Contents

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

Revision as of 18:05, 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)

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Unprotected per WP:TRYUNPROT. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 22 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]

I don't mind if it's changed, but I'd rather another adim do it for me. Right now things are a little busy on my end. So, if another admin would do the change, I'd be fine with that. — Maile (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unprotected per WP:TRYUNPROT. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 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]

@Muboshgu: There was not as far as I remember a discussion with all of ArbCom about this. Potentially individual members, I can't remember. That said, there is a very good reason behind it. This article is a target of accounts that are evading ECP, and already caused the WP:SELDEL of 427 edits. There are also 17 suppressions by oversighters done on this page. I also know the outside of wikipedia source of these concerning edits, which for multiple reasons including WP:BEANS, I can't say here. -- Amanda (she/her) 17:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined "Evading ECP" is all that I needed to hear. This person's involvement in GamerGate may be over, but her recent comments about the Gaza War keep her in the spotlight here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 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]

Reverting contributions of multiple users citing an unreliability of a citation added by one user is injustice. Already the article lacks Neutral point of View(under the section Pastoral ministry and sub section love and narcotics jihad controversy ) that too on a living person, the reverting has undid my multiple contributions too, all with reliable sources that was to address this issue. That particular user's blanket reverting has done no improvement to the page. And that user who reverted my contributions hasn't yet provided evidence to his claim in the article's talk page when asked അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're still making a case for escalating the protection, not downgrading it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are saying about full protection because the user who is blatantly reverting is an extended confirmed+ user, correct? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and because this is a content dispute. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what the solution apart from discussing in the article's talk page. As the particular user hasn't yet replied to substantiate its claims in the talk page. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]