Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"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

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
    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.


    Scott Baugh

    Reason: Political article that appears to have had biased information on it. Moreover, the article appears ripe for an edit war and paid writers on it could be possible. Holyapple25 (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Favonian (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rohit Purohit

    Reason: Addition of unsourced content again and again by IPs and new user. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 08:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Thewikizoomer

    Temporary semi-protection: Highly obscene and unnecessary messages by IP - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewikizoomer&oldid=1246488973. Thewikizoomer (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)

    Reason: Continued re-insertion by IPs of an image which is most likely a copyright infringement. TarnishedPathtalk 09:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    1945 Hazara Rebellion

    Reason: Persistent vandalism Koopinator (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Trade Republic

    Reason: False information has been added to the page multiple times, including reference to a nonexistent 'Corporate Communication Manager' named Aidan Ashford and to a nonexistent sub-brand called 'Trade Republica'.

    It looks like these changes are being made in order to lend credence to phishing campaigns targeting Trade Republic customers. The supposed 'Trade Republica' branding in particular is similar to phishing domains targeting customers that we have previously identified. We have already reverted these changes several times, but they are quickly added again by the same user, 'Roger Jason Bennett', who has also added a reference to an 'Aidan Ashford' to the page for the European Securities and Markets Authority. Endmost wiki (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Central Asia

    Indefinite extended confirmed protection: New editors and IP-users always changes the definition of this region by adding Afghanistan; causing regular edit warring and mess. Mann Mann (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Protection won't solve the underlying problem here. A talk-page discusssion is already taking place; reigning consensus seems to be that Afghanistan is not considered part of Central Asia. Consensus may change, though, and new sources might turn up. If discussion leads nowhere, I guess the topic should be evaluated by holding a RfC. Lectonar (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rožaje

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – requesting because of constant IP disruptions spanning almost one month now. Durraz0 (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Lectonar (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    John Cabot

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Methane

    Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Susbush (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethane

    Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Susbush (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ole Distribution

    Reason: Persistent addition of unsourced content. Waxworker (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gibran Rakabuming Raka

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – BLP vandalism related to https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/indonesia-fufufafa-social-media-gibran-rakabuming-raka-prabowo-subianto-4615471 . Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Resumed dynamic IP same disruption. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pocoyo

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Immediate resumption after last protect expired. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-ionizing radiation

    Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Susbush (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Favonian (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    De Bruijn–Newman constant

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 16:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Protection is not appropriate for issues with single IPs. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Emerson Romero

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Political positions of JD Vance

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Under attack by "pig" socks. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    September 11 Attacks

    Reason: I requested this page protection request August 30th 19:59 US Eastern on the subject's talk page and was told that they do not protect pages unless there is a high level of vandalism or disruptive activity. I've been carefully following this page's edits for the past twenty days and there has been a high level of disruptive editing. I strongly advise Wikipedia moderators and admins to discuss protecting this page. Butterscotch5 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott Baugh

    Reason: high level of vandalism Cynthiakaui (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Favonian (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Julie Meyer

    Reason: An IP address continues to make changes describing Meyer as a convicted felon who is on the run. The news articles in question do describe issuing a warrant, but there is no phrasing describing her as convicted felon. This article has had issues over the years (see the talk page), and I expect this behavior will continue moving forward. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for reduction in protection level

    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the 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

    Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions

    Reason: I hope it can be pointed out on the discussion page that the explosive devices were not limited to Gold Apollo; devices from the well-known Japanese company Icom Incorporated also exploded. 58.152.168.150 (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Source? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre

    Reason: "acts to promote awareness of Israel and the Middle East in the United Kingdom." is wholly misleading and accepts the purported purpose of the journal without quotes to indicate potential bias. The article has essentially no critique of what is a distinctly right-wing journal (IE: there is a major bias in the journal, regardless of left or right affiliation) except for an even more right-wing criticism. Given the clear bias and the unfinished nature of the page, it should really be opened up LordGigapiller (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If there is a reliable source for such a critique, please post it here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unprotected – Please use an edit request to request specific changes to be made to the protected page. The talk page is not protected. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mississippi

    Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined This may have been misfiled. Filmssssssssssss, if you're in fact requesting an increase in protection, please go to WP:RFPPI, but at a glance there is not enough recent vandalism to support an increase. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Request a specific edit to a protected page
    Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
    Shortcut

    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.
    Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests


    2024 Lebanon pager explosions

    Change the "mainly Hezbollah members" note on the casualties to "mainly civilians" as a large swath of Hezbollah casualties were apart of their political wing and considered civilians under international law, as well as ensuring the hundreds of medical staff who use pagers and were injured are not ignored. By simply stating that the majority of casualties were apart of Hezbollah, is suggests that the majority of casualties were non-civilian, which is inherently incorrect as stated above. It is imperative that this fact be clarified to prevent misinformation and further demonization of Lebanon.

    Furthermore, it must be stated clearly and constantly that not only were the vast majority of the victims civilians, but that such an attack is, by definition and intent, a terror attack on Lebanon by israel (as israel has now confirmed they were behind it and had been planning it for an unspecified length of time). The severity of the attack in the context of international law must also be stated clearly as this is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention and general international law that protects civilians from attack and prohibits the use of terrorism a a legitimate manner of warfare.

    For evidence to the above claims, see https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/18/israels-war-on-gaza-live-thousands-injured-in-lebanon-pager-explosions in which multiple quotes from israel, Hezbollah, the Lebanese Health Ministry, the UN, and various other third-parties with weight on the issue can be found and used to validate the above claims. Against the Empire (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Mainly Hezbollah members" should be changed to "mainly civilians"
    I am not aware of a single reliable source that has confirmed that most of the casualties were civilian. This is also something that I doubt will come to light very quickly, since Hezbollah generally does not like publishing lists of their soldiers, so discerning who is and isn't a soldier is extremely difficult. Hezbollah themselves claiming that "most casualties were civilian" is not evidence, as Hezbollah is not a reliable source on this matter, since they are known to regularly lie for propaganda purposes.
    And suppose that we did have a reliable source claim that most casualties were civilian. This would still not change the fact that most reliable source primarily describe the casualties as "mainly Hezbollah members" and only talk about civilians second. The article must reflect the style of reliable formats, so it cannot assign more importance to their civilian status than their Hezbollah membership unless reliable sources also do so.
    • Medical staff should not be ignored
    They are not ignored. Such information is mentioned under the "Casualties" section. Admittedly, this section could be expanded, and it probably will be with time.
    • Calling casualties mainly Hezbollah members suggests they are not civilians
    No it doesn't. The interested reader is free to visit the Hezbollah article and read about their organization. It is not Wikipedia's job to correct every single possible misunderstanding that a reader might have at every possible moment.
    • This demonizes Lebanon
    No it doesn't. There is no reason that the article's failure to clarify the exact makeup of the casualties should lead readers to conclude that Hezbollah is evil. And even if it does, this won't lead to the demonization of Lebanon, but that of Hezbollah.
    And besides, it's not Wikipedia's job to prevent demonization. And even if it were, the change you suggest would lead to much more demonization of Israel than it would prevent demonization of Hezbollah, so the net change would be more demonization in the world.
    • It must be stated clearly and constantly...
    No it shouldn't. That would be annoying to read.
    • Israel has now confirmed they were behind it
    Where did you read this? It's news to me. You should really cite a source here, it would make a great addition to the article.
    Dieknon (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions

    (I did not put the talk page by mistake in the page title field, that was intentional)

    Add topic about the sentence "It is not clear if only Hezbollah members were carrying the pagers" in the third paragraph of the article, with the next paragraph as the body of the topic:

    The sentence "It is not clear if only Hezbollah members were carrying the pagers" appears to contradict other pieces of information in the article, specifically that two children died from the explosions. Hezbollah doesn't seem to have a history of using child soldiers in any capacity. The reported ages of the children who died seem to be around the range of 8-11, so I think it's safe to assume that the children who died were not members of Hezbollah. The size of the explosions wouldn't of been enough to kill someone without being in close proximity to it (its not like the pagers had a blast radius of several hundred meters), which implies that the children were either holding the pager or in close proximity to the pagers. Therefore, it can be assumed that non-Hezbollah members were carrying pagers. Granted, I doubt these children were carrying around a pager wherever they went, but they must've been relatively close to it in order to be killed by the pager (as in, holding or carrying the pager).

    The reason why I'm saying to add a topic to the talk page instead of just "remove this sentence from the article" is because it's debatable if it actually does contradict, and I'd prefer to get some consensus about it beforehand. I can't request an edit of the article on the talk page due to it being protected, so I can't just use the edit request to gauge consensus on this issue. This could also very well be considered WP:OR, I'm of the opinion that "the explosive that requires one to be close to it to hurt them implies that people who were hurt by it were close to it" would fall under WP:CALC, but I could see consensus going either way on this. AlexChillOut (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Source? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a source used two sentences later in the same article for the claim about the children who died: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7xnelvpepo
    Also, here is a source to show the range of the explosives, it can be seen in the video that they have a rather short range: https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/lebanon-pagers-attack-hezbollah/index.html
    That video is already uploaded to Wikipedia, and can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CCTV_video_of_pager_explosion_in_a_Beirut_market.webm
    The rest is mainly these two pieces of information put together, a pager killing a child implies the child was close enough to it to be injured; based on the range shown in the video, they were likely holding it. The source that is cited for the sentence I believe should be removed adds that it was not *immediately* clear, not that it's unclear now (https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/dozens-wounded-after-pagers-detonate-lebanon-officials-point-113754464) AlexChillOut (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Handled requests

    A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=1246555602"