Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions
Requesting full protection of Draft:Operational Chow ring. (TW) |
|||
| Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
'''Indefinite full protection:''' Carrying out consensus established in [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Operational Chow ring]]. Requesting a full page protection to prevent reversion of redirect. Content previously present is still available in page history. Requesting full page protection as the primary contributor to the page has a history of willfully ignoring consensus. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 22:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC) |
'''Indefinite full protection:''' Carrying out consensus established in [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Operational Chow ring]]. Requesting a full page protection to prevent reversion of redirect. Content previously present is still available in page history. Requesting full page protection as the primary contributor to the page has a history of willfully ignoring consensus. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 22:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
=== [[:Kik Messenger]] === |
|||
* {{pagelinks|1=Kik Messenger}} |
|||
'''Temporary extended confirmed:''' Persistent [[WP:VAND|vandalism]]. [[Special:Contributions/2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 22:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Current requests for reduction in protection level == |
== Current requests for reduction in protection level == |
||
Revision as of 22:38, 24 September 2019
| 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 |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
Current requests for increase in protection level
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism, and user has switched to a different IP after being blocked. Ionmars10 (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Note: Looks like a /24 rangeblock would stop the vandalism without any collateral. I'll have a closer look to see about placing that rangeblock now, but certainly if they pop up on another IP we should just block 192.165.99.0/24. ST47 (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
User(s) blocked. -- Deepfriedokra 14:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)- Note: erepot if the problems persist.-- Deepfriedokra 14:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC) -- Deepfriedokra 14:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent unexplained removal of content and unconstructive edits by IP addresses and new editors. Ss112 05:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Indefinite extended confirmed: BLP policy violations – Person has been accused of Rape and thus many trolls, IPs and new users are coming on Wikipedia and giving undue weightage to single event by not adhering WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. In the past, page was protected too and hence, it’s required to protect it again. . Harshil want to talk? 10:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing by IP addresses this month likely by one editor using proxies. Edits are consistently about unsourced future predictions. Countakeshi (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Sultan Abdullah of Malaysia
- Abdullah of Pahang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Yang di-Pertuan Agong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent edits from users to add copyrighted image in infobox despite being reverted a few times. Froswo (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Vandalism - foreign surnames not documented to be borne by Filipinos are maliciously added in the lists esp. by User:Fadlanmaulana16. Recent cleanup edits were undone by the said user. Requesting block of said user from editing the article -trAjAn0- (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent vandalism – Increase in protection to ECP needed, as page is still being vandalized. Lupin VII (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected -- Deepfriedokra 18:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)- Note: Page was not protected, and the most recent vandal was not autoconfirmed. -- Deepfriedokra 18:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Indefinite Semi-protection: Regularly occuring vandalism from various IPs, has had protection numerous times over the years. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. The latest one is falsifying information by using a source that doesn't state the same. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Persistent sock puppetry by multiple editors the last few days. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Short-term IP vandalism and disruption. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Some new editor vandalism. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Temporary Semi-protection: Sudden burst of IP attention, and one registered user already banned. The persistent vandalism / removal of content appears related to each other, assume someone IRL with the same name as GS is their target to be trolled. Koncorde (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs righting great wrongs. Jorm (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Temporary Semi-protection: Several IPs addresses, all insist on passing a writer's opinion as a scientific data (official number). [1] Mar400r (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent vandalism. Lupin VII (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Home Lander (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Indefinite full protection: Carrying out consensus established in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Operational Chow ring. Requesting a full page protection to prevent reversion of redirect. Content previously present is still available in page history. Requesting full page protection as the primary contributor to the page has a history of willfully ignoring consensus. Hasteur (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent vandalism. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in protection level
I kindly nominate these two Cartoon Network-related paraphernalia to be set free:
List of Teen Titans Go! episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Reason: No activity from Courcelles, the current protector of that page since August 23. It was has been like this since April 4 of the yesteryear. Disruptions have been happening after the last lockup was lifted. So it must roam free before the show ends sometime around 2020/21 I believe.
And also,
List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Reason: I forgot who had protected this page along with main and episode after this Canuck bred and USA raised "citizen" ended nearly ten years ago with the Big Picture Show. Disruption was heavy over there as well alongside the aforementioned main page and episode guide. Don't leave this LOC stuck forever and let it be released forevermore.
Unprotection: She retired nearly 5 years ago and has not even been heard once since then. Nobody is going to vandalise this page if they don't care about her there are so many better women now that pretty much everyone has forgotten she existed yet for years this page has remained protected. Just to add insult with AJ Styles now there and one of the most popular wrestlers there people won't even remember her as AJ just automatically assuming she's AJ Styles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.187.0.101 (talk) 11:18, September 23, 2019 (UTC)
- WikiLeon protected the page in 2015. I'd be curious to hear their opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Question: If she's fallen from the public awareness, will anyone need to edit? Is there anything new to say? -- Deepfriedokra 14:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)- Note: I see a number of more recent reverts of now blocked auto confirmed users. Would it be wise to further open the gates? -- Deepfriedokra 14:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
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.
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.
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[2] 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)
- @FortunateSons: A quick browse shows at least for the first part support for removal, can you add any additional incite? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can confirm that both statements are broadly true. IMO, the best resource for this discussion (in the contemporary context) is probably Steinberg: Versammlungsfreiheit nach dem 7. Oktober - NVwZ 2024, 302. Direct citation: “Die Subsumtion unter diesen Tatbestand bereitet aber auch sonst Probleme. Die Stadt Frankfurt a. M. hatte dem Anmelder einer Versammlung „Frieden in Nahost" am 2.12.2023 untersagt, während der Versammlung zur Vernichtung Israels aufzurufen, dem Staat Israel das Existenzrecht abzusprechen, sowie die Aussagen „Israel Kindermörder", „Juden Kindermörder", „Israel bringt Kinder um" sowie „From the river to the sea" zu tätigen. Diese Beschränkungen hob das VG Frankfurt vollständig auf. Auf die Beschwerde der Stadt differenzierte der VGH Kassel Aufrufe zur Vernichtung Israels verstießen - wie gesagt - gegen § 111 StGB und die Aussage „Juden Kindermörder" erfülle den Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB). Demgegenüber wurden andere Außerungen wie „Kindermörder Israel" oder die Bezeichnung der israelischen Militäroperationen in Gaza als „Genozid" nicht beanstandet und die Entscheidung des VG insoweit aufrechterhalten. Es sei davon auszugehen, dass bei den militärischen Verteidigungshandlungen Israels auch Kinder zu Schaden kämen. Eine solche laienhafte Zuspitzung sei im Rahmen der Meinungsfreiheit hinzunehmen. Anders hatte der VGH Mannheim am 21.10.2023 ein Verbot der Parole „Israel Kindermörder" und „Israel bringt Kinder um" durch die Versammlungsbehörde trotz bestehender Zweifel über deren Strafbarkeit aufrechterhalten; im Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes sei nur eine summarische Prüfung möglich; eine einmal getätigte Äußerung könne nicht rückgängig gemacht werden. Die Unterscheidung zwischen antisemitisch und antiisraelisch stellt sicherlich eine Gratwanderung dar, die hier im Einzelnen nicht beschrieben werden kann“autotranslated: “However, the subsumption under this offense also causes other problems. On December 2, 2023, the city of Frankfurt am Main had prohibited the person registering a meeting "Peace in the Middle East" from calling for the destruction of Israel during the meeting, from denying the State of Israel the right to exist, and from making the statements "Israel, child murderer," "Jews, child murderer," "Israel kills children" and "From the river to the sea." The Administrative Court of Frankfurt completely lifted these restrictions. In response to the city's complaint, the Administrative Court of Kassel differentiated that calls for the destruction of Israel violated - as mentioned - Section 111 of the Criminal Code and that the statement "Jews, child murderer" constituted incitement to hatred (Section 130 of the Criminal Code). In contrast, other statements such as "Israel, child murderer" or the description of Israeli military operations in Gaza as "genocide" were not objected to and the Administrative Court's decision was upheld in this respect. It can be assumed that children would also be harmed in Israel's military defense actions. Such a lay exaggeration must be accepted within the framework of freedom of expression. On October 21, 2023, the Mannheim Higher Administrative Court upheld a ban on the slogans "Israel, child murderer" and "Israel kills children" by the assembly authority despite existing doubts about their criminal liability; in the interim legal protection procedure, only a summary examination is possible; a statement once made cannot be reversed. The distinction between anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli is certainly a balancing act that cannot be described in detail here.” There is no broad ban on pro-Palestinian protests either, and they were even allowed to happen on Oct. 7 of this year (in some cases). While there are legal disputes on specifics for both, I’m pretty confident that no reasonable person would disagree with “broadly permitted” regarding both claims. FortunateSons (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Bonus: there can be cases where something isn’t criminal, but can be restricted in other ways, for example due to different burdens of proof or social pressures. FortunateSons (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can confirm that both statements are broadly true. IMO, the best resource for this discussion (in the contemporary context) is probably Steinberg: Versammlungsfreiheit nach dem 7. Oktober - NVwZ 2024, 302. Direct citation: “Die Subsumtion unter diesen Tatbestand bereitet aber auch sonst Probleme. Die Stadt Frankfurt a. M. hatte dem Anmelder einer Versammlung „Frieden in Nahost" am 2.12.2023 untersagt, während der Versammlung zur Vernichtung Israels aufzurufen, dem Staat Israel das Existenzrecht abzusprechen, sowie die Aussagen „Israel Kindermörder", „Juden Kindermörder", „Israel bringt Kinder um" sowie „From the river to the sea" zu tätigen. Diese Beschränkungen hob das VG Frankfurt vollständig auf. Auf die Beschwerde der Stadt differenzierte der VGH Kassel Aufrufe zur Vernichtung Israels verstießen - wie gesagt - gegen § 111 StGB und die Aussage „Juden Kindermörder" erfülle den Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB). Demgegenüber wurden andere Außerungen wie „Kindermörder Israel" oder die Bezeichnung der israelischen Militäroperationen in Gaza als „Genozid" nicht beanstandet und die Entscheidung des VG insoweit aufrechterhalten. Es sei davon auszugehen, dass bei den militärischen Verteidigungshandlungen Israels auch Kinder zu Schaden kämen. Eine solche laienhafte Zuspitzung sei im Rahmen der Meinungsfreiheit hinzunehmen. Anders hatte der VGH Mannheim am 21.10.2023 ein Verbot der Parole „Israel Kindermörder" und „Israel bringt Kinder um" durch die Versammlungsbehörde trotz bestehender Zweifel über deren Strafbarkeit aufrechterhalten; im Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes sei nur eine summarische Prüfung möglich; eine einmal getätigte Äußerung könne nicht rückgängig gemacht werden. Die Unterscheidung zwischen antisemitisch und antiisraelisch stellt sicherlich eine Gratwanderung dar, die hier im Einzelnen nicht beschrieben werden kann“autotranslated: “However, the subsumption under this offense also causes other problems. On December 2, 2023, the city of Frankfurt am Main had prohibited the person registering a meeting "Peace in the Middle East" from calling for the destruction of Israel during the meeting, from denying the State of Israel the right to exist, and from making the statements "Israel, child murderer," "Jews, child murderer," "Israel kills children" and "From the river to the sea." The Administrative Court of Frankfurt completely lifted these restrictions. In response to the city's complaint, the Administrative Court of Kassel differentiated that calls for the destruction of Israel violated - as mentioned - Section 111 of the Criminal Code and that the statement "Jews, child murderer" constituted incitement to hatred (Section 130 of the Criminal Code). In contrast, other statements such as "Israel, child murderer" or the description of Israeli military operations in Gaza as "genocide" were not objected to and the Administrative Court's decision was upheld in this respect. It can be assumed that children would also be harmed in Israel's military defense actions. Such a lay exaggeration must be accepted within the framework of freedom of expression. On October 21, 2023, the Mannheim Higher Administrative Court upheld a ban on the slogans "Israel, child murderer" and "Israel kills children" by the assembly authority despite existing doubts about their criminal liability; in the interim legal protection procedure, only a summary examination is possible; a statement once made cannot be reversed. The distinction between anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli is certainly a balancing act that cannot be described in detail here.” There is no broad ban on pro-Palestinian protests either, and they were even allowed to happen on Oct. 7 of this year (in some cases). While there are legal disputes on specifics for both, I’m pretty confident that no reasonable person would disagree with “broadly permitted” regarding both claims. FortunateSons (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed #2. But there does seem to be evidence that pro-Palestine protests have been banned in parts of Germany at times.[3][4][5].VR (Please ping on reply) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[6]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that source seems incomplete. Germany has indeed suppressed peaceful criticism of Israel.[7] And Washington Post says "A planned photo exhibit in southwestern Germany was canceled as a result of social media posts by its curator, including one describing “genocide” in Gaza."[8] VR (Please ping on reply) 22:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I do not think that any source will ever be complete. Let me add two more.[[9]][[10]] Gilbert04 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that source seems incomplete. Germany has indeed suppressed peaceful criticism of Israel.[7] And Washington Post says "A planned photo exhibit in southwestern Germany was canceled as a result of social media posts by its curator, including one describing “genocide” in Gaza."[8] VR (Please ping on reply) 22:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[6]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Consider changing "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations, and accused the court of being antisemitic, which it often does when criticised" to "The Israeli government has been accused of consistently weaponizing antisemitism against it's critics, including in the ICJ ruling." Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- The Weaponization of antisemitism page hyperlinked over "often done" has many sources to draw from regarding the accusations' consistency and nature.
- My main concern with the original text is that it's voiced as if it's an observation made by a Wikipedian. The benefit here is that the weaponization of antisemitism has a clearer consistency grounded outside of Wikipedia. Perhaps other ways to word this out include adding a time scale (increasingly accused since Oct. 7th) or specifying the critique (against critiques of their actions since Oct 7th).
- If a lead paragraph change is necessary, there may be reason to outline Israeli motives and conditions for the genocide, including Zionism and anti-Arab racism. Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ecco2kstan, how about: "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations. Supporters of Israel say that accusing Israel of genocide is both antisemitic[11][12] and a form of Holocaust erasure[13], but others argue antisemitism shouldn't be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations.[14][15][16][17]".VR (Please ping on reply) 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not as familiar with the Holocaust erasure claims, but I'm happy with that reworking! If that weaponization of Holocaust denial detail isn't on the weaponization of antisemitism page already, it might be a worthwhile phenomenon incorporate if there's more citations you can find. I might look into it myself. Thanks! Ecco2kstan (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- That does sound quite balanced. +1 from me. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: Would you please make this change, so we can close this request? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- The text I originally wanted modified was changed to "Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemitic, but others argue antisemitism should not be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations" after other discussions on the talk page. I almost like it better, but by saying "Israel's supporters" it relieves some of the responsibility from the Israeli government in the accusations that was, to an extent, duly credited in the original modification. Maybe now, it should just say "The Israeli government and their supporters say that accusing the state for genocide antisemitic..." or something similar. Ecco2kstan (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ecco2kstan, how about: "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations. Supporters of Israel say that accusing Israel of genocide is both antisemitic[11][12] and a form of Holocaust erasure[13], but others argue antisemitism shouldn't be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations.[14][15][16][17]".VR (Please ping on reply) 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Stated Israeli tank losses in casualty and losses infobox are incorrect, attributed article from Business Insider states "The IDF again had problems with anti-tank missiles during the 2006 war in Lebanon, when Hezbollah employed Russian-made Kornets. Though about 50 Merkavas were damaged, only five were destroyed, according to the IDF, which also struggled with poorly maintained vehicles and ill-trained crews." Casualties and losses box states this number as if it was from current conflict. Article does, however, state that "Israel has lost nearly two dozen tanks during fighting with Hamas since October 7." I believe losses of tanks in the infobox should be fixed to reflect this. 155.225.2.98 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Create a level 3 header with a link to the article in question, then a {{Pagelinks}} template and then the reason. It looks like this: Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) your request here. ~~~~
Handled requests
A rolling archive of the last seven days of protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive.