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 2025 |
Current requests for increase in protection level
Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create 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 disruptive editing – Reality TV show with only the final episode to go, lots of IP edits pushing their preferred winner and just being disruptive. A week a peace would be helpful to the regular maintainers. Ravensfire (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Requesting temporary semi-protection for one day. The article is the main DYK on the front page today and the topic-matter is inviting more anonymous vandalism than is usual or expected. Yue🌙 07:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 13:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IP continues to make unsourced edits. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 13:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Persistent vandalism by anonymous IP addresses Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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 8 days.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 13:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Frost 09:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Gotitbro: Do you want it protected? In any case, I removed the personal attacks from view, for the time being. Lectonar (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I've just gone ahead. They've kept coming back for a couple days, using multiple ranges, including the latest one's /64 being not blocked at the time of writing, so could have just kept going. El_C 13:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – A great combo of sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mindirman Jaloliddin) and IP (possibly a sock as well) persistently disrupting the article. HistoryofIran (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 13:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Persistent sockpuppetry since November by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mindirman Jaloliddin. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 13:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Reason: High level of IP vandalism Normal rookie (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Last disruptive edit was about 6 weeks ago. Lectonar (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Entranced98 (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 13:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Reason: High level of IP vandalism Normal rookie (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 13:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Reason: High level of IP vandalism Normal rookie (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 13:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by numerous IP users. Areaseven (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) talk/edits 12:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) talk/edits 12:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in protection level
Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Cassiopeia talk 08:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Already protected. Lectonar (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
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.
Currently, the lede states "On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, taking 251 captive, against which Israelis responded applying the controversial Hannibal Directive, resulting in the death of 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals, among which 815 civilians.". This implies that the majority of the casualties were caused by Israel applying the Hannibal Directive, and despite some cases of casualties due to this, no credible source has made the claim that the majority of casualties originate from it. I suggest changing the lede back to what it was before it was randomly edited to the current lede without any discussion on the talk page about it, to "On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack on Israel, killing 1,195 Israelis and foreign nationals and taking 251 captive." Aradkipod (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
In the section labeled "Initial Israeli counter-operation (October 2023)" it states the following: "A July 2024 Haaretz investigation revealed that the IDF ordered the Hannibal Directive to be used, killing many Israeli civilians and soldiers.[181][182] An ABC News (Australia) investigation reported that at least 13 civilians were killed in a 'Hannibal' incident in Beeri."
These sentences are incorrect and not supported by the sourced references. First off, the word "many" in the first sentence is gratuitous, misleading, and, perhaps most importantly, not supported by the Haaretz article it references, which never concludes that any citizens were killed as a direct result of a so-called "Hannibal" directive. Nowhere in the article does it state that the Hannibal directive can be tied to *any* deaths, let alone "many" deaths. Any reference in the article to potential deaths caused by a Hannibal directive are stated as questions, or that investigations are forthcoming. (e.g., "Haaretz does not know whether or how many civilians and soldiers were hit due to these procedures, but the cumulative data indicates that many of the kidnapped people were at risk, exposed to Israeli gunfire, even if they were not the target.") Either way, it certainly does not conclude that "many" deaths were tied to the use of the "Hannibal directive" which is highly misleading.
Similarly, as to the second sentence, the ABC News (Australia) does not conclude that " at least 13 civilians were killed in a 'Hannibal' incident in Beeri". It discusses a tank shooting at a house in Kibbutz Berri , but never states that there is evidence that the IDF tank fire resulted in the death of 13 civilians -- as opposed to the 40 Hamas gunmen who were holding them captive and engaged in a "firefight" with the IDF at the time of the tank fire. The 40 Hamas gunmen could just as easily have killed them as opposed to tank fire. Indeed, an eyewitness stated "Mr Shifroni's aunt Ayala and her grand-niece Liel and grand-nephew Yanai were all killed at Pessi's house — he believes by terrorists", not by the IDF and ""There are a few others that we still don't know and we may never know what exactly killed them." Later on in the article, it states "The team determined that most of the hostages were likely murdered by the terrorists, and further inquiries and reviews of additional findings are necessary.".
I propose that the sentences be re-worded as follows: "A July 2024 Haaretz investigation revealed that the IDF ordered the Hannibal Directive to be used at three locations, putting the lives of some Israeli civilians being held by Hamas at those locations at risk.[181][182]. An ABC News (Australia) investigation reported that after a prolonged firefight in Kibbutz Be'eri with around 40 Hamas gunmen who had been holding 15 hostages inside and outside, 13 of the hostages may have been killed by either the Hamas captors or IDF tank fire."
Apndrew (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Since I cannot reply to my original request on this, I am starting a new request with a different source for the request and a revised sentence:
In the fourth paragraph of the entry, it states."A case accusing Israel of committing genocide is being reviewed by the International Court of Justice,...."
This should be changed to "Cases accusing both Israel and Hamas of committing genocide have been lodged with or are being reviewed by the International Court of Justice,..."
This change is supported by multiple references: https://www.timesofisrael.com/9-bereaved-israeli-families-bring-icc-war-crime-genocide-complaint-against-hamas/ "The families of nine Israeli victims of the October 7 Hamas massacre have lodged a complaint at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for suspected war crimes."
and
The change is necessary for accuracy, balance, and neutral point of view.
Apndrew (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Handled requests
A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.