197.2.244.222

RFPP request

Hi IP197. Moving the discussion from Favonian's talk page. You want me to explain my decline of your RFPP/D request (permalink). My rationale was "No one needs to edit this user page." I don't see that as requiring further explanation. Do you have a specific question about it? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Since a target page is protected but at a lower level, why would its redirects be protected at a higher level, be it move- or edit-protection? I have once requested a downgrade in protection settings (not unprotection) for template:dn and 9/11 for that reason, which were both successful. However, that rule for redirect-protection doesn't seem to apply to all redirects, which remains a mystery for me.197.2.244.222 (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no rule that redirect protection levels need to match their target page levels. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

If their protection settings are independent from their target pages, then why in the world would anyone take my requests as granted?197.2.244.222 (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hang on a moment, let's say a target page has a time-limited protection like Windows 10 version history. How come you're telling me that no one should bother downgrading its redirects when the target page protection expires? Redirects may be vulnerable to move-warring more than edit-warring. This might be the case the request you rejected from me, I can barely see it admin-move-protected.197.2.244.222 (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, it's rare to see redirect protection upgraded when the target page is upgraded, so it's a rare case indeed to see the redirect protection come down. For example, both of the redirects you link are protected, but the protection has nothing to do with the recent protection of the target article. Redirects are prone to edit-warring and move-warring, sure, but subtle vandalism is another major concern, since the redirects tend to have far fewer watchlisters than the target pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that such redirect may require a move-protection up to a certain degree. However, as far as I had to get the grasp about the edit-protection status being indefinite, I couldn't. I managed to contact a third-person in the hopes of obtaining further elaboration but in vain. I do not want to be wandering about administrator user talk pages in order to get input from forth-, fifth-, sixth etc persons for unlikely reasons. I just need other "third-persons" to further provide me such circumstances and scenarios.197.2.244.222 (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)​​

Responding to a {{hidden ping}}. If the reason for the protection of both the redirect and the target is that they're high-risk templates, then it indeed never makes sense for the redirect to have a higher protection level than the target. That's why I reduced the protection level of Template:Dn. If the reason for protection is something else then that logic does not apply. Re the protection of User:Edit filter, I would probably not have protected it, but also I agree with FFF that there's no real reason to unprotect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

---