Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease
| Requests for page protection | |
|---|---|
|
Click here to return to Requests for page protection. Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
| |
Unprotection: The page was protected for the reason "Arbitration enforcement", but the reason for protection in the protection log does not state what arbitration enforcement is in effect nor does it link to a page that describes the arbitration enforcement. The protecting administrator is inactive. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 21:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. I see WP:ARBPIA mentioned in the edit immediately preceding the protection so I assume it's that. Am I right in thinking that arbitration enforcement protection should be appealed at WP:AE? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that page protection is actually an AE function, although sometimes pages are protected because of an AE report. In this case, the admin didn't even link the report, so as far as I am concerned, it was a normal admin action that came about due to problems that arose at AE. NeilN hasn't edited in a few years, so it should be decided upon it's own merits without consideration to Arb restrictions. At least that is my take on it, as an admin that has done a fair amount of AE work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)- As soon as I did that, I decided to check the log, and yes, this was a logged action, so yes, I guess it should be appealed at WP:AE. ECP protection, which doesn't require logging, unless you want to FORCE the issue to go to WP:AE. Not a choice I would have made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Given NeilN's current status, administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: Yeah. I eschew AE logged actions. Don't want to tie the hands of my colleagues. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that linked clause: "All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.", which tells me it must go to AE, if we are to be bureaucratic here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think it is most assuredly ARBPIA; just check the article (especially the part about the his views on Jews and Zionism). Also, I do not think that just forgetting to put a link to the correct arbitration enforcement is enough grounds for unprotection, and I do not see that AE would unprotect on these grounds either. I would decline the unprotect request. Lectonar (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Given NeilN's current status, administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- As soon as I did that, I decided to check the log, and yes, this was a logged action, so yes, I guess it should be appealed at WP:AE. ECP protection, which doesn't require logging, unless you want to FORCE the issue to go to WP:AE. Not a choice I would have made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Arbitration enforcement / discretionary sanctions are irrelevant for this request, as Sdrqaz has correctly pointed out. I have now clarified this in the protection log. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- FAdesdae378, your request does not seem to provide a reason for unprotection. If I see correctly, the article subject has died less than 48 hours ago, and the original protection was built on an experience of disruption in this topic area. Due to the additional attention the article is currently receiving, lowering the protection would be too early yet. You may like to ask again in a few months. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Reason: We're attempting to edit this page, however it seems that there's been a protection posted by a member of the community. We'd like to edit and add necessary information to be able to access the original Gods Unchained page. Eclipsegu (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Attempting to create a page for "Gods Unchained" - http://godsunchained.com and we're unable to do so as it directly links to the section in the article. Eclipsegu (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you create the page through the articles for creation process. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Declined Who is "we"? WP:SHAREDACCOUNTS are not permitted. Beyond that, the page was protected for good reason. Try developing a page as a draft. See Wikipedia:Drafts for more. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Reason: Page was protected due to large number of transclusions of that page at that time (see log), but now there are only 5 transclusions, including one to the userspace and another to itself. --TedEdwards 20:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)