 | 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. |
| 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 remove obvious vandalism.
Request addition of protection to a page, or increasing the current protection level
Request removal of protection from a page, or reducing the current protection level
Request a specific edit be made to a protected page
Please add an edit request to the talk page of the protected page before adding an edit request here | ||
Current requests for increase in protection level
Place requests for protection increases at the BOTTOM of this section. If you cannot find your request, check the archive of requests or the page history. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Reason: Editors keep ignoring hidden notes about NOT adding or changing information about the film (particularly the cast) using leaks or rumors as their source. Joy040207 (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- I was also going to file this request. There are multiple talk page discussions on how to handle this situation and material, which even extended confirmed editors are ignoring and have nearly edit warred over this leaked material. Requesting a longer timed ECP. I do not think autoconfirmed is sufficient for the high traffic this article already receives, which is only inevitably going to increase and become more problematic given the nature of this article and subject. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 04:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note: I see no great gain in applying ecp-protection...too much back and forth editing is by extended confirmed editors (who should know better). The consequence if all else fails (and I think a bit more discussion on talk might be called for here) would be a full protection...I don't think we are there yet, though. Lectonar (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Well, in all blunt fairness, many of the EC editors have been warned in the past about adding such additions, much to no avail... they have pretty consistently ignored my recent warnings given to them earlier this month and last month on this article. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 15:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- I mean we are "there" now. This is getting out of control with how many edits have been reverted due to the insistance of using leaks and rumors as sources to back up information. We have told people numerous times, even opened more than one discussion in talk, still edits being reverted. This warrants full protection, not just semi-protection, as the leadup to release it will keep getting leaks and rumors, especially when the trailers start coming and we go back to square one in this topic. Joy040207 (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- It has been almost 12 hours since the article was last edited, and I may be (wishfully) thinking that these types of edits about the leaks may have ceased for now. Given the trailer will be available to watch in theaters for Avatar showings tomorrow, it feels disingenuous to fully protect the page and prevent adequate constructive edits from being made due to a few bad apples. I can only hope that the editors in question have learned from their warnings, but I remain unconvinced in that regard. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 17:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note: I see no great gain in applying ecp-protection...too much back and forth editing is by extended confirmed editors (who should know better). The consequence if all else fails (and I think a bit more discussion on talk might be called for here) would be a full protection...I don't think we are there yet, though. Lectonar (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – TA's vandalising the page and adding unsourced information. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Repeated disruptive editing by anonymous editor(s), with continued addition of factually false information. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Repeated disruptive editing by anonymous editor(s), with continued addition of factually false information. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent disruptive editing by anonymous editor(s). livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Skitash (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only one disruptive edit in the last day; the rest were from at least two weeks ago. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. KH-1 (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Arbitration enforcement – WP:GS/KURD. Kajmer05 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Arbitration enforcement – WP:GS/KURD. Kajmer05 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Arbitration enforcement – WP:GS/KURD. Kajmer05 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Arbitration enforcement – WP:GS/KURD. Kajmer05 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent vandalism. Sugar Tax (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- User(s) blocked: Dingley Village (talk · contribs) blocked by Zzuuzz. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent vandalism. Sugar Tax (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- User(s) blocked: Dingley Village (talk · contribs) blocked by Zzuuzz. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent vandalism. Sugar Tax (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- User(s) blocked: Dingley Village (talk · contribs) blocked by Zzuuzz. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Constant anonymous user vandalism - requesting permanent semiprotection. Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Semi-protection for this page expired two days ago. In the subsequent two days, the page has seen an immediate influx of disruptive editing from multiple non-confirmed users. Specifically, this includes: a bad-faith speedy deletion attempt ([1]) by a user under the sole stated reason of disliking the film; the addition of WP:NOTLYRICS copyright violations ([2]), necessitating a revision being hidden; along with vandal content removal & wikitext formatting disruptions to the lead ([3], [4], [5]). — Jamie Eilat (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in protection level
Before posting a request for unprotection, please discuss it with the protecting administrator first. You can create a request below only if you receive no response from them.
To find out which administrator protected the page, go to the page's edit history and click on the "View logs for this page" link (located underneath the page's title). The protecting administrator is listed in the protection log entry, next to the words "protected", "changed protection level", or "configured pending changes". If there are a large number of log entries on the page, use the drop-down menu near the top of the page and select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" to filter the logs accordingly.
DO NOT request a reduction in protection if...
- ...you are being prevented from editing the page. A desire to change content is not a valid reason for unprotection. Instead:
- If you can edit the article's talk page, use the WP:Edit Request Wizard to propose a change on the article's talk page. Include an explanation of the exact content that you want to change, and what the content will be afterward.
- If the article's talk page is protected, you may propose a change at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit.
- ...your reasoning for reducing protection is that the article has not been vandalized. That simply means the protection is working as intended.
- ...your reasoning for reducing protection is basically "a long time has passed" without supporting details.
- ...you haven't contacted the protecting administrator.
You may request a protection reduction below if...
- ...you want to change the protection level of a template or module from full protection to template protection. You may add the request to this page without having to discuss it with the protecting administrator first.
- ...you need to remove creation protection from a location where no page exists (redlinked pages) after a draft version of the intended article is prepared beforehand and ready to be published.
- ...you are proposing a trial reduction in protection for a page that has been protected for several years, provided the proposal is supported by evidence such as talk page activity, page views, page traffic, number of watchers, frequency of edit requests, and prior history of vandalism.
- ...the protecting administrator is inactive or has not responded to you in several days.
If you cannot locate your request, make sure to check the request archives to see if it's been moved there. Only requests that have been recently answered will still be listed here.
Reason: The page has been semi-protected for 6 years. I believe a trial unprotection may be in order, as it seems unlikely that the page will be vandalised. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 04:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Did you ask the protecting admin, El C? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
Please add an edit request to the talk page of the protected page before adding an edit request here
Requests for specific edits should be made on the talk page of the protected article. You can create an edit request below only if the talk page is also protected, preventing you from adding a request there.
- You may add the appropriate template (
{{Edit protected}},{{Edit template-protected}},{{Edit extended-protected}}, or{{Edit semi-protected}}) to the article's talk page if you would like to request an edit be made. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed. - For edit requests being made due to the editor having a conflict of interest with the article subject (see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the
{{Edit COI}}template should be used instead of the others listed above. - Requests to move pages that are currently move-protected should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not on this page.
- This page is not for holding discussions regarding content. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit that you wish to be performed.
Otherwise, this is the correct place to use in order to add an edit request if you are unable to add one to the article's talk page. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to properly add a request.
Sorry to be another peanut in the gallery here but the international response section is a real word salad. Could something like the following work?
"The attack gained international attention, and was responded to by numerous international leaders and representatives who condemned the attack. This included statements from leaders such the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, and the United States of America President Donald Trump."
I would argue that these three countries + Israel are currently the only relevant countries to this current discussion due to long-standing geopolitical alliances, and Australia being part of the Commonwealth. Random American senators or another country’s ambassador (not to Australia) is unnecessary.
Thank you! Greyhounds Sleeping (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Please add a {{pp-protected}} (not small) for editors. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 22:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Done – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Change request (lead definition):
Please change the following sentence in the lead:
From: “Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in late 19th-century Europe; it primarily seeks to establish and support a Jewish homeland through the colonization of Palestine, which roughly corresponds to the Land of Israel in Judaism—itself central to Jewish history. Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.”
To: “Zionism is a Jewish nationalist movement that emerged in late 19th-century Europe, advocating the establishment and support of a Jewish homeland in the historic Land of Israel.”
The removed language reflects contested interpretations of Zionism’s aims and intent and should be attributed to specific scholars and discussed in later sections rather than presented as factual definition in the lead, per WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. ~2025-41270-42 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not done As per this discussion, there is a "moratorium in place until February 21, 2026 regarding all discussion about editing, removing, or replacing "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 23:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Handled requests
A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.