Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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

Haarika & Hassine Creations

• Haarika & Hassine Creations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotection: Must move Haarika and Hassine Creations to this. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chetsford: That title has a lot of bad history, and this new article was created just a few days ago in contravention of the previous AFD. However, this new version looks pretty good and has no resemblance to the deleted version under the protected name. I'm notifying you because you're the protecting administrator. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Barney humor

• Anti-Barney humor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: Protected in 2013 due to a likely inactive sockpuppeteer. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: This page was protected as an occasional target of a particular LTA; see Riana's discussion during the last unblock. That's just to give context, and not to say that it should remain protected. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The last SPI for the LTA in question was in Feb 2022. I'm not sure if that's because further socks have been summarily handled by CUs without a formal case on-wiki, if they've gone inactive, or they've been cut off from internet access somehow. Can a CU who's familiar with the LTA in question opine if Bambifan is still active? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 08:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Not done. A CU can't go on a fishing expedition like this, per Foundation policy. As for the denial, I don't see a valid reason given for removing protection on an article that isn't subject to high volumes of edits, but is a high target for vandalism. The fact that it isn't heavily watched or edited makes it particularly vulnerable to vandalism that could go unnoticed. The talk page still works fine for requested edits, and semi is a fairly low bar for editors to have to pass to edit it directly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a CU to be run; more like if there have been any recent socks found. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Tim Walz

• Tim Walz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: Very strict edit access for a page that hasn’t had issues for 5 months. It hurts IP editors, which I formerly was, who wanted to make contributions, but don’t want to use the very laborious edit request button every time. If the bad issues on the page continue, then it can be restored. But it is extremely limiting to IP editors and others who were caught in the crossfire and have been completely locked out of the article due to the blue lock. The need for strong protection has passed, so how about doing semi protection?? TenFordWest (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Not unprotected. This level of protection is necessary to prevent disruption by autoconfirmed editors. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)