Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease
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
| |
Echinodermata
Reason: NawlinWiki fully protected back in 2008. This seems like massive overkill for a random redirect. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: But as they said back then, what reason would there be to edit it? - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 04:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. That's not a "random" redirect...it's the scientific name (which unfortunately isn't the common name), but there is no need to edit it, so why unprotect? If someone comes up with an article which could replace the redirect, unprotection is just a click away. Lectonar (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Lectonar: We shouldn't be protecting pages solely because there is
"no reason to edit or move"
it. Doesn't that go against the core of our policy? Applying page protection as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)- @Sdrqaz: it shouldn't have been protected in the first place :) (although there was vandalims/disruption), but when the page was protected...these were other times (as far as I remember). I just don't see the need to unprotect now because, well, there is no need for it, assuming no one wants to write an article. Smacks a bit like WP:BUREAUCRACY to me. And, for the record, I wouldn't resist unprotection. Lectonar (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I just think that if we both agree that the original protection was unwarranted, forcing someone (who wants to replace the redirect or refine the redirect categories) request again seems to be even more cumbersome than dealing with it now, given that the request is in front of us already.
Unprotected, Sdrqaz (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I just think that if we both agree that the original protection was unwarranted, forcing someone (who wants to replace the redirect or refine the redirect categories) request again seems to be even more cumbersome than dealing with it now, given that the request is in front of us already.
- @Sdrqaz: it shouldn't have been protected in the first place :) (although there was vandalims/disruption), but when the page was protected...these were other times (as far as I remember). I just don't see the need to unprotect now because, well, there is no need for it, assuming no one wants to write an article. Smacks a bit like WP:BUREAUCRACY to me. And, for the record, I wouldn't resist unprotection. Lectonar (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Lectonar: We shouldn't be protecting pages solely because there is
- Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. That's not a "random" redirect...it's the scientific name (which unfortunately isn't the common name), but there is no need to edit it, so why unprotect? If someone comes up with an article which could replace the redirect, unprotection is just a click away. Lectonar (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
