Contents

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:09, 22 June 2024

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 protectiontotemplate protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
• Requests for removing create protectiononredlinked 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.

Turkmeneli

• Turkmeneli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Block: User Semsûrî keeps on reverting edits and claiming that the map and Anthem should be sourced (they're very clear and don't need to be sourced)....... . Kirkukturk3 (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See editor's talk page. 20:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Mir-Hossein Mousavi

• Mir-Hossein Mousavi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: The protection was put up to stop a sockpuppet account from edit and it's been 15 years and i haven't seen any of that happening. User1432532758 (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco

• San Francisco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotection: Whitelock was added 7 years ago for disruptive editing, and there no longer is as much disruptive editing. For the article of an important American city, it's probably better not to whitelock. Josethewikier (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:WHITELOCK, Indefinite PC protection should be used only in cases of severe long-term disruption. Any thoughts, Maile66, about this? Perhaps it can be ended. Is semiprotection necessary in its place? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Wu

• Brianna Wu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary full protection: I'm not against a goldlock protection and I can understand arbcom's decision, however it would be ideal if the protection is temporary (even if it's 4 years or something like that); if that fails immediately, then should we consider a definitive indefinite goldlock protection. Josethewikier (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It already is Indefinately Fully protected. 74.14.6.233 (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection? Was there a discussion among ARBCOM that lead to that decision? Otherwise I wonder if indefinite ECP is the way to go. Pinging protecting admins Courcelles and AmandaNP. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kallarangatt

• Joseph Kallarangatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: The protection is not needed as the disruptive edits by unnecessarily reverting are done by an extended confirmed user. The disruptive edits(reverting) are [1] [2] [3]. These constant and complete revertings of contributions done by multiple users prevents the improvements done to the page. That particular user is alerted in the talk page of the article and hasn't yet provided evidence to his claims. Not blanket page protection but page protection from this particular user is the one needed. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument for unprotection, given the BLP issues FrancisSobieski123 (talk · contribs) introduced right before the ECP. If anything, that's an argument to escalate it to full-protection until a discussion has actually run its course. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]