Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFPP/D)
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
| |
Draft:Lifespan Integration[edit]
Reason: Full creation protection seems unjustified. The corresponding mainspace page is unprotected and no one has recreated it. I personally do not intend to create an article on this topic but in case an autoconfirmed editor does, it would be reasonable to drop the SALT level to semi to match mainspace. Protecting admin has been desysoped so I brought it here directly. Nickps (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Nickps: The SALT does seem justifiable, given three speedy deletions. I do agree with you that full-protection is unnecessary for it, however. Semi-protection would seem to me to be too low; maybe XCP? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Even that sounds wrong to me to be honest. Protecting the draft but not the mainspace article is a weird thing to do. It's essentially directing any spam to mainspace. Since there has been no such spam all this time, I'd argue that the protection has outlived its purpose. But, lowering the protection would still be a positive in any case so I won't get too hung up on the level. Do XCP if you think it's right. Nickps (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like there's been any attempt to re-create the mainspace page after the AfD (which, I should note, post-dates the most recent draft deletion). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Even that sounds wrong to me to be honest. Protecting the draft but not the mainspace article is a weird thing to do. It's essentially directing any spam to mainspace. Since there has been no such spam all this time, I'd argue that the protection has outlived its purpose. But, lowering the protection would still be a positive in any case so I won't get too hung up on the level. Do XCP if you think it's right. Nickps (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)