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In so far as the possibility of disruption goes, there has already been a checkuser block because of a comment on the talk page. This article is a powder keg. Having said that, I have placed notice of this discussion here. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni and Risker: Or did I just strike a match? Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting with disappointment that @Samsara: opened this discussion seeking to overturn my protection of the article without (a) notifying me by ping or on my talkpage and (b) without setting out the full explanation I had given for the protection on my talkpage. The reasons given in this unprotection request fail to mention the problematic history of this page and could have had an unfortunate result if those responding to it had been newer users who were not been aware of that history. For ease of reference, I reproduce the central part my explanation for the protection (thank you @Dlohcierekim: for linking to the discussion):
      "I'm familiar with the general policy against pre-emptive protection, but I don't agree that this is pre-emptive. An article of this name has been the subject of sustained problematic editing and the protection is justified on that basis. The move protection is in effect just a continuation of my salting of the page post deletion, designed to prevent recreation of the article about the former subject. The semi protection is intended to reduce the chance casual reinsertion of material about the former subject, or a wholesale rewriting of the article. The protection is not speculative, it reflects my assessment of the particular risks posed by this article in the context of its wider history. In response to your point, leaving the page unprotected has already proved infeasible. The fact that the page history of problematic editing has been deleted, moved and oversighted does not mean that it should be disregarded when considering appropriate steps to protect the subjects of BLPs (and/or, for that matter, Wikipedians)."
      I stand by the protection, especially in light of the incident on the talkpage, and believe it would be reckless to unprotect. WJBscribe (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you acknowledge that the more discussion this takes, the worse it's likely to get, and that if you had simply never protected the article, it might still happily be sitting there, just as it did for the first 37 hours? Samsara 16:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't. The thing to do was to not create this unnecessary drama. To just accept the reasons given and move on. In fact, I think the thing to do now is to leave it be. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • That should have been the first (non-)move - to leave it be. Samsara 16:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Despite all that, the emerging consensus seems to be to let the protection stay. Lectonar (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • No point changing it now that it's received so much attention. Would have been great if this business could have been conducted quietly. Samsara 16:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Indeed, you could have emailed me instead of raising the issue on my talkpage. And you could have kept the discussion on my talkpage instead of raising it here on a prominent noticeboard. Or indeed you could have just respected my exercise of discretion and not concerned yourself unduly with this article at all... WJBscribe (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'll leave it to others to draw their conclusions about how successful our communication was, and whether emailing you instead could have resulted in a different outcome, given the evidence on your talk page. As for concerning themselves unduly... did you? Are you? Samsara 17:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Template talk:WikiProject Republic of Macedonia

    Unprotection: This is Admin only which is getting in the way of correcting the page per the decision to move the parent page to North Macadonia (see that talkpage). Legacypac (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to have already been unprotected. Please confirm.—
      Talk to my owner:Online 22:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Already done. The page has never been protected. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Languages of the Republic of Macedonia

    Unprotection: Per [2] and the fact the main page for the topic was moved to North Macadonia this is inappropriately protected so only admins can edit or move it. Legacypac (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait for BrownHairedGirl to respond. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian Distefano

    Unprotection: Create a redirect for Paw Patrol actor. Banana19208 (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: This user who requested protection has been blocked.—
      Talk to my owner:Online 04:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Declined Banana19208 is now blocked. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:13, 15 February 2019 (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.

    Shortcut

    Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

    Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests


    Israel–Hamas war

    Change "Since the start of the Israeli operation, more than 35,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed,[86] including over 15,000 children and 10,000 women.[87][88]" to "Since the start of the Israeli operation, nearly 35,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed,[86] including over 7,000 children and nearly 5,000 women.[87][88]." This is based on the data recently revised by the UN, accessible here: https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-215. ConDissenter (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there another place to request this change? The talk page for Israel-Hamas war is restricted as well. The current source for casualty data is palinfo.com, which describes itself by saying it "does not lay any claim to neutrality for it blatantly sides with the oppressed Palestinian people." https://english.palinfo.com/about-us/. Recognizing that reliable sources do not need to have a neutral POV, why should we use this as a source rather than a less biased source like the United Nations? ConDissenter (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ConDissenter Please go check Talk:Israel–Hamas war for earlier discussions and to see why your request is unlikely to succeed. FYI, the lower numbers refer not to the killed overall but to the killed who have additionally been identified by name. Besides, all the numbers are sourced to Gaza MoH anyway. — kashmīrī TALK 09:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Israel–Hamas war

    The death toll statistics are presented in an imbalanced way. Include the israeli statistics for the palestinian casualties. Egaga1 (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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
    .

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=883401206"