Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
| 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 remove obvious vandalism.
Request addition of protection to a page, or increasing the current protection level
Request removal of protection from a page, or reducing the current protection level
Request a specific edit be made to a protected page
Request the non-urgent protection of multiple pages that do not require immediate administrator attention
| ||
Current requests for increase in protection level
Place requests for protection increases at the BOTTOM of this section. If you cannot find your request, check the archive of requests or the page history. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement – WP:CT/AIC-related page. See the plot. Z. Patterson (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Not done Less than half a paragraph arguably falls within the CT. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Multiple vandalism — RafaelTLS talk 21:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Persistent LTA/block evasion and vandalism/disruptive editing, with no sign(s) of stopping anytime soon. Magitroopa (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Large number of unsourced changes and vandalism edits today. Entranced98 (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persist increased vandalism. Page have active arbitration remedies. Suggestion to lock page for 24 hours. Governmentshutdown2026 (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
User(s) blocked: underlying IP (talk · contribs) blocked by Zzuuzz. The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Also going to need some revdels of edit summaries, most likely. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in protection level
Reason: I request that the protection level of this page should be reduced to extended confirmed users. The page has remained relatively stagnant since two years due to restrictions imposed. No other religion page has this level of unnecessary restriction for so long. ~2026-27698-13 (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. (1) the page currently is protected at the extended confirmed level; (2) the page was protected under the authority of an Arbcom-imposed Contentious Topic and the protection cannot be removed or reduced at this venue. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- then how to remove the "protection" ~2026-27698-13 (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
Add that Timelash has also impersonated being other users sockpuppets intending to get other users blocked. Higstudios3333 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#c-Morkoz-20260609204200-Global_lock_for_Timelash_socks Higstudios3333 (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Change {{IPAc-en|ˈ|iː|l|ɒ|n}} to {{IPAc-en|ˈ|iː|l|ɒ|n|audio=Voice-elon-en-gb.ogg}} in the first introductory paragraph Swsrqurk (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Uh ... in what article? The link heading this section is red for a reason ... not only don't we have an article by that name, we're not likely to. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Requested change: Remove the "Communities" section
I request the removal of the following content from the article:
> According to the 1883 Gazetteer of the Gurgaon District, the inhabitants of this village were Jats, mainly those of Antal clan.
Reason:
This content is sourced solely to a British Raj-era gazetteer from 1883 and describes the caste composition of the village during that historical period. While such sources may be useful for certain historical facts, their use requires appropriate context per WP:HISTRS and WP:RSCONTEXT. In this case, the statement is presented without historical context and may be read as reflecting the present-day composition of the village.
Furthermore, the material gives undue prominence to caste identity by creating a standalone "Communities" section based on a single source. Per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, content should be presented in proportion to its significance in reliable sources. No evidence is provided that the caste composition recorded in an 1883 colonial gazetteer is a defining or notable aspect of the village today.
The information also concerns caste affiliation, which falls within the scope of WP:CT/SA (Caste, tribes and social groups articles). Wikipedia's guidance on caste-related content emphasizes careful sourcing, neutrality, and avoidance of undue emphasis on caste identity where it is not central to the subject. A single nineteenth-century source is insufficient to support a dedicated section highlighting the caste and clan affiliation of the village's inhabitants.
Unless multiple modern, independent secondary sources demonstrate that this historical caste information is encyclopedically significant to the subject, the section appears to fail WP:DUE and should be removed. Please do it with immediate effect asap as this might cause conflict with ongoing demographics survey in the nation as online mode is being used and wrong data will be passed around due to this. ~2026-34860-75 (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Not done This is not an uncontroversial edit request, which is all that non-extended confirmed editors are allowed to do on pages protected under ECR. (And if any
ongoing demographics survey
is using Wikipedia as a source for its data, the survey failed from the start.) The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)- I understand that removal may be considered controversial. In that case, I would like to focus discussion on whether the current presentation complies with Wikipedia's content policies.
- The "Communities" section consists solely of a single statement sourced to the 1883 Gazetteer of the Gurgaon District:
- According to the 1883 Gazetteer of the Gurgaon District, the inhabitants of this village were Jats, mainly those of Antal clan.
- My concern is not that the gazetteer is unusable as a historical source. Rather, the issue is that a single nineteenth-century observation is being given an entire standalone section in the article.
- Per WP:UNDUE, content should be presented in proportion to its significance in reliable sources. The article currently elevates one historical description of caste composition to section-level prominence without demonstrating that this aspect is a defining characteristic of the village or that it has received substantial coverage in independent sources.
- In addition, the statement describes the village as it existed in 1883, yet it is not placed within a historical context. Readers may reasonably assume that the section reflects present-day community composition when it actually reports a colonial-era observation.
- Accordingly, I propose one of the following:
- Remove the "Communities" section entirely due to insufficient sourcing and undue weight;
- OR
- If editors believe the information has encyclopedic value, merge it into a History section with clear attribution that it describes conditions recorded in 1883.
- Unless additional reliable sources can establish broader significance for this topic, I do not believe a dedicated section based on a single nineteenth-century source satisfies WP:UNDUE. ~2026-35143-88 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Talk:Murthal is not protected and you can discuss it there. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 23:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- The article is currently extended-confirmed protected, so I am unable to make the edit directly. My request was submitted through the edit request process for that reason.
- That said, I understand the concern that removal of the section may not be considered uncontroversial. Accordingly, I would like to seek discussion regarding whether the current "Communities" section complies with Wikipedia's content policies.
- The section consists entirely of a single statement sourced to the 1883 Gazetteer of the Gurgaon District describing the village's inhabitants at that time. My concern is not with the source's historical reliability, but with the weight and presentation being given to the material. A standalone section is devoted to historical caste composition based on a single nineteenth-century source, without clear historical context or evidence that this aspect has received significant coverage in independent sources.
- I therefore invite discussion on whether:
- the section should be removed as undue weight;
- the material should be incorporated into a history section with explicit attribution to 1883; or
- additional sources exist that justify maintaining a separate section.
- I am seeking consensus on the content issue, as direct editing is not available to me due to the page's protection status. ~2026-35143-88 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Talk:Murthal is not protected and you can discuss it there. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 23:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Handled requests
A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.