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 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 |
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.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recently died. Hence lot of edits which is hard to verify. Aadirulez8 (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Declined Seems like the death has now been sourced. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Slow edit war by IPs adding unnecessary trivial information to the article. Level 4 warnings given to IPs on 17 and 20 September. Third IP reported to WP:AIV a few minutes ago. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: @Daniel Case: One or more pages in this request have not been protected.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 04:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Ongoing whitewashing. Repeat Removal of sourced content. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Or you could open discussion on the talk page. No one seems to have ever used it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and LTA; heavily vandalized with unsourced edits by a user named Exclamation3 Ex-Clamation within the last hour, these edits are similar to those made by recent Jeremiah Caquias sockpuppets. 2603:6081:893D:13AC:8832:E50D:A260:4C12 (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Someone please do something about this, the user is also vandalizing the semi-protected pages TeenNick and List of programs broadcast by TeenNick, I request ECP on these pages. 2603:6081:893D:13AC:8832:E50D:A260:4C12 (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Pending changes: BLP policy violations – This is one of those frustrating cases where people on the Internet have found information about something that is quite likely true, but has yet to be featured in any RS, and because one of the people involved is still alive, there's no wiggle room on the primary sources. Every few months, someone adds the same non-RS information, and sooner or later I or someone else removes it, but sometimes it stays up for hours or days. I think PCP would be a reasonable solution here, although I wouldn't be averse to semi either. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. @Tamzin: Some inline comments placed carefully in the article might not hurt. There's also a lack of user talk page warnings for sourcing and original research. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's been a different person each time AFAICS, aside from one experienced user last year who ought to have known better and desisted after a second revert. I can try some hidden comments, but that doesn't change the fact that we're currently going days at a time accusing a living person of having been in a video many find racially insensitive. Low-visibility BLP violations are one of the main things PCP was enabled to deal with. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 07:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- A good portion of the editors making the change were autoconfirmed. Regardless, the current level of disruption is insufficient to justify either pending changes protection or semi-protection. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's been a different person each time AFAICS, aside from one experienced user last year who ought to have known better and desisted after a second revert. I can try some hidden comments, but that doesn't change the fact that we're currently going days at a time accusing a living person of having been in a video many find racially insensitive. Low-visibility BLP violations are one of the main things PCP was enabled to deal with. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 07:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Per WP:CT/A-I. Pachu Kannan (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Per WP:CT/A-I. Pachu Kannan (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Repeated recent (last week or so) disruptive editing by new, likely COI accounts looking to remove sourced content that is "negative" towards the subject. Request re-establishment of semi-protection for at least six months to hopefully deal with the issue. Rambling Rambler (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2024 (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.
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.
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)
- "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)
- Declined. The talk page is no longer protected. Please make a new request there, addressing the objections above when you do so. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
(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)
- Source? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Found another source, this one states that "[s]he picked up the device to bring it to her father and was holding it when it exploded, mangling her face and leaving the room covered in blood". Safe to assume she was not a Hezbollah member, as she was 9 years old. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/18/world/middleeast/lebanon-funeral-pager-attack.html AlexChillOut (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Declined. This isn't a rejection of your request, it's just that the talk page is no longer protected, so you can now make the request there. It really belongs there instead. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Section "History", paragraph 3:
In 1967 Marvin Minsky agreed, writing, "within a generation ... the problem of creating 'artificial intelligence' will substantially be solved".
Replace [ agreed, writing, "within ] with [ agreed, writing that "within ] to make the comma usage a bit cleaner.
Normally would have suggested minor changes like these at its talk page, but since the TP is also protected, well... 172.112.199.166 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Handled requests
A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.