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 Request unprotection

Free Church of England

Free Church of England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: The protection is no longer necessary as the problems that caused vandalism have now passed. I think that Semi protected status would now be most suitable. Arrowe6365 (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was a COI, not vandalism, and I don't see how that would have "passed". - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Anachronist, who did the original protection. The original protection was a bit of a nuclear bomb, as it had never been protected before, however, it was a highly effective and innovative use of the tools, so I'm not complaining. I'm thinking semi (or unprotect) might be ok at this point. The original "problem" editors haven't edited since protection was put in place. The article doesn't attract a lot of traffic, and if the problem pops back up, it can be dealt with at that time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that one. Not only were there multiple COI editors who were all autoconfirmed and refused to engage on the talk page, but one of them was lodging complaints at VRT, which is how this article got my attention. The only solution was ECP. I made it indefinite because I didn't know how long those with a stake in the various controversies would stick around. No objection to reducing to semi, although ECP should be restored if COI editing resumes. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yury Ivanov-class intelligence ship

Yury Ivanov-class intelligence ship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: I think that protection of the page is no longer necessary, as no incidents involving these vessels have occurred in almost a year, so the reason for protection is no longer relevant. IvtI 09 (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page was protected under the auspices of WP:GS/RUSUKR and shouldn't be unilaterally unprotected. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No incidents have occurred in the article for almost a year because of the protection. Because the Russia-Ukraine conflict is still a contentious topic, I see no reason to unprotect at this time. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Russia-Ukraine conflict is still a contentious topic, but for this specific article I think that enough time has passed since any notable events involving the items in the article (specifically the Ivan Khurs naval vessel) for the protection to be lowered. Articles on similar topics with similar issues, such as Russian cruiser Moskva, Sinking of the Moskva, Russian patrol ship Vasily Bykov, Russian landing ship Novocherkassk, Russian ship Tsezar Kunikov, and Russian corvette Ivanovets have a lower protection. IvtI 09 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only because nobody's bothered to bring them up to the 500/30 specified in RUSUKR. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 00:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mika (singer)

Mika (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because, after nearly 14 years, it does not seem to be a high risk article at this moment. But if vandalism were to return, then maybe reprotect the article. 70.50.199.125 (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The edit filter log shows disruption from as little as 2 years ago, and there has been disruption just this month from an autoconfirmed account, as well as other disruption a year ago. If those that are getting past the protection due to being autoconfirmed is representative of the vandalism attempts from unconfirmed editors (which would be greater in number), then removing the protection doesn't seem warranted at this time. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]