Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:RFPP)
Jump to: navigation, search

Indefinite semi-protection of RfPP[edit]

Well, I'd like to say that in the wake of this edit to RfPP from an IP address, I think it's time to semi-protect RfPP indefinitely. I personally believe that IPs can abuse the page, like this IP did, to replace requests with selfish desires, and to make non-serious requests. Does anybody agree with me on this? ElectricBurst(Is there anything you need of me?) 17:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that edits like this are infrequent and I've seen plenty of constructive IP requests I'm not overly supportive of this. Sam Walton (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Me neither. Admins check the reasonableness of requests, whether made by IPs or autoconfirmed users, before acting on them, so I don't see much of a problem. (Anybody can abuse the page, or more commonly fail to understand how to use it, not just IPs.) Bishonen | talk 18:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC).
  • I'm going to be blunt here: this is a terrible idea. Besides, I'd fixed it within four minutes. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Pretty sure IPs have reason to want to protect, unprotect or indeed on rare occasions ask for an edit to be made and should be free to do so. I really doubt that one minor incident like this among many actual legitimate requests from IPs and non-autoconfirmed alike is a reason to lock it down, sounds ludicrous and it's a "slegehammer to knock a pin straight" solution but yeah, that point has been made already by others, it's not going to happen. tutterMouse (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with my colleagues. There are many good reasons to keep this page open to IP edits and a formatting error does not come close to outweighing those. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
On the plus side, just like with AIV, it does give many admins the licence to block the IPs very quickly. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Changing the protection and the job queue[edit]

Does changing the protection of a template fill the job queue (as an edit does)? When I edit a tempalte (with say 5000 transclusions), all these pages are put in the WP:JQ. Does this happen too when the protection is changed? (esp, from PP to TEMP-PROT). -DePiep (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)