Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 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.

Requests for page protection

Click here to return to Requests for page protection.

Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level

Reason: Looking through the history indicates the main edit wars are IP vs EC editors, not EC vs EC. Can this article please be downgraded from full administrative protection to EC protection? I believe protection skipped EC protection and was set straight to administration protection, despite it being edit wars from IP vs EC editors. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to essentially grant AC or EC editors the edit war through protection if there seem to be legitimate differences that require true consensus to resolve. It was (and is) hard to tell since the talk page has been sort of underutilized for this purpose and what discussion has taken place there seems to have centered around other users' misconduct, bad faith or allegations of same.
There is no requirement that protection go through levels before being imposed. Often it is, yes, but if I think full protection for a very limited time (which I think the requesting editor may have asked for in this case) would work better, I'm going to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was two disagreements ongoing. One on if the damage total was unofficial/5th costliest. This has a consensus on the talk page, which bluntly was IP additions with EC removals. The item was actually admin edit request done (the way the EC editors were doing it) following this full protection. The other item of discussion was adding conspiracy theories or not. That discussion involved 2 EC editors, plus 2 IP editors. So, respectfully, full protection was unwarranted in my opinion. EC protection along with maybe a TP message and/or edit-warring notice to the 2 EC editors would have been sufficient. Basically, I am saying you jumped the gun on the full protection, which is why I am requesting it be dropped down to EC (since every EC editor involved is on the TP). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EC former Helene editor here, so a bit biased but I feel like it should be open to EC per above. In addition, if needed, I would tell them Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season exists and that only the most notable conspiracy theories by notable figures(1-3 of them IMO) should be added to this article. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: I hereby guarantee to take the responsibility of rewriting the content without deviating from the neutral point of view and Wikipedia policy guidelines. I can guarantee that the subject in consideration passes WP:GNG. I have created a draft article Draft:Wimal Sockanathan for you all to take a closer look at it. In the past, the article had been repeatedly recreated maybe due to unambiguous advertising purposes. I have published a draft article where I have not exaggerated the subject matter and I have precisely written the content with the use of reliable sources.

Morning LK is one of the prime references that I have used throughout the process when I structured the article content. Please seek your approval to move this draft to mainspace. I have written a plethora of articles of around 2000+ in my seven year stint with Wikipedia platform and hence I hope I can continue to deliver the goods and fulfill the weight of expectations as a standout editor. Abishe (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abishe: Let a reviewer request unprotection for this; you've submitted the draft for review already and admins are unlikely to unprotect it unless they are willing to review and accept it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not unprotected – If Draft:Wimal Sockanathan is accepted at WP:AFC, it will be moved to article space without further ado. Favonian (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]