Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFP)
    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



    Current requests for increase in protection level

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the 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.


    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IP changing editor that doesn't understand what an acting role is. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing continues. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked: 2a02:8440:3000::/37 (talk · contribs). 1-month partial block from the article in question. Favonian (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IP changing editor that doesn't understand what an acting role is. Has been repeatedly reverted. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing continues under a different IP address. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked: 2a02:8440:3000::/37 (talk · contribs). 1-month partial block from the article in question. Favonian (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Same IP changing editor that doesn't get a hint. Has been repeatedly reverted, no success. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing continues. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked: 2a02:8440:3000::/37 (talk · contribs). 1-month partial block from the article in question. Favonian (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: indefinite semi protection - A bunch of User:Shame on PJ Santos sockpuppet accounts have vandalized my user talk page for the past few months. My talk page was semi-protected for a few days last August but the vandal resumed their activites after the protection expired. - WayKurat (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. ®asteem Talk 09:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked: 2409:408C:8D49:BD9C:B90A:CC26:DBB6:2535 (talk · contribs) blocked by HJ Mitchell. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Consistent disruptive edits from IPs (COI?) even after previous protection. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked: 79.244.61.130 (talk · contribs) blocked by Favonian. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IP changing editor that keeps adding the same bit in. See my other recent RPPs. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked: 2a02:8440:3000::/37 (talk · contribs). 1-month partial block from the article in question. Favonian (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Re-emergence of disruptive IPs since the last page protection lapsed. TarnishedPathtalk 13:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 but may I suggest it be indefinite considering the subject matter? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: War editing due to "Legacy" section, users stopped to add "Grounded Videos" on Legacy section, despite this, there are a real problem, some users continue to add text revealing Caillou with these next sources : [1][2][3].

    An example, if I show my "Wrapper Offline" series at Stade Le Gallo (AC Boulogne-Billancourt) and they filmed an episode of my series and upload it on YouTube, posted it on Facebook or make an article on their website (see here), these sources are reliable? IMO, YouTube is not reliable, is Facebook, Twitter, Instragram and ACBB Foot website are reliable? Do we need reliable sources like Le Parisien, BFM, Sky News, CNN, BBC or other French and especially English real sources to add "Grounded Videos" on Legacy section?

    IMO, if this war editing don't stop, unless the users find a consensus on the discussion page (see talk), the best is or protect the page or use a filter. Thanks. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Hart, Hugh (2008-07-25). "GoAnimate Leashes Underdog for D.I.Y. Site". WIRED. Archived from the original on 2024-07-13. Retrieved 2024-07-13. GoAnimate announced Friday at Comic-Con that it's roping in a posse of old-school cartoon characters for laptop animators to have their way with.
    2. ^ Alper, Meryl (2023). Kids Across the Spectrums: Growing Up Autistic in the Digital Age (PDF). MIT Press. p. 81. ISBN 978-0-262-54536-5. Retrieved 2024-03-08. Nour repeatedly complained about Karim watching fan-produced Caillou and Baldi videos on YouTube that were animated by using the software program GoAnimate.
    3. ^ Bernama, Oleh (2020-02-02). "Remaja istimewa mampu hasilkan video dengan 'Goanimate'" [Special teenagers can produce videos with 'Goanimate']. Sinar Harian (in Malay). Retrieved 2024-07-21.

    Reason: Persistent vandalism by anonymous IP Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Correcting my reasoning to:
    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing[1] - IP user continuously switches the article between Aramean and Assyrian, while the sources use the name "Assyrian" and linked articles use Assyrian as well Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Surayeproject3, no need to link "disruptive editing"--we know what it is. You reverted that IP twice; if you had warned them each time, I could simply block them right now. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good, thanks for the help. If they continue to make these types of edits after the 60 hour block, should I follow up with you? Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: Persistent unreferenced edits from IP users. The most recent edit from an IP user, included references that don't align with the references they've posted.[2] Hotwiki (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. There is really not enough disruption to warrant disruption. Just revert the most recent edit, with an explanation of course. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Nswix (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. I blocked the most recent one, but there's really not enough IMO to warrant protection. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Long-term series of test editing. Jalen Barks (Woof) 15:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. I see only one disruptive edit in the last year and a half. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: CTOPS ARBPIA. Borgenland (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Confirmed users protection: An IP user is persistently thinking Wikipedia to be a fanpage of actor Baseer Ali and editing these 3 pages in same way from multiple IP addresses. Like all confirmed reliable sources mentions Sana and Adrija being casted opposite actor Paras Kalnawat just like another lead of show Shraddha Arya is being mentioned casted opposite all 3 actors who played Karan. Similarly they increase length of article by copying things from career section to info section by doubling same sources too. I request confirmed user access on these 3 pages for few days to stop further efit warring. Pri2000 (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Kansas Bear (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for reduction in protection level

    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the 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

    Request a specific edit 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.


    I want to add a little information inside the template since houthi is already added on the Belligerents side i think we should add the casualties of the yemani also in the template same as egyptians or syrians especially those who died as resulted from isreali airstrike and according to those articles 20 July 2024 Israeli attack on Yemen and 29 September 2024 Israeli attacks on Yemen, the yemani casualties are 20 killed, and +147 injured 70.26.36.11 (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In the second paragraph it states that "The desire to prevent the collapse of the Palestinians and to avoid more refugees were some of the reasons for the entry of the Arab League into the country, which began the 1948 Arab–Israeli War." It is absurd to characterize the invasion by the Arab league into Israel, which triggered the War of Independence as an "entry". The words "entry of" should be changed to "invasion by" which is supported by the source text and just about every other paper on the Israeli War of Independance. Apndrew (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My suggestion is to leave out the following 2 sentences in the "German complicity" paragraph as they seem to be based on misunderstandings:

    "She also highlighted police suppression of pro-Palestine protests throughout Germany[509] as evidence of state complicity.[508] Karen Wells et al. highlight how Germany has entrenched its complicity in Israel's actions by banning use of the word "genocide" in reference to Israel.[471][better source needed]"

    1. In general violent protests are not allowed in Germany. As some of the first pro-Palestine protests were violent, they were sometimes forbidden by courts, if they were expected to turn violent. But that is common policy in Gemany with all subjects and not special for pro-Palestine protests.

    Meanwhile, there even is a calendar concerning pro-Palestinian protests[3] with daily up to 20 protests all over Germany. Thus, there is no general police suppression of pro-Palestine protests as is suggested by the current wording.

    2. The word “genocide” is not banned in reference to Israel in Germany - maybe that was a misunderstanding: What is not allowed in Germany is to call for genocide against Jews. The slogan “From the river to the sea” is seen as such call and banned. Gilbert04 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Handled requests

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